Sure, they are trying to adjust the rules, but not adjust the game itself (which I feel is where much of the unhealthyness around male/female interactions comes from)
It is a valid assumption that men are the initiators because in most cases this is how the world works. If you want to change it, feel free.
Men can’t change that, only women can.
As a male, I can refrain from taking the first step, and in theory, I will have created a revolution. In practice it just means girls will think I’m not interested in them.
I also have zero hope that the great feminists of our time will change it. They’re campaigning for more power and perks for women, not less. Right now, men buy dinners, gifts, and have to beg for sex even after they’ve been married. Why give that up?
My point exactly. Railing against the system as it exists is counterproductive unless you have a viable alternative.
I could highlight the disproportionate instance of black crime, I could talk about how they should dress better so I don't confuse them with the "other" black people. I could talk about how they should change their speech and other ways they can accomodate my racism.
But that would be absolutely disgusting.
The 1 in 6 (and 1 in 33 among men) chance of being raped from the article is absolute nonsense that comes from a terrible 1992 "survey" by the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
That said, excluding prisons, women are vastly more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than men.
“Much like female erectile response, male erectile response is involuntary, meaning that a man need not be aroused for his penis to become erect and be placed in a woman's vagina; mechanical stimulation is all that is necessary.
However, male victims of sexual abuse by females often face social, political, and legal double standards. Gender-neutral laws have combated the perception that rape rarely occurs to men, and other laws have eliminated the term rape altogether.”
For a lot of crimes on which we have data, such as drug use/possession, the numbers of black people who commit the crimes are proportionally the same as the numbers of non-black people who also commit the crime. That means, for instance, that the percentage of white people who admit to using and possessing marijuana is the same as the percentage of black people who admit to it, and hispanic, and so on. But, if you look only at the number of arrests and convictions, the percentage of black people arrested and convicted is much higher. This difference suggests there is something besides "being black increases the chances of being criminal".
On the other hand, the reasoning in this article is "across the board, being a woman comes with a 1:6 chance of being raped by a man, therefore women will have defenses, here's how to respect them".
Here's another way to look at it: something far less than 1:10 email attachments in my inbox are malware. Yet I take precautions against ALL attachments as a result. My buddy that works in computer security probably isn't sending me a virus, but I still consider the attachment from him to be that until I know better. I'm sure you do too, it's just sane and rational security. Hell my work has banned almost all attachments, and most email services just automatically screen all attachments for evil intent. Even the ones that have a picture from my mom's phone are default considered to be evil and come from an horrible monster. Are you up in arms over this? Do you get pissed about articles about how to safely send email attachments, or transfer files in alternate safe ways?
So why is it that when the odds look to be similar for a woman, but where the consequence is "get raped", it is sexist and batshit crazy for them to be concerned? Why not just have a de-facto "be very cautious" approach?
For example, if a woman happened to see a man peeing, in the eyes of the law (in some jurisdictions at least), she was sexually assaulted. If a man touches a woman's ass in a bar without an explicit invitation, she was sexually assaulted.
FWIW, I'm a man and I've been "sexually assaulted" well over ten times in my life.
There is also no real "guy's guide" here, there are a few pointers but they're wrapped in a "You're a rapist, Harry" hearsay stories.
Perhaps the author could have either focused more to enlightened male readers on acceptable ways to approach women (top ten lists are still popular on blogs right?), or better yet disclose where she is meeting these guys so other females can avoid encountering such douchebags.
And for those who can't find the points in the article:
* Respect women
* Dress nice
* Take subtle clues
* Don't Rape (you don't say?)
Going to a date with a girl who'd suspect me to be a potential rapist would be uncomfortable, and somewhat insulting. Realizing to be in that kind of a situation I probably wouldn't even dare to try talk about it, would just try to leave the situation.
Of course a big problem in this is the religion of Islam, which values woman lower as man anyway and kafir woman (unbelievers) even lower still: http://bulletinoftheoppressionofwomen.com/2012/01/27/rape-te...
For similarly delusional writing, I suggest:
Why go on dates alone with strange men? Why not get a chaperon? Sure western society would probably find it weird that you insist to be chaperoned on your dates but I would think the embarrassment beats being assaulted?
While I find the article rather disgusting, it is this person's right to think this way, and I have no problem with that. However I think it is the case (no idea why) that far, far more American women think this way than European women. On the whole.