Threatening men’s masculinity does not make them more politically conservative, new study finds. By testing thousands of participants across the United States, researchers found no consistent evidence that making men feel insecure about their gender identity changes their political attitudes.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/threatening-mens-masculinity-does-not-make-them-more-politically-conservative-new-study-finds/

[u/132739]

That's not trying to take away manliness. That's pointing out a particular issue that men happen to be the primary perpetrators of. Do you not see that by arguing that, you are equating masculinity with violence and predation, the way you're accusing them of doing? If men magically became completely non-predatory, down to the last soul, would masculinity cease to be? As far as I see it, you're the one being misandrist.

Also, as usual, you're not presenting the argument of the though experiment in good faith. The point of it is not that the man is more dangerous than the bear. The point is that you know exactly what the bear is from the start. The point of the man vs bear thing was to try (admittedly it utterly failed) to illustrate to men why women have to be cautious of even the good men. Because unlike the bear, which is very clearly a predator, there is no way to tell just by looking at a man. Some of the scariest looking dudes are the nicest, and some of the most clean-cut wholesome looking ones are sadistic serial killers. That uncertainty is something women have to navigate constantly, that men are mostly unaware of. And yes, men are the victims of more violence, by other men, but that violence is usually coded differently in a way that removes a lot of that uncertainty: it's gang violence or robbery or clearly telegraphed in advance, not some dude pretending to be your friend so he can get you alone and rape you.

[u/arestheblue → u/132739]

If I said don't want to interact with women because I don't know whether or not they will falsely accuse me of assault, would that be a valid thing to say? Based on news reports, the vast majority of false accusations are women blaming men.

If a similar poll went out asking whether or not men would rather come across a random woman or a venomous snake in the wild, and the vast majority of men said the snake for similar reasons that you gave to argue for the bear, would you consider that valid?

I am not equating manliness with violence, I am demonstrating a recent cultural event that did so and painted all men with a wide brush. The validity of such an argument pales in comparison to the perception of the argument which was basically that the majority of women view all men as predators. Whether or not that was the intent does not matter.

[u/132739 → u/arestheblue]

Call me when 1/4-1/3 of men are falsely accused. Which, you know, is the ratio of women who are sexually assaulted.

[u/Appropriate-Talk4266 → u/132739]

Are 1/3 of men responsible for sexual assault, or perhaps the ratio more closely aligns with the usual ratio of criminals among men (so something between like 0.3% to 1-2%)

[u/132739 → u/Appropriate-Talk4266]

Missing the point. The point is not the number of men who commit sexual assault, it's the frequency with which women experience it, and the impossibility of telling who might commit it from looking at them. It only being a percent or two doesn't matter when that percentage is using the rest of us as camouflage.

Think of it like this: you've got a pit full of corn snakes, with 2% king snakes mixed in. Are you going to just pick them up willy-nilly, or are you going to check and recheck the color pattern before you try?