We are already doing that. Remember that . Remember the "many examples of men behaving badly" from the media I spoke of earlier? Those examples is part of the effort to stop men from behaving badly.
OK, then why are you so against this effort to point out men behaving badly, so as to raise awareness of the problem you say is already being worked on?
Unfortunately there is not as much effort to stop women from behaving badly; but that's a different conversation
Yes, a conversation about a problem that doesn't exist is a different conversation.
No you are not. There are no facts here, this idea that the majority of women fear men more then they do wild bears is not based on any facts.
We haven't even established it's a majority. What we've established is that a lot of women are wary enough of men that they would choose to come across a bear in the woods, rather than a strange man. That's based on the fact that so many women have answered this question the way they have.
So now you're just making stuff up about me.
No. I'm just pointing out what you're doing. If you don't like it being pointed out, maybe stop doing it. You keep focusing specifically on "violence", in order to paint it a certain way.
But in today's society women have the ability to leave so they don't have to endure it; where as before they didn't have that option.
They've always had that option. It's just a truly terrible option. "Go live by yourself outside of society. Give up everything you know. Don't have kids. Don't ever have sex with a man again. Don't live in a modern society".
If not mating, what do you call it? Because if I recall correctly it was YOU who brought up the fact that women are sexually attracted to men, women choose to have sex and procreate with men; so if that is not mating, what do you call it?
So..... why would a woman go to a man for sex, if she is afraid he might sexually assault or rape her?
Do you just not understand what sexual assault and rape are? So, there's something called consent. Here's how it works.
A man want to act in a sexual way toward a woman, whether by touching her, kissing her or full sex. To do any of that, he is supposed to get her informed consent. If she gives that, great. If not, then he is supposed to not engage in any such behavior toward her.
Most women like to have sexual/romantic contact with a man, but obviously, only when they consent to it.
Then you should learn about how this stuff works. As I pointed out, a huge data set can indicate an overall trend.
If you want to talk about trends, those trends work against you because women are much more empowered today than ever before, there is much more effort to vilify rape and sexually assault than ever before, there are many safe spaces for women where they can go to in order to get away from an abusive man that didn't exist before, and the list goes on. So if you wanna talk about trends, your argument becomes even more obviously wrong.
I have no idea why you think that "works against me". Yes, things have gotten better regarding this topic. So? The problem still persists. That's the whole point of this question, that women are still extremely wary of men in general due to their constant bad interactions with them. The trend toward a better environment doesn't negate that.
So how many times is a woman required to be assaulted by a man before she is justified in labeling men in general as dangerous, and how many times is a white person required to be assaulted by a black person before he is justified in labeling black people in general as dangerous? 10 times? 100 times? more?
I always love this type of question. As if, because you can't put an exact number on something, it's therefore void. The answer is "more than once". It's entirely understandable for a woman who has been assaulted to have trauma and for that trauma to manifest in ways that might not be fully rational. But being assaulted one time with zero other context (like the stuff I mentioned, the patriarchy, all the other bad interactions, etc.) doesn't justify being wary of all men, when speaking rationally.
And that's your problem. When you make absurd claims and refuse to address details, it gives the impression your claims are hyperbole rather than actually realities, so we don't know if you should be taken seriously or not.
Haha, yes, of course, I'm the one engaging in hyperbole here. Look, the terms I gave are good enough to make my point. your hyperbolic question about them is not one anyone should take seriously.
By definition; "daily" means every single day. If you meant something else, you should have used a different word.
As far as "women in general" I never said it means every single woman, that's just some stuff you made up in order to avoid answering my question. I asked what percentage of women constitutes "women in general" in your view. Care to answer my question?
Yet again, this is a dishonest tactic. You don't have to assign exact numbers to things to make a point. The lack of precise statistics doesn't negate the point.
