You must log in or register to comment.
I just want to say, it’s not just about femicide, rape and that sort of stuff. Men being dangerous is a spectrum, and those are the high points, but sexist comments, pressuring, bargaining, and much more can also be part of the spectrum.
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.
Sharks are cool. Its sad to see, that they have the image of being bloodthirsty human killers, while statistically speaking you are more likely to get killed by a coconut falling down a palm tree then by a shark.
Women can be dangerous as well…Are there chat groups full of women sharing information about how to drug and rape their husbands, as well as filming the rape and sharing it online?
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2026/03/world/expose-rape-assault-online-vis-intl/index.htmlNo women go in for personality assassination of individuals they’ve arbitrarily decided they don’t like. Like that tea app from a few years ago.
This is just the Bayesian approach; overall men have high enough tendancy for aggression and sexual assault that from a risk analysis point it makes sense to be on your guard until you get to know that person better. Of course media has a bias for presenting the awful stuff that happens in the world, one would rarely get coverage of a heart warming relationship between two people involving atleast one man. So these priors despite being in the correct direction might be biased too.
But I think, neither the shark anology or the expression “all man are dangerous” is useful for getting this point across though.
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?
As per usual it’s a stupid analogy. It assumes that only bad things can happen and the best you can hope for is a not poisoned skittle, it totally precludes the possibility of a beneficial skittle. But of course it does because the Trump family deals exclusively in zero-sum games, it’s either all or nothing with these idiots.
Agreed - by this logic we all just ought to kill ourselves as there’s literally nothing that is risk free.
Ok so as a man what am I supposed to do about it?
That’s the part I don’t understand, if women would prefer the bear over the random man (who’s statistically probably fine) that’s not much good for the species is it.
Been a long time since I’ve been on the dating scene, I have no clue how dating apps or blind dates work. But I think the best way to meet someone is through making friends attending uni classes, clubs (archery/painting kind), public table top nights and the like. Having someone who can vouch for you or straight up sharing an interest with someone you fancy takes down some of the initial barriers.
Don’t be shit. Worked well for me so far.
You’re supposed to act like a human being. If she’s afraid of you because she’d rather be with a bear, that’s her issue. Forget her. She doesn’t owe you anything. Not her attention or her company. Move the fuck on.
And that’s where I know you’re full of shit. Who says anyone’s supposed to care about or do what’s good for the species? And why is it always the women who have to make concessions? Why can’t the men stop being rapists for the good of the species?
So it’s her fault she’s scared of me, but it’s also my fault she’s scared of me, but it’s also other people’s fault she’s scared of me.
Great thanks for that.
It’s also the bear’s fault
The problem is that it also becomes his fault for also not saving her from the bear.
The problem is equating males to sharks. The exact same arguments have been directed at ethnic groups in the past.
I hate this argument every time I see it. It could be used to justify so many terrible prejudices that we’ve been trying to get rid of for decades. I got robbed by a black man once so should I now treat all black men as potential criminals?
You put into words thoughts that I’ve been unable to for a while.
Like, I read this and I see how someone makes this argument, but I feel fucking terrible afterwards. Sure you haven’t said I’m a rapist, but you’ve said you’ll treat me as though I am. You can’t expect men as a demographic to agree to this argument if it requires society to assume they’re shitty people, at which point, why is it even being made?
The worst part I feel is that there’s a lot of incel types that conflate feminism with sexism, which we’d like to school them by pointing them at a dictionary. While incels are generally shitty, we can’t ignore the fact that this argument is telling them their behavior doesn’t actually matter because we’re going to act like they’re rapists based solely on their malehood anyways. (to be clear, this is an explanation, not a justification)
Yeah fuck it. I swear these fucking movements are almost intentionally avoiding any caveat that might make it 400% more paletable.
Imagine how many fucking arguments people could have avoided if they called the movement “black lives matter too” instead of “black lives matter”. It’s three fucking letters, but it adds an incredible amount of context and emphasis on the inequality. Same with going from LGBT to LGBTQIA2S+ or other longform acronym that is not as straightforward as LGBT+ (same as the historically well known “name” , paying homage to the idea that there are other forms of this experience(?) that are not covered by the 4 letters) or GSM (Gender & Sexual Minorities , which unambigiously covers everything).
If you want to reply anything among the lines of “The riot is the speech of the unheard”, I said it for you, just move along.
Imagine how many fucking arguments people could have avoided if they called the movement “black lives matter too” instead of “black lives matter”.
It’s so simple, so obvious…and such a missed opportunity. And while I personally saw the “too” as implied, it led to bad-faith actors really twisting it as well as inevitably some people actually not understanding it.
Same with going from LGBT to LGBTQIA2S+ or other longform acronym that is not as straightforward as LGBT+
The fear of leaving anyone out led to tacking on more and more letters, and then disagreements about which letters to include.
GSM (Gender & Sexual Minorities , which unambigiously covers everything).
I haven’t heard this one before, but I like it for its simplicity.
“Defund the police” was another fail in that the phrase didn’t accurately portray the actual intention and was off-putting to people who might have otherwise supported it.
And while I personally saw the “too” as implied, it led to bad-faith actors really twisting it as well as inevitably some people actually not understanding it.
Don’t you think bad faith actors will do that regardless? The problem isn’t that the names were bad, the problem is a large amount of people had no interest in learning anything beyond the name and/or actively fought against learning what those groups were actually for.
I have a friend who is a woman who insisted that it’s a majority of men who do things like grope women on dance floors or exhibit other such sex pest behaviors.
I pushed back on this because I quite strongly believe that not to be the case, and pointed out that encountering such men a majority of the time when going out doesn’t require a majority of men to behave that way. An incidence rate of, say, one in twenty still virtually guarantees you’ll run into multiple if you’re in a crowd of sufficient size.
I’m also not trying to downplay the seriousness of it being a very real problem. Nor do I deny her lived experience of encountering that behavior often when going to concerts or whatever. Literally just pointing out that such an experience doesn’t require a majority.
She got offended, calling me out for not believing her and accused me of making a “not all men” argument to try to invalidate what she was saying, despite explicitly agreeing that it’s a problem that needs addressing.
She is not wrong. Pretty much every man in my firm will bully you if you don’t behave like that.
And in a bit of irony, the woman co-worker that drives me told another co-worker “oh, he doesn’t like women”.
Like, cmon, just because I don’t behave like that!?!
How many women were in the rape academy chat groups? From what I’ve read it was all men.
There is a distinction between a prejudice born of bigotry, and a prejudice born of a real fear and trauma. And while I understand your point, the difference between these two directly affects how we can effectively address them societally.
To start addressing it, we can’t just keep admonishing traumatized women. We have to understand where the prejudice comes from. The reality is that women need to be on guard constantly, not because of all men, but still specifically because of men.
They are continuously exposed to stories like the Rape Academy website, see sexual violence normalized in media, encounter rape threats online, and virtually all of them have either experienced sexual assault themselves or know someone who has.
And while this is not all men, or even most, the statistics are clear: perpetrators of violence and sexual assault against women (and against men) are overwhelmingly male. Since there is no reliable way to identify which men pose a threat until it is too late, it’s unsurprising that many women develop a prejudice as a safety mechanism.
It’s unfortunate that this can harden into bigotry, but it’s even more unfortunate that the threat giving rise to it exists at all.
Your analogy of being robbed by a black man “once” actually highlights how widely the pervasiveness of this threat is misunderstood. For women, this isn’t a single incident. It’s a lifelong threat most acute during their formative years.
So by way of a counter analogy: would you admonish a black person who grew up in the American South during the Civil Rights era with “not all white people” or “not all cops”? Or would you recognize that their wariness was, prejudiced or not, a rational response to a very real danger?
I agree that we should strive toward a society where no one is judged on anything but the content of their character. But it’s worth noting that countless men rush to admonish frustrated and traumatized women with “not all men,” while far fewer show up when stories like the Rape Academy actually break. This imbalance is itself part of the problem.
And if we as men, and as human beings, want to see less of this prejudice in the world, perhaps the more productive question isn’t whether the prejudice is fair, but why so few of us are doing anything to make it less necessary, and why so many of us are more interested in pushing back against women’s reactions than addressing the cause of them. And this, for me, calls to mind MLK’s observations about the white moderate…
The racial metaphor is misplaced and disingenuous to the conversation. Let’s say as a woman, just about all of your women friends have been at some point attacked by a dog. Some have been completely mauled, some have managed to fight the dog off after a couple of bites, some managed to run away from the dog and jump into a car before it could bite them, and most have a combination of stories from their lives. Some are traumatised and scarred for life, others have been able to move on largely as normal, but they haven’t forgotten that scary moment.
Now our woman may or may not have been attacked by a dog before, but because of all these experiences she’s seen her friends go through, the fear, the lifelong injuries they carry - the pain, the embarrassment, the shame, the blame - she’s pretty anxious about getting a dog. Especially one where she doesn’t know its history. It’s a big dog, strong, gorgeous and seems so sweet wagging his tail. But most dogs are like that when you first meet them. It’s the rarest of dog that shows you complete aggression from the beginning and you know full well to stay away from them. She doesn’t know if she brings this dog into her home, if something seemingly benign might set it off. It’s even riskier if she lives alone.
(As an aside, isn’t it ridiculous that a woman should feel embarrassed or ashamed for having been attacked by a dog… or good god - blamed for inciting it - was she carrying beef jerky visibly as she walked down the street, she should have known a wild dog couldn’t control itself at the sight of jerky??)
If the frequency of dog attacks were as prevalent as violence and assault against women is - no one would be allowed to keep a dog for a pet. Sure, it’s NOT ALL DOGS, but the likelihood and the severity of the consequences is such that you’d be crazy to go into the situation of dog ownership without taking precautions, and in the back of your mind you’ll keep remembering all those friends who’s dogs were sweet right up until they weren’t.
People who have beautiful dogs at home, who see their dog snuggle their baby and is sweet to their cat, and have only ever had warm interactions with dogs won’t understand the fear. Not all dogs they’ll say.
Someone else will come along and say it’s only brown dogs you have to worry about. (Sounds ludicrous in this phrasing doesn’t it).
But you know what the difference is between dogs and humans. In a pack of dogs, the good dogs will call out the bad ones. They’ll pin them down, bark at them, gnash their teeth - make it clear that’s not acceptable if you want to be a part of this pack. Even when play fighting gets a little rough - they say when it’s enough. The dogs keep each other in line.
What we’re seeing in life is that the dogs are saying to women, not all dogs are going to maul you and leave you with scars for life. Most of us are good dogs, and it’s not fair you’re scared of us when we’re not doing the attacking. We’re not seeing enough good dogs giving strong reinforcement. Making sure they’re being well socialised when they’re growing up. They’re not going out and engaging with younger pups and teaching them how to behave properly, they’re not even pulling their friends into line and baring their teeth saying that behaviour is not ok. Even as a joke.
The point is - every woman has multiple stories of people she knows being victimised, and sadly the odds are, she will have some kind of personal experience with it in her lifetime. The impact of being assaulted is every bit as lifelong and traumatic for the victim as a frenzied dog attack.
If we treated it with the severity it really carries, and according to the overwhelming frequency with which it occurs. We’d realise a response of “not all men” is not enough.
But you know what the difference is between dogs and humans. In a pack of dogs, the good dogs will call out the bad ones. They’ll pin them down, bark at them, gnash their teeth - make it clear that’s not acceptable if you want to be a part of this pack.
If a human man tries doing that, people will tell him to “stop white knighting” and they’ll shun him worse than the guy whose behavior he was trying to put a stop to.
The fact is that predatory behavior is often indistinguishable from typical human mating rituals when viewed from the sidelines. The difference ultimately boils down to whether the recipient of the advances is accepting of them, which is often an internal thing that no one but a mind reader could tell from an outsider’s perspective.
People tend to be aloof and circumspect about these types of things. Women don’t always openly reject unwanted advances. Sometimes they expect the guy to “just figure it out.” And women don’t always openly encourage wanted advances either. Sometimes they expect the guy to “just figure it out.”
So, if a woman is being quiet, is she just playing it cool, or is she silently resenting the guy talking to her? At what point is a nearby observer supposed to step in and say “Is this guy bothering you?” And if she says “it’s fine,” to what extent are you supposed to take her word for it?
Or are we all just supposed to magically know the secret code to perfectly interpret every situation every time? Because at that point, what’s the point of having a secret code in the first place?
I stopped talking to women because almost always they expected me to “just figure it out” without them ever having to state how they feel, good or bad. Maybe they tried dropping hints but they went over my head. Sometimes I had the feeling they were dropping a hint but I didn’t know what it meant one way or the other. And then they would get upset when I didn’t read their minds. And I’m supposed to believe that that’s a moral failing on my part? When my whole life I’ve struggled with a lack of social skills in general to begin with?
So I stopped talking to women, to avoid the situation altogether. And now I’m expected to somehow intervene in other people’s interactions?!? Which still requires a modicum of mind reading ability, by the way.
It’s ridiculous. Men don’t have this magical ability to control what other men do.
Well written wall of text seems AI written
Women are punching up. Racists are punching down.
Feels different cus of the power dynamic.
Welcome to the police. Here is your badge and gun. You appear to have been trained already.
Bad analogy. Skin colour was not a factor in the criminality here. Being a man absolutely is when it comes to violence against women.
Prejudice is unacceptable for any immutable characteristic, such as sex, gender, race, or sexuality.
The epidemic of male violence on women is evidence based, therefore not prejudice.
Judging all men based on the actions of others (pre-judging them, if you will) just because of what group they are in, is prejudiced.
The post literally says not “all men”. I don’t know why yourself and so many other commenters are inserting a straw man to argue with. If it’s intentional, it’s a bad-faith practise. If it’s unintentional it’s a literacy issue (common problem is USA).
The post literally says not “all men”.
Really? Because the title of the post is “All men are dangerous”
Even if the post didn’t say that, that’s what others in the comments are defending and/or advocating for.
I read the heading “all men are dangerous” as a misrepresentation of the screenshot - which is what I’m pushing back on. I definitely don’t think that all men are dangerous. I would be relieved to think that the comments here take issue with the heading and not the body text/screenshot, but the comments I’ve responded to haven’t made that distinction.
You don’t want to open that Pandora’s box.
Just get ready to say that causation and correlation are not the same… except when it confirms my priors.
Is skin color a factor in poverty?
Is poverty a factor in criminality?
Because all the CRT and BLM arguments I’ve read have said unequivocally yes to both of those things…
If you already see the world through a racial lens, then sure. But I think you missed the point.
I see no comments acknowledging or even a vague awareness of what the Grape Academy is. It’s important to the comment.
Do people not actually know about it or are they intentionally ignoring it?
Could someone explain to me? Wtf is a (presumably grape is a euphemism) rape academy?? Is there an “art” to it?
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.
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.
The last sentence is the most irritating.
What am I supposed to take note of? There is nothing useful being discussed here. Both sides are taking a broad brush approach which is totally useless in the real world. Yet the woman here thinks they’ve come up with something profound.
Threads is basically 80% rage bait and 20% boner bait. Unsurprisingly coming from facebook - yet another societal cancer.
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.
Not all women exploit men for financial gain, but the few that do, is the reason I can’t casually be with any of them.
Now compare this to why women have to be distrustful of me and you.
Risk levels may determine the appropriate level of defensiveness, but the general principle I stated remains valid.
For example, where I live, there have been lots of known cases of women drugging men and stealing from them. There’s one woman who’s done it and killed a few guys, including a few well known small business people – she’s still out, “dating”, while she awaits trial I believe. So I’d be ‘fine’ with guys around here being more cautious on that front, as there’s more risk there.
But again, prejudging every individual as an imminent threat and treating them as such can go too far, and lead to more toxic relationships/interactions. Having a defensive posture doesn’t mean lashing out at others / treating others poorly in advance “just in case” they turn out to be a threat. I realise this is likely a strange concept for you, seeing as you seem to have identified as an American in another post – and you all are very keen these days on the idea of things like “Genocide all palestinians” and “Destroy all of southern lebanon” based on “some people there might be violent towards us”. You’re so keen on it, you guys even side with Russia now against Ukraine, because “NATO and the USA were potentially violent towards Russia, so it’s fair for them to try and destroy that whole country!”
You must be mistaken because I often say us and our society etc. I am Serbian.
You defended America in another comment, when an American was tryin to take the moral high ground against Canada. Sorry if I misread that.
The general point regarding risk/defensiveness, and that it doesn’t include lashing out / attacking others, remains though.
*I should clarify – you defended America by seemingly citing hyperbolic claims that are pushed by america-centric right wing sources in regards to Canada’s systems. Wasn’t just that you were taking Americas side.
We can pull that off, so long as that someone understands why they need to keep a certain distance.
It’s not hard for a mature adult human to be reasonable and level-headed about potential threats.
Maybe you don’t actually understand the sentiment at all. The whole point is that it’s not about stereotyping. But you want to stereotype. So you do you.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
America’s a shit hole these days, you really don’t want to try and go toe to toe with any other western country on moral grounds while you’re lead by a convicted criminal and alleged child rapist, nor while your country is openly committing and boasting about committing war crimes. If you can’t see this, it’s likely because you still believe in american exceptionalism, even with regards to those child raping leaders of yours – which is an utterly absurd stance to have, given the data. You guys literally elected a bunch of people who idolize hitler and other fascists who sided with hitler – JD Vance literally promoted/supported such works written by Posobiec, even before you idiots elected him into office. You have your “elite” business leaders literally doing nazi salutes on the world stage. Hegseth literally called all your generals into a meeting to tell them to ignore the rules of engagement (ie. Commit warcrimes) or be fired.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
If the definition of equality runs directly against your argument…
I mean maybe it’s because your statement was explicitly “all men are dangerous”, not “men are dangerous”
This was my thought reading it as well. To be fair, it could be that the conversation went like “men are dangerous” “I disagree” “women know it’s not all men etc” but the author forgot or had a typo or whatever. Idk.
Ragebait or just being a shit person? Get in the bin either way, I don’t need to see more from you.
OK. I was abused by a woman. And know of many cases of abusive women (men too, but we’ve already decided in this context that all men are dangerous, so that’s beside the point). So this means all women are dangerous, too?
unfortunately yeah
do women statistically commit as many violent and/or sexual crimes? no. but some still do
I’ve been made fun of (lightly, but still) for letting friends know when I’m going home with a strange woman (which I shouldn’t do at all but do anyway for various reasons). Strangers are strangers, you never fuckin know
do women statistically commit as many violent and/or sexual crimes? no. but some still do
Even that assumption I’ve started questioning. My abuser never appears in any crime statistics, because it’s not particularly easy to prosecute a case that is mostly based on psychological torture, since the crimes are hard to prove, easily dismissed as “just a bit of nasty behavior” and have relatively short times within which they have to be reported in order to be prosecuted, depending on the country you’re living in. If on top of that you’re a man and the abuser is a woman, have fun getting anyone in charge to legitimately believe your story. It doesn’t diminish the violence that occurred, I just barely survived it.
Certain kinds of abuse are vastly underreported. Domestic, psychological and sexual violence (which are not exclusive categories, by the way) belong to these kinds of abuses. Some statistics say northwards of 40% of domestic abuse victims are men, for instance. Well at that point, we’re kind of close to parity.
So let’s focus on reducing violence entirely. Because another thing I’ve learned: while the individual elements of abuse tend to differ between men and women, the patterns are almost always very similar.
Yeah. It’d be nice if people could just… stop fuckin abusing each other. Gender differences are part of the conversation but we should be discussing it in ways that raise awareness and equip people to recognize, report, and reduce violence. Not in ways that just cause more fuckin arguing and division. Which isn’t easy. I certainly have fucked up my rhetorical approach to these things, I think. But we should try, at least :(
Eh, that will only be possible with…
…the extinction of humanity entirely.
Or modification of humanity.
Humans are naturaly just awful chimps.
Does this explain why people 100% trust and love their cat.
Then they go to work as a manager, managing their human resources, never uttering a nice word.
do women statistically commit as many violent and/or sexual crimes? no. but some still do
The statistics cannot be trusted so long as it’s based on prejudistic data.
Interestingly, the most violent relationships are lesbian, the least violent are gay men.
Hetero falls in the middle.
That’s not really accurate, or doesn’t really tell the whole story.
You can’t ignore the numbers. Can’t justify blanket statements or judgment based on them. Sounds like a case for nuance. Maybe judge any case separately without looking for oversimplification.
trash like this always ruins all nuance
might as well be justifying racist stereotypes or calling women gold diggers
Point out the double-standard and watch keyboard pseudo-feminists do mental gymnastics to justify their own moral pedestal…
💯✍️
Rewind: I’m in my 20s, well maybe also early 30s. The girls I know all tell me I’m not fit for dating because “you’re just not exciting and dangerous!”
Oh, the completely unrealized irony.
I’ve literally never heard a woman say they want a dangerous man… except in discussions like this
No woman in the world who expresses a desire for danger or excitement is asking for rape.
