Obviously I can understand why mysoginists are hated upon, As their belief is all women are trash or men are superior etc. But why are incels also generally hated upon? They are lacking in a way that makes them unable to gey in a relationship, but that shouldn’t necessarily mean they are mysoginists, right?

What am I missing here? I haven’t ever had a relationship with a woman, but I don’t hate all women either. I just consider myself unlucky. Does that make me an incel?

  • june@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Lmao

    You’re really missing the point here and getting offended over reality for half the population.

    Enough men are a danger to women and children that it forces women to be wary of all men. Which is the smart and right thing to do.

    If you’re in a room with 100 people and you know 10 of them are extremely violent with extremely short fuses that can be triggered by anything from a casual look to an uninvited ‘hello’’, but you don’t know which 10 it is, how are you going to socially navigate that room? Are you going to pretend like everyone in that room is a friend and make strong eye contact with everyone saying hello? Or are you going to tread lightly?

    That’s the reality women face with men every day.

    • beardown@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      I know plenty of people who make this same argument for why whites can’t trust blacks. Those people are called racists. People who make the argument you’re making are called sexists.

      • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        ^false equivalency. Sexists hate men (or women) on principle. That’s not what this concept is. You’d know that if you paid attention just a little bit

      • june@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        No you don’t. Because there isn’t a preponderance of evidence than black people are less trustworthy than non-POC.

        Just because an argument sounds similar does not make it the same.

        • beardown@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          there isn’t a preponderance of evidence than black people are more less trustworthy than non-POC.

          That is true, but is not a universally held belief. Many strongly feel that black people are inherently dangerous and untrustworthy. Others feel the same about Muslims. Or Chinese. Or Russians. Or Jewish people. Or Gypsies.

          People who feel that way about those groups are called bigots. You feel that way about men which means you are also a bigot. Not a difficult analysis.

            • beardown@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              What do FBI crime stats say about Black Americans?

              Statistics are easily misconstrued, and often are

          • june@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            We aren’t talking belief here. What I am saying is based off of empirical evidence.

            Why are you being so unapologetically obtuse?

            • beardown@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              You can use FBI crime statistics to make “empirical” arguments about black Americans. Yet I think we both recognize that would be fallacious

              • june@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                I’m gonna ask you again, why are you being unapologetically obtuse?

                If you want to challenge the data I’m citing, do it rather than refusing to engage in good faith.

                • beardown@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  It isn’t obtuse to state with moral clarity that it is always wrong to treat someone differently on the basis of their sex

                  • june@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    When there’s a preponderance of empirical evidence that a certain group of people poses a larger risk to another group of people, it validates the decision to approach them with caution.

                    You’re arguing that women should just ignore the reality that they are likely to be assaulted (remember, 81%) and that the people most likely to assault them are men. It is reasonable and right for women to exercise caution and clarity when engaging with men for that reason. This isn’t hard, it requires a person to be willfully ignorant to disagree with it. Get your feelings out of this matter and look at the reality we live in.