Italian writer against women choosing the bear: hating men has become fashionable

[Kfox]

Have you 2 noticed that you're
the only ones left in the thread?
The bickering is repetitive &
unproductive.

Unproductive to who?

 

[QuestioningMind]

This is Yasmina Pani, a very outspoken writer and teacher who writes about linguistics.

She wrote this article where she explains that so many women chose the bear (in that idiotic survey) because hating men (which is also called misandry) has become something fashionable and cool. The purpose is to create a new wave of feminism that can sell.
Meglio incontrare l'orso: la moda di odiare gli uomini
If you are interested in the whole article, and have Google Chrome, you can click on the right key of the mouse and choose Translate into English.

I totally agree with her. I mean...
I think that the results in that survey show how misandry is a brand that sells. And it has become something absolutely laughable and paradoxical.
I mean, statistically meeting strangers in a wood can be risky, but not as risky as meeting a wild bear.

Hating MEN has become fashionable? No more so than hating WOMEN has become fashionable. Or haven't you seen all of these moronic ALPHA MALE videos where a bunch of immature little boys reduce women to breeding machines designed to serve the will of men.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Statistically a random man can be dangerous, but not as dangerous as a random bear.
Many says: it depends on the man, but not "it depends on the kind of bear".
Last year a man was mauled to death in the Alps. By a normal European bear. A female with her cubs.
Imagine what a Grizzly bear in Alaska would do.

A dangerous man can hit on you, but hitting on someone is not the same as mauling them to death.

I can promise you that I have listened to a woman answering: "I'd rather be mauled to death by a bear than meeting a man all alone in the wood".

I think you might be missing the point of the scenario. I don't think women are saying they'd rather meet a bear than a man in the woods because they think the bear is LESS dangerous. Rather, the point is that when you meet a bear in the woods you at least know that you need to try and avoid it, whereas when it comes to a man they can appear to be perfectly harmless, even helpful, and then abruptly become violent and dangerous.

Bears are predictable... human males are often not.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unproductive to who?

Both of you.

 

[Kfox]

Both of you.

Wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wrong.

OK.

 

[Magic Man]

Bruh! You need to be a little more consistent! Before I suggested the behavior in question was dangerous, and you corrected me implying it's not always dangerous, but could be something as simple as a comment or a look. Now which is it? Are we talking strictly dangerous behavior? Or not.

This is very simple. All of this behavior is harmful. Calling harmless is just an example of not listening and instead trying to win.

 

[Magic Man]

Have you 2 noticed that you're
the only ones left in the thread?
The bickering is repetitive &
unproductive.

Not at all. It's productive in that it eases my boredom. Also, we're not the only two.

 

[Kfox]

This is very simple. All of this behavior is harmful.

So why did you disagree with me when I called it dangerous?

 

[Magic Man]

So why did you disagree with me when I called it dangerous?

This behavior is harmful, not harmless. If you want to discuss this topic honestly, please do. If you want to keep switching words around and using strawmen, because you're only interested in trying to win, please move on.

 

[Spiderman]

Did anyone else get distracted by the cleavage?

 

[Kfox]

This behavior is harmful, not harmless.

If your only objection to what I said what that I said dangerous rather than harmful, that is a very poor argument to make; and you need to do better than that.

 

[Magic Man]

If your only objection to what I said what that I said dangerous rather than harmful, that is a very poor argument to make; and you need to do better than that.

If you are going to assert silly things like "dangerous" is the same as "harmful", that is a very poor argument to make, and you need to do better than that. If you're going to assert that this is supposed to be an honest line of argumentation, that is also very poor.

 

[Kfox]

If you are going to assert silly things like "dangerous" is the same as "harmful", that is a very poor argument to make, and you need to do better than that.

In the context of which that question was asked, I considered harmful and dangerous to be the same. Seems to me all you had to do at that time to say "harmful not dangerous" and then explain the difference; that would have cleared a lot of things up a long time ago.

 

[Magic Man]

In the context of which that question was asked, I considered harmful and dangerous to be the same. Seems to me all you had to do at that time to say "harmful not dangerous" and then explain the difference; that would have cleared a lot of things up a long time ago.

You chose statistics only for rape, and then tried to claim it represented everything we're talking about, when rape is only one part of the bad behavior. Harmful and dangerous are not the same, whether you consider them to be or not.

As I said, when you decide to take this seriously and honestly, we can discuss it, but that requires you to listen, rather than trying to win an argument.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The two imaginary women in my life that agree with me? How about the National Organization for Women (N.O.W.)? According to N.O.W. in the US with a population of approx 375 million (half of em women) there are only around 234,000 sexual assaults against women; this includes the assaults not reported to the Police, and it includes lesbian relationships where the assaulter was another woman (so actual numbers are even less)

Violence Against Women in the United States: Statistics - National Organization for Women

"Only around 234,000 sexual assaults against women?"
Only???

How on earth does this include assaults that weren't reported to the police? How does that make any sense?

Now according to YOU the vast majority of women are sexually assaulted on a daily basis. I ain’t no math expert, but if that were true, the number would be somewhere in the billions! And you ask how come I don’t take your claims seriously?

What I said was that the vast majority of women experience unwanted sexual harrassment/sexual assalt/rape on a regular basis.
This is true. I even gave you a giant list of examples of what I'm talking about.

I already told you that I don't care if you believe my claims. Or the claims of #MeToo. Or the claims of the giant number of women who choose the bear. They're true. They happen ALL THE TIME and this thought experiment was just to illustrate how many of us deal with this stuff on a daily basis. We're choosing the bear and we're telling you why. Your response over and over again has been "nuh uh." There isn't any getting through to you. You don't get it. And you're not trying to get it. You're more interested in telling me that I'm wrong, than listening to what I have to say. That's clear.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wait! Hold UP! Are YOU the one claiming nearly all women suffer harassment and violence on a daily basis, then you provide a link that says half of women will experience it at least once during her lifetime? (Talking about irony) do you not see the discrepancy between what you have been saying vs what your own link is saying? I know this wasn't directed at me, but your link proves me right and you wrong.

On a regular basis, yes. I stand by that.

Where in the link does it say "once during her lifetime?"

 

[Kfox]

You chose statistics only for rape, and then tried to claim it represented everything we're talking about, when rape is only one part of the bad behavior.

The statics was for sexual assault; not rape. Sexual assault includes not only rape, but inappropriate touching, fondling, etc.

Harmful and dangerous are not the same, whether you consider them to be or not.

Then how come you didn't make it clear you meant harmful instead of dangerous?

 

[Kfox]

"Only around 234,000 sexual assaults against women?"
Only???

Yes "only". When compared to the billions you suggest, 234,000 is a very small number

How on earth does this include assaults that weren't reported to the police? How does that make any sense?

They probably estimate the number of women who don't report, then add that number to the actual number reported to get their number

What I said was that the vast majority of women experience unwanted sexual harrassment/sexual assalt/rape on a regular basis.
This is true. I even gave you a giant list of examples of what I'm talking about.

So out of a country of 370 million; half of em women..... are you saying (low balling) 100 million women are assalted/raped on a regular basis? How many times per year must it be in order for you to be considered a regular basis? If you multiply that number by 100 million we talkin' about billions right? Soooo...... that 234,000 sounds like a pretty small number to me

Where in the link does it say "once during her lifetime?"

I said AT LEAST once.

 

[Magic Man]

The statics was for sexual assault; not rape. Sexual assault includes not only rape, but inappropriate touching, fondling, etc.

Then how come you didn't make it clear you meant harmful instead of dangerous?

So, come on back when you're interested in an honest discussion, rather than trying to win an argument. The fact remains, the vast majority of women experience this bad behavior by men on almost a daily basis. That behavior is harmful, and it includes a lot more than just sexual assault.