What I mean is that murders have a motive.
Murderers don't kill random people.
Whether they are men or women.
Sexualizing murders is what feminism does.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Italian writer against women choosing the bear: hating men has become fashionable
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Murderers don't kill random people.
Whether they are men or women.
Sexualizing murders is what feminism does.
That seems an overly broad generalization.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Motorcycles?
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Huh?
It's not due to misandry. It is due to the fact that a woman would be believed if she said was attacked by a bear, but would be disbelieved if she said she was attacked by a man.
That's because a man is considered innocent until proven guilty. A bear is not. A bear deemed a threat to humans would probably be executed without trial (even if it didn't kill anyone).
That's not a new ideology. Certain philosophies of feminism were espousing this when I was at Uni (early to mid nineties)
That seems to be a mindset of total victimhood.
Imagining the worst....& believing it to be universally true.
It's very unhealthy.
Remember #metoo, and the huge backlash against it?
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
I did. I felt it missed the point of the question entirely. I will explain below.
Is it? What about outside the woods? How many women are attacked in the woods and never report it or are unable to report it?
The question isn't just about being hit on and this where I think the article misses the point. A lot of females are traumatized by violent male behavior. Not as many are traumatized by violent bear behavior. Meeting a bear in the woods would be terrifying regardless, but the likelihood of being attacked by the bear is fairly low.
This isn't a matter of hating men, but a matter of male violence being a problem people seem very willing to ignore.
That said, harassment by males is also a problem. Some people may enjoy being catcalled or harrassed, but for those that don't enjoy it it is emotionally traumatizing, especially while alone in the woods where the possibility of being assaulted is higher than in public.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Being forceful and talking is a way of scaring a bear off. So that statement isn't entirely accurate.
"Slowly wave your arms above your head and tell the bear to back off."
And known not to stop.
See above.
Yes.
Why?
A bear has been known to not attack.Being forceful and talking is a way of scaring a bear off. So that statement isn't entirely accurate.
"Slowly wave your arms above your head and tell the bear to back off."
And known not to stop.
See above.
A man has been known to attack.
Both statements are true.
This means men are more dangerous than bears?
Last edited:
Remember the offshoot #Believewomen?
Is there an end to this series of
questions resulting in a claim?
Dealing with an attack from a man afterward is a lot more complicated than dealing with an attack from a bear afterward.
If you don't remember it, then the claim that women make of not being believed does hold some validity, no?
How is that known?
"Hold some validity" could mean it happens
often or seldom. It's really making no claim at
all....except perhaps to suggest women normally
aren't, but without actually claiming it.
What fraction of the time are women not
believed when a man attacked them?
See post #106. You have the courts (and all the stress that comes with it) to deal with when you are attacked by a man. You don't have that when attacked by a bear.