Until and unless you return to high trust societal norms, yes. Absolutely yes. Look at what happens to the "open minded" women, the "color blind" women, the "backpack in the middle east" women.
I certainly don't relax around women, especially younger or obvious liberal women. I've seen what can happen to men if women want to make trouble.
We can continue to play the pretend of higher moral calling, but until we live ONLY with people who will ALSO play the morality game with us, we must exercise due caution and engage with the reality that not all people are equal, and the FBI crime statistics as divided by race do, in fact, reflect reality.
Yeah women should be wary of men, that's why they shouldn't assert the right to get blackout drunk and take a random Uber back home or hook up with complete strangers. Men are always going to prey on them despite whatever utopian measures society takes.
Sir, one, you can't "this user" about your own posts, and two, you can't "this user" my posts in direct replies. Please at least try to remember who you're speaking with.
For three, yes, women ABSOLUTELY should be wary of men. We are sexually DIMORPHOUS as a species. Men are in almost every case going to be larger, stronger, with denser bones, and with longer limbs then women. We have absolutely the absolute power to harm them, and there is generally very little they can do to stop us. This is why I make the missus train with and carry a gun, because that's an equalizer.
Here's the thing, though. Men are wary of men all the time.
We look over other guys in the street and make judgements. Is he possibly a threat? Can I take him? Can he hurt me? Am I with anyone I need to protect? Can he hurt them? Are there others? Can I afford to fight, or should we evade and flee?
We make these split second judgements constantly, and it's perfectly normal. It's how we avoid the suspicious guy in the hoodie looking around nervously. It's why we don't walk through dark alleys alone at night.
Because we don't live in perfect world with perfect people. Because nature is red in tooth and claw. Because we are, despite everything, still part of the natural world, and we must be ready to deal with threats as they arise.
So, no, it's not illogical or strange for women to be wary of men. It's like saying it's odd for the deer to fear the wolf.
Sir, one, you can't "this user" about your own posts, and two, you can't "this user" my posts in direct replies. Please at least try to remember who you're speaking with.
Of course I can point out that I was making a reductio ad absurdum about the post by "this user". However, I will also point out that you are very polite.
For three, yes, women ABSOLUTELY should be wary of men. We are sexually DIMORPHOUS as a species. Men are in almost every case going to be larger, stronger, with denser bones, and with longer limbs then women. We have absolutely the absolute power to harm them, and there is generally very little they can do to stop us. This is why I make the missus train with and carry a gun, because that's an equalizer.
That's great. You're consistent. A lot of people here will refuse to apply their own logic whenever it's inconvenient to them. "This user" stated that one ought to be wary of a given group when "it's almost always" this group. And of course, when it comes to crime, it's almost always men.
But as you saw, pointing this out is not welcome to people, most of whom believe that men are victims by women.
We look over other guys in the street and make judgements. Is he possibly a threat? Can I take him? Can he hurt me? Am I with anyone I need to protect? Can he hurt them? Are there others? Can I afford to fight, or should we evade and flee?
In Chicago maybe. This is not the experience of anyone I know. Maybe late at night in very dodgy places.
So, no, it's not illogical or strange for women to be wary of men. It's like saying it's odd for the deer to fear the wolf.
I like that you actually have the courage of your convictions.
I already explained why this is retarded in the m&ms analogy comment. Interactions with men are mandatory in every society. Interactions with other religions, races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations are not. They aren’t comparable.
As a woman? Your boyfriend, followed by your husband, brother, father, and son.
You're far more likely to be raped and killed by them than almost anyone else. If we are operating on raw statistics alone, you're safer wandering into a crowd of immigrants alone than going on a date with your boyfriend. Don't forget that most relationships are intra-racial, so the most dangerous person a white woman can be around is her white boyfriend. Don't tell me that's ridiculous, this is literally the argument feminists are using right now to downplay Pakistani Muslim rape gangs.
if we are choosing to play this game with statistics.
This is why this pre-meditated manipulation of statistics as a replacement to actually understanding the environment around you never helps. Yes, you can weaponize statistics to prove your bigotry, that's not the fucking point for anyone looking to improve society.
This is not true. The numbers vary, but somewhere between 12%-34% of female murder victims are from family members, meaning as a woman you're overwhelmingly in more danger from strangers. And the numbers explode if your family is white or asian and the strangers are black. The total expected lifetime murder rate for black males in the united states is 4.5%. 1 in 22.
Those weren't the numbers I've seen, but I'm also talking about all violent crime, including all instances of domestic battery and robbery with force.
It's far more likely that violence is coming from your partner than it is from outside your home, which is why cops spend so much time trying to investigate spouses and ex-boyfriends in regards to violent crime.
Nope, it's still men who are closest to you, and typically the same race as you. Inter-racial violence is wildly low compared to intra-racial violence.
No, retard. You are conflating mandatory and non-mandatory interactions. The propagation of the species requires women to interact with their fathers, husbands, boyfriends, brothers, and sons. So whatever violence results from these interactions is essentially inevitable and should not be weighed against the risk profiles of certain races, ethnicities, religions, or sexual orientations.
As they say: we don’t have to live this way. In fact, the entire US housing market famously revolves around avoiding these people.
I'm not conflating them, the difference is irrelevant because I'm pointing out the abuse of statistics you are now complaining about. This is why the M&M's bowl example was always stupid. You want me to add nuance to analysis now because it gives you the answer you want, but you didn't have a problem when removing nuance gave you the answer you preferred.
So your response: go right back to having a low-nuance argument that gives you the argument you prefer. So now, I will give you that low nuance argument back.
You're right. We don't have to live this way. We need to keep men out of public spaces because they're so dangerous. Welcome to 2012 Feminism. Please enjoy the M&M.
Who said 'white man'? I said men. Just like the original guy didn't say 'slouching black man between 17 and 30 with his pants hanging under his ankle'.
They should relax, or not relax, relative to statistical assessments of risk.
Statistically speaking, men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women, so for a mathematically literate society, it is men who should not relax around other men. But from a relative risk standpoint, women can assume their generally-safer-standard as a baseline and assess proximity risk based on as many factors as possible. Race, sex, overt religious signage, clothing, wealth approximation: They're all factors that should be kept in mind.
Some factors matter much more than others. Owning a rolex doesn't imply or not imply safety as much as, say, overt terror symbols. But it all matters, and people are able to assess multiple risk factors at once, people are quite good at summarizing traits.
Statistically speaking, men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women
We both know that these are mostly men who are looking for trouble. If you're minding your own business, you are far better off being a man and being able to at least somewhat hold off anyone attacking you than being a woman.
Race, sex, overt religious signage, clothing, wealth approximation: They're all factors that should be kept in mind.
I agree. But OP seemed to suggest that the fact that it's almost always blacks is reason enough to be wary of blacks in general. Maybe it is, but that argument goes equally well for men, even for other men as you point out (just like blacks are the biggest victims of other blacks).
But it all matters, and people are able to assess multiple risk factors at once, people are quite good at summarizing traits.
People are even pretty good at knowing when generalities do not apply. When I see blacks in suits, or working in security, I'm not wary of them at all. But when they're bums, or seem to loiter, then very much so.
So women are also right to never relax around any man?
Until and unless you return to high trust societal norms, yes. Absolutely yes. Look at what happens to the "open minded" women, the "color blind" women, the "backpack in the middle east" women.
I certainly don't relax around women, especially younger or obvious liberal women. I've seen what can happen to men if women want to make trouble.
We can continue to play the pretend of higher moral calling, but until we live ONLY with people who will ALSO play the morality game with us, we must exercise due caution and engage with the reality that not all people are equal, and the FBI crime statistics as divided by race do, in fact, reflect reality.
Even in countries that are high trust, like Japan, nearly all crime is committed by men. So the question posed by this user:
Would mean that women should be wary of men.
But of course, it is very rare for these people to take their logic to its logical conclusion. It's supposed to apply only when it suits them.
Yeah women should be wary of men, that's why they shouldn't assert the right to get blackout drunk and take a random Uber back home or hook up with complete strangers. Men are always going to prey on them despite whatever utopian measures society takes.
Damn that's a pretty shitty view of men
Sir, one, you can't "this user" about your own posts, and two, you can't "this user" my posts in direct replies. Please at least try to remember who you're speaking with.
For three, yes, women ABSOLUTELY should be wary of men. We are sexually DIMORPHOUS as a species. Men are in almost every case going to be larger, stronger, with denser bones, and with longer limbs then women. We have absolutely the absolute power to harm them, and there is generally very little they can do to stop us. This is why I make the missus train with and carry a gun, because that's an equalizer.
Here's the thing, though. Men are wary of men all the time.
We look over other guys in the street and make judgements. Is he possibly a threat? Can I take him? Can he hurt me? Am I with anyone I need to protect? Can he hurt them? Are there others? Can I afford to fight, or should we evade and flee?
We make these split second judgements constantly, and it's perfectly normal. It's how we avoid the suspicious guy in the hoodie looking around nervously. It's why we don't walk through dark alleys alone at night.
Because we don't live in perfect world with perfect people. Because nature is red in tooth and claw. Because we are, despite everything, still part of the natural world, and we must be ready to deal with threats as they arise.
So, no, it's not illogical or strange for women to be wary of men. It's like saying it's odd for the deer to fear the wolf.
Of course I can point out that I was making a reductio ad absurdum about the post by "this user". However, I will also point out that you are very polite.
That's great. You're consistent. A lot of people here will refuse to apply their own logic whenever it's inconvenient to them. "This user" stated that one ought to be wary of a given group when "it's almost always" this group. And of course, when it comes to crime, it's almost always men.
But as you saw, pointing this out is not welcome to people, most of whom believe that men are victims by women.
In Chicago maybe. This is not the experience of anyone I know. Maybe late at night in very dodgy places.
I like that you actually have the courage of your convictions.
I already explained why this is retarded in the m&ms analogy comment. Interactions with men are mandatory in every society. Interactions with other religions, races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations are not. They aren’t comparable.
Which men commit most crimes?
As a woman? Your boyfriend, followed by your husband, brother, father, and son.
You're far more likely to be raped and killed by them than almost anyone else. If we are operating on raw statistics alone, you're safer wandering into a crowd of immigrants alone than going on a date with your boyfriend. Don't forget that most relationships are intra-racial, so the most dangerous person a white woman can be around is her white boyfriend. Don't tell me that's ridiculous, this is literally the argument feminists are using right now to downplay Pakistani Muslim rape gangs.
if we are choosing to play this game with statistics.
This is why this pre-meditated manipulation of statistics as a replacement to actually understanding the environment around you never helps. Yes, you can weaponize statistics to prove your bigotry, that's not the fucking point for anyone looking to improve society.
This is not true. The numbers vary, but somewhere between 12%-34% of female murder victims are from family members, meaning as a woman you're overwhelmingly in more danger from strangers. And the numbers explode if your family is white or asian and the strangers are black. The total expected lifetime murder rate for black males in the united states is 4.5%. 1 in 22.
Those weren't the numbers I've seen, but I'm also talking about all violent crime, including all instances of domestic battery and robbery with force.
It's far more likely that violence is coming from your partner than it is from outside your home, which is why cops spend so much time trying to investigate spouses and ex-boyfriends in regards to violent crime.
Actually it's blacks.
Nope, it's still men who are closest to you, and typically the same race as you. Inter-racial violence is wildly low compared to intra-racial violence.
Which is why this abuse of statistics is silly.
Pravda and Shareblue would love a shill like you. Not even stalin or fdr could lie to your face like that
No they wouldn't because I'm pointing out their tactics.
No, retard. You are conflating mandatory and non-mandatory interactions. The propagation of the species requires women to interact with their fathers, husbands, boyfriends, brothers, and sons. So whatever violence results from these interactions is essentially inevitable and should not be weighed against the risk profiles of certain races, ethnicities, religions, or sexual orientations.
As they say: we don’t have to live this way. In fact, the entire US housing market famously revolves around avoiding these people.
I'm not conflating them, the difference is irrelevant because I'm pointing out the abuse of statistics you are now complaining about. This is why the M&M's bowl example was always stupid. You want me to add nuance to analysis now because it gives you the answer you want, but you didn't have a problem when removing nuance gave you the answer you preferred.
So your response: go right back to having a low-nuance argument that gives you the argument you prefer. So now, I will give you that low nuance argument back.
You're right. We don't have to live this way. We need to keep men out of public spaces because they're so dangerous. Welcome to 2012 Feminism. Please enjoy the M&M.
If they can’t do math, then sure.
Let's say they can do math. "Yes, it's not ALL of then, but it's ALMOST ALWAYS them".
Always who? Women are more likely to have multiple abortions versus being murdered by a white man in the US.
Who said 'white man'? I said men. Just like the original guy didn't say 'slouching black man between 17 and 30 with his pants hanging under his ankle'.
They should relax, or not relax, relative to statistical assessments of risk.
Statistically speaking, men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women, so for a mathematically literate society, it is men who should not relax around other men. But from a relative risk standpoint, women can assume their generally-safer-standard as a baseline and assess proximity risk based on as many factors as possible. Race, sex, overt religious signage, clothing, wealth approximation: They're all factors that should be kept in mind.
Some factors matter much more than others. Owning a rolex doesn't imply or not imply safety as much as, say, overt terror symbols. But it all matters, and people are able to assess multiple risk factors at once, people are quite good at summarizing traits.
We both know that these are mostly men who are looking for trouble. If you're minding your own business, you are far better off being a man and being able to at least somewhat hold off anyone attacking you than being a woman.
I agree. But OP seemed to suggest that the fact that it's almost always blacks is reason enough to be wary of blacks in general. Maybe it is, but that argument goes equally well for men, even for other men as you point out (just like blacks are the biggest victims of other blacks).
People are even pretty good at knowing when generalities do not apply. When I see blacks in suits, or working in security, I'm not wary of them at all. But when they're bums, or seem to loiter, then very much so.
The coalburners and racemixing traitors are willingly playing russian roulette with a revovlor full of ammo