• Dr. Moose@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6815·
    3 months ago

    I’m a feminist and I don’t get this argument at all. There are plenty of dangerous women too so all women as well? It makes no sense and it’s pure toxic femcel delusion.

    Also as an ex-professional scuba diver: the shark analogy is a great illustration how stupidly inaccurate this argument is.

  • Tattorack@lemmy.worldEnglish
    435·
    3 months ago

    The problem is equating males to sharks. The exact same arguments have been directed at ethnic groups in the past.

    • Fleur_@aussie.zoneEnglish
      184·
      3 months ago

      All Palestinians are terrorists

      All gays are pedophiles

      All men are dangerous

      Obviously all this is stupid and dumb and inherently hateful, the following is what it should be

      Any Palestinian could be a terrorist

      Any gay could be a pedophile

      Any man could be dangerous

      There we are, perfectly non problematic statements that are objectively true. Its not my fault that I’m a terrible judge of character and have to treat any individual belonging to those groups as if they were the lowest common denominator. I’m just protecting myself and you need to respect that you fucking fascist.

  • mrgoosmoos@lemmy.caEnglish
    292·
    3 months ago

    I mean maybe it’s because your statement was explicitly “all men are dangerous”, not “men are dangerous”

  • hark@lemmy.worldEnglish
    283·
    3 months ago

    Reminds me of this:

    “If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you, would you take a handful?” said the tweet on the verified @DonaldTrumpJr handle.

    “That’s our Syrian refugee problem,” said the post, which caused a stir and negative tweets on the internet into Tuesday.

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/donald-trump-jr-likens-syrian-refugees-poisoned-skittles

    Are you sure THIS is how we should think?

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.worldEnglish
      73·
      3 months ago

      Agreed - by this logic we all just ought to kill ourselves as there’s literally nothing that is risk free.

  • Tiral@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2613·
    3 months ago

    Just so I understand. Feminism can lump every male into a neat little box, and that’s considered ok? I think there’s a word for that.

    • NekoKoneko@lemmy.worldEnglish
      192·
      3 months ago

      I think the sentiment kicking off the husband explaining should have been “men are dangerous.” Then the shark metaphor makes sense, because enough men are dangerous and a low-probability but nonzero outcome for choosing incorrectly is so severe (rape, death, kidnapping) that it makes sense to have a prejudicial heuristic to treat them all as dangerous until reasonably proven otherwise.

      “All men are dangerous” is an absolute statement and just poor semantic logic, so yeah, this is confusing.

      • binarytobis@lemmy.worldEnglish
        43·
        3 months ago

        I hate statements like this, where they clearly only say part of what they mean, as a way to make it more sensationalist. I would bet what the original OP was actually meaning is “Act as if all men could be dangerous”. Personally I find that an understandable take, when the minority is so dangerous to you what else can you do.

        But instead they choose to phrase it “All men are dangerous”. Indefensibly prejudice against half of the population for something outside of their control.

        The post says they know not all men are dangerous, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good saying, just that they are knowingly stating something they know to be untrue. The only reason to leave the quiet part out of the statement is rage bait.

    • Zorque@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      3 months ago

      Racial profiling, but instead it’s about gender expression.

      Really, the critique is/should be about how there isn’t enough societal pressure saying “Don’t be a fucking rapist” to men in general. Unfortunately that’s hard to change, it takes time and energy and there’s a significant amount of pushback. So it’s easier to be cautious with how you interact with strange (and rationally, familiar) men. There is a statistically significant non-zero chance they will seek to do women harm. So stating “Men are dangerous”, while not especially helpful in combating that very idea, is technically true.

      • stickly@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        3 months ago

        there isn’t enough societal pressure saying “Don’t be a fucking rapist” to men

        When we had much stronger pressure we called it chauvinism. “Men are stronger and better and in full control and you are a bad person to abuse that power over women”. And even with that pressure, women were still raped because some people don’t respond to soft pressure like normal functional humans.

  • ryannathans@aussie.zoneEnglish
    153·
    3 months ago

    Wait till you find out about which demographics of men are your statistical danger, gonna turn that misandry into racism or classism real fast

  • TimMadisun@lemmy.worldEnglish
    165·
    3 months ago

    I agree with the sentiment, yes, there are dangerous men out there. But this is a terrible analogy.

  • wampus@lemmy.caEnglish
    198·
    3 months ago

    I’m ok with women expressing this sort of sentiment, so long as they’re also ok with guys making generalisations about women in the same vein – ie “There are enough of ‘this type’ of character out there, that you gotta be defensive and assume any could be”.

    Saying all men are dangerous is fair, it’s also fair to say all women exploit men for financial gain. I don’t know many men who’ve dated for a while, who haven’t come across women clearly just seeking free meals, gifts etc; ones who’ll judge you based solely on income.

    That said, it’s prejudice in either case to assume that an individual of either gender is either of those things just because you’ve acknowledged the risk is there. Like if your store is constantly robbed by one specific ethnic demographic, it’s human nature to be suspicious of any member of that demographic when they come in – but you’d cross into racism if you explicitly treated them like thieves prior to them being shown as a thief at an individual level.

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.worldEnglish
      102·
      3 months ago

      It’s not fair in either sense imo. Agree with your last paragraph - we are setting back fight for equality with these dumb meme rage bait statements. This is not the way no matter how you look at this issue. It’s just rage bait.

      • wampus@lemmy.caEnglish
        2·
        3 months ago

        To some extent I’d agree – but I also think some topics are such that any attempt to condense them into a pithy online statement, won’t be able to present them with sufficient nuance for people to understand it beyond the rage bait. S’why I try to both support the general sentiment, but also offer a bit more potential context based on my understanding of it, for what it’s worth at least. I’m ok with you disagreeing with my stance of it being ok to be a bit prejudice / defensive based on aggregate threats – most times, I’ve noticed that where people stand on that seems to boil down at least in part to their subjective experiences, and you can’t really argue against that.

        The broader issue of the rage-bait era, I think, is the wide-scale reduction in longer-format media. People don’t tend to read books, let alone comments longer than 1 - 2 sentences in length. Even when they do read a longer comment, they’ll often just cherry pick specific threads/nuggets to respond to, often taking them out of context, to try and engage – so even in engaging with content, their mindsets are still driven based on the short-form media nuggets they’ve been raised on.

      • wampus@lemmy.caEnglish
        72·
        3 months ago

        Yawn. Troll more. All I said is what I said – it’s fine to have reservations/a defensive posture if you perceive a risk. It’s wrong to overtly treat individuals as imminent threats based on those reservations. This applies to all genders – however, often when it’s expressed “for women”, they deny the legitimacy of other cases of the same principle. All I’m saying is its a fair/natural stance, for everyone to take. Women are not alone when it comes to it being ‘ok’ to be a little bit prejudice towards others, but that also needs to be tempered, especially when it comes to individual interactions, so as not to become something more toxic, like racist/misogynist/misandrist.

      • Fleur_@aussie.zoneEnglish
        41·
        3 months ago

        Women protecting themselves by demonising those they don’t like is the entire philosophy behind “all men are dangerous” lmao

  • Fleur_@aussie.zoneEnglish
    187·
    3 months ago

    Are you scared that your husband will hurt you? If yes why are you with him, if no then not all men could attack you. “All men are dangerous” is a logic so flawed that any argument for or against it is meaningless either in substance or intention.

    • WatermelonPaloma@lemmy.worldEnglish
      81·
      3 months ago

      Gisele Pelicot, I’m pretty sure, wasn’t scared of her husband until she found out that he had been drugging her and allowing other men to rape her.

  • AlfalFaFail@lemmy.mlEnglish
    112·
    3 months ago

    I see no comments acknowledging or even a vague awareness of what the Grape Academy is. It’s important to the comment.

  • endless_nameless@lemmy.worldEnglish
    112·
    3 months ago

    EVERY human being is dangerous, we are essentially nature’s ultimate killing machine. Name another species that can nearly kill a whole planet.