It’s pretty easy to tell the difference between venomous and non-venomous snakes.
Didn’t we learn as children that stereotypes are bad and hurtful? Like why is this one an acceptable thing to lump all men together under the same group? The rhetoric rarely makes a distinction. It lazily doors not differentiate the different problem groups within that and stops at blanket statements that cover more people who aren’t the issues than are.
When you treat an entire gender as the enemy, stop being surprised when the young men are increasingly not acting like allies.
The power of rhetoric being forgotten is probably my chief criticism of the “purity test” wing of the left. Perfect being enemy of the good is very lost on people who seem not to want to acknowledge that even things they don’t like might have nuance.
I don’t think that the original tweet is really getting at stereotypes, but rather pointing out how frustrating it must be to not know who’s going to be a scumbag and who is not.
It’s not all men, most certainly, yet chauvinism counties to be (an increasing problem). One of the (very make dominated) places I worked had to put up signs that read looking versus leering: know the difference. I’m male, and I most certainly get the frustration after hearing more than a few first hand accounts about how women are routinely mistreated.
Here’s everyone’s daily reminder that, in the US at least, 40% of rapists are women, and fully half of rape victims are men.
Why is that pertinent to this meme?
::: TW: Discussion of sexual assault, rape, penetration, math
Ooooh, actually, I made the mistake of looking at where that claim came from, and it came from a comment they made. In it, for evidence of their math, they link to this article. The article is… something, but I’m setting that aside because the claim the article makes is patently incorrect; the data comes from this surveillance study at the CDC. (Got the link from the article, trying to leave an obvious path here.)
The claim is that the numbers are artificially uncoupled because the rape statistics for men don’t include forced penetration of another person, where the male is the victim. However, this is a line directly from the Results paragraph-
“An estimated 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetimes, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences. The percentages of women and men who experienced these other forms of sexual violence victimization in the 12 months preceding the survey were an estimated 5.5% and 5.1%, respectively.”
Emphasis mine.
The main premise of the Time article, that the report doesn’t include being made to penetrate is false. The 40% number isn’t backed up here, either, and the thing that the Time article is linking for it’s evidence is a summary of a series of phone surveys! It’s kind of an update-to-the-data thing… Why bother citing a random summary when we can just refer to the wholesale data the CDC was updating?
Since we clearly value the CDC reporting (since that was the only source used in the previous Time article), I’ll use them!
Here’s a webpage, from the CDC, titled ‘About Sexual Violence.’ Surprising perhaps no one, it states unequivocally the following:
Over half of women and almost one in three men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes.
Still concerned that the number here isn’t representing men being forced to penetrate someone? Well that CDC page has, after that sentence, a citation of a study- one done also by the CDC- but the weird thing is, they didn’t hyperlink it. That’s okay, they included the name of the study and the people who did the study, so I was able to find a PDF of the information, and now, you can view it here if you like as well. For clarity’s sake, this is titled, “The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017 Report on Sexual Violence.” And in it, it defines sexual violence-
This report addresses five types of sexual violence. They include rape, being made to penetrate someone else (males only), sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and sexual harassment in a public place.
Why is this important? Because if you add together the 12.6 million men who reported being made to penetrate someone in his lifetime to the 4.5 million men who reported completed or attempted rape victimization at some point in his lifetime you’d get 17.1 million. We’ll assume that every single one of those victimizations was a woman assaulting a man with zero male on male aggression.
Your claim was that 40% of all rapes were female. Let’s roll this math forward.
Same page, 33.5 million women claim completed or attempted rape at some point in their entire lifetime (I have chosen to leave out any other types of sexual violence against women, to try and make this a more even thing, because I am actually trying to get as close to a good-faith number here as possible). Hm. Total victims here, 50.6 million, of that 50.6 million, we are generously saying 17.1 million are male (no overlap, straight math, all assaults and penetrations are counted separate).
33.79% of all victims of physical contact, sexual assault, were male, leaving 66.2% to be female. This does not support that 40% of all rapists are women.
Do I think that male numbers are underreported? Yes. I also think female numbers are underreported. I never reported any of the terrible things that happened to me, and I’m a woman- I know other women who have said the same thing. But misrepresenting these numbers helps no one, and inserting an article where someone claims erroneously that these numbers don’t reflect reality, and using that as your only source, really doesn’t help. If we want to help, we have to provide factual, no-nonsense information, and we have to provide resources for survivors, not skew information to try and make the awful, awful reality look different than it is.
TL;DR- No, it’s not 40% of rapists are women. Closer to 34%, and that’s assuming a lot of things to favor a higher number being perpetrated by women.
Edited to add- I forgot a sentence that was kind of important, and also I cleaned up the language a bit. And then I edited it because I realized I’d left some language in there that, without the bit I cut that was after it, looked like I was minimizing rape, which was not my intention.
:::
Wow, what a spinjob, all to conclude that the number is ackshually just 34% instead of 40% when you use the CDC’s lifetime data instead of their year-over-year data like I did in my calculation.
Based directly on the CDC’s year over year data from the three years they’ve released the report, yes, 40% of rapists are women, and I think it’s pretty telling how willing you are to bend over that backwards to wiggle out of a few percent just to minimize male victims of rape as much as you can.
Reminds me of when Donald Trump Jr. compared Syrian refugees to a bowl of M&Ms with some of them poisoned. Same argument, same mindset.
I’m going to ignore the most heinous aspects of this and just say, I’d love to be introduced to a variety of venomous and non-venomous snakes and would likely find it to be a pretty cool experience. Snakes are neat and the venomous ones are often beautiful and fascinating.
Have some empathy for the large amount of regular dudes that wouldn’t hurt a fly but constantly get lobbed in with rapists and pedos.
I understand the problem people have with men and more specifically toxic masculinity, but this gender wars bullshit only serves to further separate people. What’s the purpose of saying “men are rapists” or “men are violent”? It’s fine in the context of venting/talking with people facing similar problems, but because it entirely misses the sociological causes, it can cause people come to incorrect conclusions like “kill all men” or “all men are inherently bad because…” which essentialises their gender.
Men aren’t inherently bad. It’s patriarchy and toxic masculinity that you should be upset at - two sides of the same coin, really.
men aren’t inherently bad… Etc.
Looks like you understand the intent of the original tweet.
Not all men - but some men - and we (other men) need to start calling our the Tater-tots and the like
So we’re fixing the division along gender lines by becoming… more divided?
Feels like the insinuation here is that, as a woman, it’s acceptable to base your personality on men as long as you believe all men base their personalities on hating women.
Maybe just accept that humans are complicated and nuanced and you can’t judge an entire gender based on the actions of the worst members of that gender.
This comment section is amazing. Good job all
I’m just reading this thread and finding it hilarious how many are triggered by this. The post isn’t even saying “all men” do anything, it’s specifically pointing out a small subset of men.
I like to think about Lemmy comments as coming from 30 of my closest autistic friends.
Holy shit.
There’s no progressive form of sexism
Except calling people incels for disagreeing with you
Except calling people incels for disagreeing with you
Sounds like something an incel would say.
Better than an orangutan fucking an onion.
Love is love
And some of them are poisonous. You need to eat snakes to procreate.
I think the point is that people who say (shout) “Not All Men” are usually frustratingly insensitive and the thought of throwing them into a snake pit is fun. We know it’s not all men, we aren’t stupid, but we also know that even 1% would be one percent too many to feel safe alone with a stranger (and, unfortunately, statistics suggest harassment is certainly more than 1%!).
Well, most people aren’t that stupid. There’s a few who are, but I don’t think they’d be posting here, lol.
That said, reading the comments, I get why some are offended even though being male is the privileged class in this comparison (after all, I don’t feel afraid to walk home at 1am). Men are fucked by the patriarchy, told to repress their emotions, degrade people who break from masculinity, and so forth. But instead of saying “you’re being sexist against men,” please try to think of the systemic problems that led to that X% of assholes who make it unsafe for a woman (or POC, LGBTQ, etc) to walk alone on a street in America.
after all, I don’t feel afraid to walk home at 1am
That is not because you are part of a “class”. It might be your fully personal thing, it depends on your previous experiences, it depends on where you live or go (and this can also be an expression of being in a privileged social class), etc.
Depending on where I go, I do not feel safe walking alone all the time. I do not consider being sexually assaulted among the possibilities, but instead perhaps being mugged, or be bothered by someone looking for trouble or wanting to feel “alpha male” (as someone who grew up in rough neighborhoods, this is way too common during teen years).
I really don’t understand where this idea that males have the privilege of going outside without ever worrying about anything comes from. I have seen it multiple times in discussions around this topic.
There can be multiple factors, we call it intersectionality. You’re feeling unsafe because of social class or nationality or another factor. That does not mean you do not benefit from being male in a world ultimately built around men. That’s why people use the term privilege, since you have at least one advantage (others could include health, straightness, etc). And fortunately it’s less of an advantage today than it was a hundred years ago.
And that’s not to say life is perfect under that category-- I literally just mentioned some men’s issues. I’m just not exactly worried about someone stalking or kidnapping me over it.
You’re feeling unsafe because of social class or nationality or another factor.
Not in this case. I just do not feel safe because crime exists, and I can become a victim roughly as much as anybody else (probably slightly less than an elder person, in some cases for example). Some other people might have additional worries (like being attacked for racial motives), of course.
That does not mean you do not benefit from being male in a world ultimately built around men.
Which is something I have never claimed. What I challenged is the view that such privilege materializes in being able to roam free and fearless everywhere and whenever.
I’m just not exactly worried about someone stalking or kidnapping me over it.
Of course, there might be a qualitative difference in which worries I have vs someone else, but the original comment suggested “not worrying”, which I find it absolutely unrealistic.
That’d work until you happen to get a reptile enthusiast on the show that can recognize the species, at which point you just have a show of a guy completely missing the point whilst nerding out over snakes.
I would like to nerd out over snakes please
I would watch that show. 😉
Not a reptile enthusiast, but knowledgeable enough to know a few things about them.
A well fed snake, hell most snakes (not all, some constrictors you don’t want to fuck with) won’t see a human as food, and won’t attack unless provoked. Don’t sneak up on a snake, don’t step on a snake, don’t harass a snake and it won’t give 2 fucks about your presence.
A venomous snake usually (there’s always an exception) has a “neck”, if you can see where it’s head ends and it’s body begins it’s more likely venomous than it’s danger noodle looking counterpart.
There are a lot of exceptions. Most of them, as it happens.
Vipers have that “neck” and a wider head than their bodies. Elapids typically don’t, and can be extremely venomous. In fact, the most deadly venomous snakes in the world are elapids including cobras, taipans, and black mambas.
Tl;dr: Rarely wise to step on snek.
it’s not only unwise to step on snakes, it’s also rude. which is worse
If red touches black, you’re ok, Jack.
If red touches yellow, you’re a dead fellow.
This aphorism only works in North America, but it is a pretty reliable way to determine the difference between a coral snake… and a milk snake, also many other kinds of similar looking, non venomous snakes.
You may note that the milk snake has a bit more of a defined neck, head vs body seperation, than the venomous coral snake… which … would mean if you followed your rule, you may end up a dead fellow.
…
Now… many, venomous snakes make some kind of an alert sound, a hiss or rattle or someother bodily mechanism of saying ‘back the fuck up’.
But not all of them.
… and a great many venomous snakes… well they hide in the shrubbery and tall grasses, meaning you can easily accidentally come upon one if you’re moving through brushland, or a wetland…
You’re right that you should never intentionally sneak up on a snake… but… it is usually more like accidentally happen to be too close to one, hear the alert sound, waaay too close to be comfortable… and then you fucking freeze, try to figure out where exactly it is by your ears alone, and then very, very slowly back away untill you can’t hear the rattle anymore.
At least thats what I did when that happened to me, and I lived, to insufferably recount the tale as I am now, lol.
There’s… only one kind of rattlesnake in Eastern Washington state.
And it is venomous.
Say hello to my missed connection:
But hey, your ‘does it have a neck’ rule works for this one!
Too bad I never saw it, at all… its got pretty good camoflauge for the one to two feet tall grasses and shrubs it resides in.
Snake bites are of course, overall, a very uncommon thing for most people to be worried about… but if you are regularly involved in some kind of outdoor activity, or just kinda live out in the sticks, or are renting an AirBnB out there… you should probably familiarize yourself with the local wildlife.
…
As a final note, I am not any kind of snake expert at all.
But I do know that if you are, then the actual word for that is… Herpetologist. Expert in Herpetology.
Consult your local Herpetologist before you derp around in the badlands, lol.
…
EDIT: Final addendum: Female snakes often tend be considerably more pissy, apt to warn and stike, when they are in heat.
that rule has so many exceptions that it’s better to assume they are all dangerous
Count me in!
Guess we should fear all snakes then! Or all sharks! That hasn’t lead to extreme fear based reactions where entire populations suffered because of fear due to a portion of the population being potentially dangerous.
The point about not knowing which one might be dangerous is a good point, but example is terrible. Use unsafe mechanical equipment or something instead.
Dudes will queue to use unsafe mechanical equipment, while telling you “hold my beer”.
Set that beer on the unsafe mechanical equipment you damn amateurs!
I mean, pretty good advice to just treat all unknown snakes/sharks like possibly dangerous people. Give them a wide berth and try not to draw their attention. Look for a place to retreat to if things become more dangerous. Try to calmly alert others that leaving the area may be best.
I promise you I will always treat every shark like it might eat me (except the ones they let you play with at the aquarium, but there’s a sign there that says it’s okay.)
Let’s play a game. Swap the demographic to see if it’s sexist.
“Men are rapists”
Now let’s swap it out for a different demographic.
“Black people are rapists”
Wow, turns out y’all are a bunch of sexist pigs.
None of this kind of discussion is intelligent.
The correct reply is “Don’t broadly generalize anyone.”
Clever swap-around games distract yourself from the point more than anything, and the people you’re trying to present this to don’t care about reasonable arguments OR racism.
Well, yeah, that’s the goal, and most people follow most of it. But for those people who have blind spots like op, that’s the exercise you want to do to see if you’re being an asshole.
And it is a reasonable argument.
Whoosh
“Men are rapists” was nobody’s point, “men are rapists” is the strawman on which “not all men” relies.
“Men are rapists” was nobody’s point
Then why have I seen multiple adult women say that and mean it?
I’m with you that the dude you’re replying to is gross, but let’s not pretend reality isnt what it is, yeah?
You’ll see lots of different people saying lots of different things. But as far a the post is concerned, nobody made that point.
Women saying that they don’t feel safe in certain situations because they have no way to know if a guy will end up deciding to rape them is absolutely not the same as saying all men are rapists. They are clearly not, but saying “not all men” (which is an obvious thing) every time a woman expresses her frustration about having to be almost constantly alert just feels like a need to be more offended than worried about the rapey world we are living in.
It’s the same kind of distraction as “all lives matter”. We all know that all lives matter, but it’s not about that.
I wish I wasn’t on mobile because the whole thing needs much more nuance.
White men saying that they don’t feel safe in certain situations because they have no way to know if a black guy will end up deciding to rob them is absolutely not the same as saying all black men are robbers. They are clearly not, but saying “not all black men” (which is an obvious thing) every time a white man expresses his frustration about having to be almost constantly alert just feels like a need to be more offended than worried about the robby world we are living in.
Change a few words and you’re my racist uncle. That’s probably not good…
I feel like almost every time I’ve seen “not all men” in the wild, it’s in response to someone actually making generalized statements about men, not just someone stating that they must be cautious.
I feel the opposite, that’s the thing about feelings. The case in point, which is the post, is not about “all men”.
Then why have I seen multiple adult women say that and mean it?
Where? If it’s such a common occurrence, you should be able to cite some.
Yeah, sure, I’ll cite you my real life experiences, no problem
Shall I upload my memory directly to your brain, or store it off-site for you?
I can find somebody that says any crazy thing anywhere. That’s why I asked for a citation. So, I’m glad you clarified that it was random women in your vicinity saying this.
BTW, this is not an experience I’ve had. If women around you feel compelled to say “Men are rapists”, maybe you should stop to think about why that is.
If you can’t win an argument without insinuating your opponent is a rapist maybe you should stop to think about why that is.
So, I’m glad you clarified that it was random women in your vicinity saying this.
It’s not random women, it’s specifically self-identitied feminists that have said that around me, actually. I’ve never heard a woman who said that not be a radical feminist
Intend to avoid feminist spaces online because the toxicity in referring to absolutely coalesces in those spaces, but if I did I’m certain I’d be able to cite an example of two (back in my Facebook days I could do that easily by going to some friends pages and scrolling for a minute)
BTW, this is not an experience I’ve had. If women around you feel compelled to say “Men are rapists”, maybe you should stop to think about why that is.
That’s nice, maybe hang around more feminist spaces then, cuz I’ve seen it a disturbing number of times in my life, and I’ve only been an adult 11 years. Granted, that’s about the only place I’ve heard that said
Fuck, man, I literally had one woman tell me I was a perpetuator of rape culture because I’m a man, and when a friend of mine pointed out that I’m both a victim of rape & the mythical “rumour that he raped someone he didn’t” said woman doubled down and tried to claim those were also my fault
Cool thing is, I’m an adult, and can separate the fact that there are terrible people who believe and espouse those ideas & that they tend to be feminist women, and thus don’t believe they all (or anything close to a majority) think or say that. I just find it irritating how often I see people deny it happens when it fucking does & its directly victimized me and others I care about in the past
Why do crazy loud people say crazy loud things? Who knows, who knows.
Call me when someone with any kind of power to influence your life does something to you based on your sex. Then we’ll fight to stop that.
Not sure if it was based on my sex strictly speaking, but my vice principle back in the day made me take off my shirt and proceeded to feel me up. She snagged me on suspicion of setting off stink bombs, then when we got to her office she asked what i had in my jacket. For unrelated reasons, it was about 2 dozen apples which I had every right to have, and she proceeded to confiscate them. When i lightly protested, literally just saying that other staff memebers gave me the apples, she told me she was not going to start a search for the stink bombs which was clearly motivated by the apples. She went through all my stuff, then made me take off my shirt. She then patted me down, chest and all, despite having no shirt on. In retrospect that was definitely firable, but teenage me didnt really care beyond the fact that she was a bitch.
Edit: And thats not derogotory towards women, i describe everyone that behaves in a childish or petty manner as a bitch. And yes, I understand that that is a form of societal sexism in relating poor qualities towards women, but most of the time its pretty obvious given context that I am not refferring to bitches in any way to do with them possibly being a woman. In fact now that i think of it i mostly call dudes bitches but i think thats because i mostly hang out with dudes.
Edit edit: also, im pretty confident that she is not a systemic issue, you just reminded me of something fucked up that happened to me and im adhd so i had to share.
Thanks for sharing. I’m sorry that happened. Shit people come in all flavors. I wish the universe were fair.
And this is why it’s so important to teach kids about consent and to treat women molesters the same way we treat men. If feminism has taught me anything, and I’ve learned quite a bit, it’s that the patriarchal system sucks for men too.
It assumes men are insatiable and therefore can’t be victims. It assumes women are pure and naive and submissive. It’s ridiculous and let’s women off the hook for horrible shit.
If “men are rapists” isn’t the point, then why say it? Y’all say one thing and keep claiming you mean something else. Maybe you guys are telling the truth the first time and just backpedaling when people call you out on your jackassery.
why say it?
Who did?
Y’all
Who are you lumping me with?
you guys
I had a snarky answer but deleted it and am telling you sincerely to stop seeing “the others” as an undifferentiated blob because that brings you nowhere in a discussion and eventually it will harm the way you see the world.
“A woman said something mean, so I’m going to use that to generalize the opinions of all women, everywhere. No, I’m not a misogynist! How dare you.”
The irony of this comment being posted in this thread is palpable.
Tbh it really just sounds like you wanted to type “black people are rapists”
It’s always “black” slotted in on this argument, especially in regards to sexual assault. Unless it’s a reference to violence, then the comparison pulled out is usually “muslim.”
Ever notice that? I wonder why…
The reason black is used as the stand in example is because it forces you (assuming you’re not racist) to see the issue with generalizations that you’re ignoring because the original group is culturally ok to hate, while black people are not culturally ok to hate. It’s to make you see your own prejudices, and to do so uses the most glaring example that has been widely publicised since the 60s at least. Could they slot in Inuit instead of Black? Sure, but that doesn’t have the same impact when you read it. And you’re supposed to be upset about it, but not at those forcing you to look inward with the comparison, rather at yourself and those that make you ok with holding your prejudices.
Those examples are used because there is plenty of well-known racism and religion…ism (forgot the word) discussion along those lines. It’s like asking why people use squares and circles as their go-to example shapes, it’s part of the cultural consciousness. They’re using those examples because they know people consider them to be racist, and using that to imply that “men are rapists” is similarly sexist. It’s easy to twist this behavior into something problematic, but it’s really not.
Oh i know, but sonce the commenter wanted to play fifth grade nuance, i figured i’d frame it at their level
So you were only pretending to call them racist?
Alright, how about “women are rapists”? Or “Muslims are rapists”? Or whatever oppressed demographic you want. LGBTQ, religious, whatever.
We found a volunteer for the snake pit
So you think black people are all snakes? That’s pretty racist.
There it is again!
What, you being racist again?
says the one taking every opportunity possible to denigrate black people in this thread.
You really don’t understand rhetoric, do you? No, no, I get it. Not all of us were blessed with a 6th grade education. Probably explains your racism too. Just be glad you can read and write at all.
