I think part of the disconnect comes from the fact that all but the most entirely sheltered and innocent men know this. We realize we could be attacked, at any time, and it’s almost certain to be another man who would be attacking us. Of course, society also applies very real pressure upon us, to not act scared or nervous, basically ever.
If there’s an actual good reason to go walking around at 3:30 AM, totally alone and unarmed, through a place with a bunch of easy hiding spots for weirdos to attack you…well we’re usually just gonna do it, because refusing would make us look like weak individuals, and there absolutely WOULD be people who would take social advantage of that fact.
The odds of getting attacked are much lower than the odds of losing valuable social status. So we do dumb shit, in that regard.
And the thing is, that’s all wrapped up into the deal, for us. We already know it. Again: unless you’re TRULY ignorant and naïve, you absolutely know that any man is a potentially deadly threat. So all your assumptions, interactions, and calculations after that point? They’re graded on a curve. You know MOST men aren’t actually ever going to mug you. You know MOST muggers aren’t ever going to be hiding in the bushes outside the particular gas station YOU went in, to buy something at night. You know your friends and relatives are INCREDIBLY unlikely to hurt you. Maybe you’ll get into a fistfight with some of them, at some point. That can happen with male groups, weirdly frequently. Annnnd you shouldn’t do it, because you really can get hurt. But even then, it’s still pretty rare that someone gets severely damaged.
So, at the end of the day, it’s jarring to hear the conversation taken back to the absolute basic point of “all men can be dangerous.” Because we’re all so intimately familiar with the ins and outs of that whole deal, it SOUNDS like it’s far more literal than it is. Or maybe it sounds LESS literal than it is. Either way, it just sounds off, compared to the normal calculations of being a guy, and therefore being expected to ignore and accept physical danger.
A related point to raise is the disturbing number of instances that I’ve encountered, where women flatly refuse to believe that men are VASTLY more likely than women to be the victims of violent crimes, most especially murder and manslaughter. I’ve heard women simply deny it, in the face of any statistical data, wildly claiming that the data must be fabricated. I’ve also heard women basically say “well, these guys must have been in gangs, or fighting, or doing dangerous things.”
Oh…you mean, like, the victim is to blame for the crime? Like, victim blaming?
That shit isn’t okay. Saying “noooo! women ARE more likely to be attacked” is exactly like saying “not all men!” It’s the same type of hurtful, ignorant shit. Neither “side” should do either of those things.
Another salient point is that thing about your friends and relatives being less likely to attack you, if you’re a man. That whole thing REALLY DOES reverse itself, statistically speaking, if you’re a woman. A looooot of abuse comes from women’s social circles. Assault, sexual violence, grooming, verbal abuse, threats, coercive control…all that stuff is more likely to come from people you know. And, regardless of your gender, it’s ALWAYS harder to get it to stop, when it comes from the inside of your group.
If a wacko attacks you on the street, you just tell everyone, and everyone has your back. When it’s someone inside your group, it is ALWAYS harder to get away from, harder to punish with the law, harder to survive.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I think part of the disconnect comes from the fact that all but the most entirely sheltered and innocent men know this. We realize we could be attacked, at any time, and it’s almost certain to be another man who would be attacking us. Of course, society also applies very real pressure upon us, to not act scared or nervous, basically ever.
If there’s an actual good reason to go walking around at 3:30 AM, totally alone and unarmed, through a place with a bunch of easy hiding spots for weirdos to attack you…well we’re usually just gonna do it, because refusing would make us look like weak individuals, and there absolutely WOULD be people who would take social advantage of that fact.
The odds of getting attacked are much lower than the odds of losing valuable social status. So we do dumb shit, in that regard.
And the thing is, that’s all wrapped up into the deal, for us. We already know it. Again: unless you’re TRULY ignorant and naïve, you absolutely know that any man is a potentially deadly threat. So all your assumptions, interactions, and calculations after that point? They’re graded on a curve. You know MOST men aren’t actually ever going to mug you. You know MOST muggers aren’t ever going to be hiding in the bushes outside the particular gas station YOU went in, to buy something at night. You know your friends and relatives are INCREDIBLY unlikely to hurt you. Maybe you’ll get into a fistfight with some of them, at some point. That can happen with male groups, weirdly frequently. Annnnd you shouldn’t do it, because you really can get hurt. But even then, it’s still pretty rare that someone gets severely damaged.
So, at the end of the day, it’s jarring to hear the conversation taken back to the absolute basic point of “all men can be dangerous.” Because we’re all so intimately familiar with the ins and outs of that whole deal, it SOUNDS like it’s far more literal than it is. Or maybe it sounds LESS literal than it is. Either way, it just sounds off, compared to the normal calculations of being a guy, and therefore being expected to ignore and accept physical danger.
A related point to raise is the disturbing number of instances that I’ve encountered, where women flatly refuse to believe that men are VASTLY more likely than women to be the victims of violent crimes, most especially murder and manslaughter. I’ve heard women simply deny it, in the face of any statistical data, wildly claiming that the data must be fabricated. I’ve also heard women basically say “well, these guys must have been in gangs, or fighting, or doing dangerous things.”
Oh…you mean, like, the victim is to blame for the crime? Like, victim blaming?
That shit isn’t okay. Saying “noooo! women ARE more likely to be attacked” is exactly like saying “not all men!” It’s the same type of hurtful, ignorant shit. Neither “side” should do either of those things.
Another salient point is that thing about your friends and relatives being less likely to attack you, if you’re a man. That whole thing REALLY DOES reverse itself, statistically speaking, if you’re a woman. A looooot of abuse comes from women’s social circles. Assault, sexual violence, grooming, verbal abuse, threats, coercive control…all that stuff is more likely to come from people you know. And, regardless of your gender, it’s ALWAYS harder to get it to stop, when it comes from the inside of your group.
If a wacko attacks you on the street, you just tell everyone, and everyone has your back. When it’s someone inside your group, it is ALWAYS harder to get away from, harder to punish with the law, harder to survive.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod