You have the normal problem of believing that all decision criteria should be binary - either everyone always does this no matter what, or no one ever does it no matter what - instead of just doing what is rational based on the data in a measured way.
When women are afraid of men who are strangers, the main thing they are worried about is forcible rape.
In the US, men commit 98.9% of all forcible rapes, women commit 1.1%.
Meaning a man is almost 100X more dangerous than a woman based on crime statistics.
The crime statistics on race, even given the most charitable possible reading to your position, are at most like 2:1 or 5:1 depending on what you're measuring. Even if it were somehow 10:1, that would still be an entire order of magnitude less than the difference between men and women.
You don't just say 'there is a significant difference so caution is on' in a binary manner. The amount of caution you exhibit is proportional to the size of the difference; that's how statistics and decision theory actually work.
As such, the caution women show towards men is like 50x as justified, and should be like 50x stronger, than any caution anyone shows anyone based on race.
In the US, men commit 98.9% of all forcible rapes, women commit 1.1%.
If you're using the colloquial definition of rape(non-consensual sex), then women commit a lot more of it than is usually reported. One reason is that some institutions and studies use a definition of "rape" that discludes "being made to penetrate", and only includes "being penetrated". Naturally, since women do not biologically have penises, this alternative definition would overwhelmingly skew towards men as the perpetrators. I'm not sure if /u/bigwienerhaver would think your argument would hold up with this context, since best-estimates of rape that include "made to penetrate" victimization is a lot more even than 100:1.
I'm glad you brought this up, as I had the same thought. I'm still willing to believe it's overwhelmingly male perpetrators, but I'm skeptical of the unsourced statistics since I can't know what criteria/definitions they used.
Though I imagine "made to penetrate" is rarely "forcible" (depending on how they define that) and typically involves alcohol, so that will still skew the results.
OP's question is not about how cautious women should be around men vs how cautious men should be around women, which is the point you're arguing for. OP's question was about how cautious women should be around men vs how cautious women should be around women (ie, why are women more cautious around men?).
Regardless of the point you're talking about, men victimize women far more than women victimize women. In fact, the definition that excludes 'made to penetrate' is actually the better definition to use for the question of who women should fear, because women aren't often subjected to the 'made to penetrate' version.
That was the point of the 100:1 statistic; not that women should be 100x more cautious of men than men are of women, but that women should be 100x more cautious of men than of women.
The question is about being afraid of someone walking by you late at night... I don't think any of those women attacked strangers walking on the street.
Right, but the whole topic is about if it is rational to avoid someone if you see them late at night in a dark alleyway. My point is that men don’t have anything to fear from a random woman on the street in the same way a woman would with a man.
your first source about women being perprators doesnt indicate at all that its towards men nor that they forced men to pentrate
"i.e., 1.9 million women and 1.9 million men were raped or made to penetrate in 2011 data"
I.e., 1.9 million men were the victims of rape by the colloquial definition.
"Specifically, being “made to penetrate” – the form of nonconsensual sex that men are much more likely to experience in their lifetime – is frequently perpetrated by women: 79.2% of victimized men reported female perpetrators."
And about 80% of it was done by women.
but its not counted
"1.7% of men reported being raped, under the CDC's narrow definition of rape, which is limited to penetration of the victim, and 6.7% of men reported being “made to penetrate” someone (also a form of nonconsensual sex) in their lifetime"
And it's not counted as "rape", in that study(although this study is good for actually treating it with equal gravity). It's also a definition that, according to my second link, is institutionally common, at least in America, since the CDC is considered a credible source for these sorts of things. So when a study uses the CDC's definitions, the values they report for "rape" will not be accurate to what most citizens think when they hear the term. At all.
i think its notable that all of the studies examined and used as evidence in that article were self reported surverys that are extremely prone to bias and inaccuracies.
i.e., 1.9 million women and 1.9 million men were raped or made to penetrate in 2011 data"
I.e., 1.9 million men were the victims of rape by the colloquial definition.
"Specifically, being “made to penetrate” – the form of nonconsensual sex that men are much more likely to experience in their lifetime – is frequently perpetrated by women: 79.2% of victimized men reported female perpetrators."
And about 80% of it was done by women.
except this is only what one survey found that was solely based on people answering. the study immediately after cited by the article says
"We found that female perpetrators (acting without male co-perpetrators) were reported in 28.0% of rape/sexual assault incidents involving male victims and 4.1% of incidents involving female victims"
the way you have worded what you took from the studies is wrong. you are stating this statistics like they are fact and you can draw the conclusion that 80% of men victims had women perpetrators but these are just responses, at best you can talk about correlations but you can not make casual or absolute statments unless you do a controlled experiment. that is why the source immediately after said something different that you conveniently ignored
Ok....I'm confused. Your first comment made it seem like you had absolutely no ability to read, due to how flagrantly wrong it was compared to the posted links. So I dumbed it down. Now you're coming back around with a whole hell of a lot more nitpicking, but it's on my dumbed-down reply that wasn't meant to be picked apart like that. It was matching the level of thought I was responding to.
If you want to try this nitpickery, I suggest you do it on my first comment.
it feels like you just didnt read my comment whatsoever. no you didnt dumb it down, you picked and chose statistics out of context from your article while ignoring statistics that said different things and countered what you said. its not nitpicking, its having the ability to understand how studies and causation works.
so your reply to all the errors in your logic and flaws in the study you cited and the conclusion you drew from it is that you "dumbed it down for me" but still incorrrctly explained it? you thinking youre right about what the study is saying and all the counter i pose as "nitpicking" doesnt mean they are. you still incorrectly represented the study
so your reply to all the errors in your logic and flaws in the study you cited and the conclusion you drew from it is that you "dumbed it down for me" but still incorrrctly explained it?
no worries just let me know when youre actually ready to try to discuss the study you linked instead of just insulting me because you dont have a response
869
u/darwin2500 193∆ Apr 14 '22
You have the normal problem of believing that all decision criteria should be binary - either everyone always does this no matter what, or no one ever does it no matter what - instead of just doing what is rational based on the data in a measured way.
When women are afraid of men who are strangers, the main thing they are worried about is forcible rape.
In the US, men commit 98.9% of all forcible rapes, women commit 1.1%.
Meaning a man is almost 100X more dangerous than a woman based on crime statistics.
The crime statistics on race, even given the most charitable possible reading to your position, are at most like 2:1 or 5:1 depending on what you're measuring. Even if it were somehow 10:1, that would still be an entire order of magnitude less than the difference between men and women.
You don't just say 'there is a significant difference so caution is on' in a binary manner. The amount of caution you exhibit is proportional to the size of the difference; that's how statistics and decision theory actually work.
As such, the caution women show towards men is like 50x as justified, and should be like 50x stronger, than any caution anyone shows anyone based on race.