General Question
If women are supposed to identify dangerous men before getting hurt, how are we supposed to do that without offending harmless men?
Im curious how people reconcile two expectations I see placed on women, because they seem quite incompatible.
From a young age, many women are taught to take precautions around unfamiliar men. We’re told to watch our drinks, avoid isolated situations, recognize warning signs, be careful who we trust, and exercise judgment about who we allow into our lives.
These precautions aren’t based on the belief that most men are dangerous. They’re based on the fact that we cant reliably determine which individuals might be dangerous before getting to know them.
Yet I’ve noticed that many men interpret women taking these precautions as making a judgment about their specific character.
If a woman crosses the street at night, a man might interpret that as her deciding he’s personally threatening. If she covers her drink, he might interpret it as an accusation that he would drug her. If she declines an offer for a ride, he might feel that she’s unfairly assuming he has bad intentions.
But it’s a distinction that gets overlooked.
“I don’t know whether you’re safe” isnt the same statement as “I believe you’re dangerous.” When I cross the street to avoid an unfamiliar man at night, I’m not necessarily making a judgment about him singularly. I don’t know anything about him and that’s the point.
I’m making a general precautionary decision in a situation where I have limited information and where the consequences of misjudging someone’s intentions could be serious.
If he’s perfectly harmless, which he probably is, I’ve taken a small precaution that wasn’t necessary in hindsight. If he isn’t, that precaution might have helped me avoid a dangerous situation.
That doesn’t mean every precaution is equally reasonable, that women are incapable of unfairly stereotyping men, or that men are wrong to feel uncomfortable when they believe someone is afraid of them.
It means that someone’s discomfort with a precaution doesn’t, by itself, establish that the precaution was unreasonable or an accusation of wrongdoing.
And this brings me to the second part of the contradiction.
In conversations about dating and relationships, I frequently encounter the argument that women need to “take accountability” for choosing men who eventually mistreat them.
If a boyfriend cheats, people ask why she didn’t recognize his character sooner.
If a man abandons his responsibilities as a father, people ask why she chose to have children with him.
If a relationship becomes abusive, people question why she didn’t notice the warning signs or leave earlier.
To be clear, I absolutely believe adults should use judgment in their relationships, recognize warning signs when possible, and reflect on their decisions. Women aren’t exempt from personal responsibility, and there are situations where someone knowingly ignores serious problems.
But being responsible for your own choices isnt the same as being responsible for another adult’s decision to lie, cheat, abandon their children, or abuse someone.
We can acknowledge that people should make informed decisions without transferring moral responsibility for someone else’s actions onto them.
More importantly, if the expectation is that women should be better at identifying potentially harmful partners before they’re harmed, then surely that requires allowing women to exercise some caution and selectivity in the first place.
If a woman trusts someone who later mistreats her, she’s told she should’ve been more careful.
If she exercises caution around someone who turns out to be harmless, she may be told she’s unfairly suspicious.
If she overlooks warning signs, she’s got poor judgment.
If she screens people carefully, shes distrustful or assuming the worst.
If she doesn’t protect herself, she’s told to take responsibility for her safety.
If she does protect herself, now she’s making blameless men feel bad.
I’m not claiming every man makes both arguments, that these reactions are equally common, or that any particular man who advocates personal responsibility necessarily objects to women’s precautions.
I’m saying how can both expectations realistically be applied together?
Because theres a fundamental problem with expecting women to identify dangerous men without ever making harmless men feel unfairly distrusted:
You cant reliably distinguish a dangerous stranger from a harmless one when you have basically no information.
Someone can appear friendly, respectful, and trustworthy while concealing harmful intentions. someone who initially appears intimidating may be harmless.
That uncertainty is why precautions exist in the first place.
The purpose of a precaution isn’t to establish that someone is guilty. It’s to reduce exposure to a potential risk when you don’t have enough information to rule it out.
People lock their doors without believing their neighbors are burglars. They avoid leaving valuables unattended without believing everyone nearby is a thief. They decline to share personal information with strangers without assuming every stranger intends to exploit them.
We generally understand that taking precautions against possible misconduct isn’t equivalent to accusing a particular individual of intending to commit it.
I do think men are entitled to have feelings about these interactions. Absolutely I can see how Being perceived as potentially threatening when you have no intention of hurting anyone would be hurtful.
But having an understandable emotional reaction doesn’t mean another person wronged you or is obligated to change their boundaries to not make you feel bad.
So I’m interested in what people think women should do in these situations, rather than simply being told they should have known better after something goes wrong.
i think a lot of men believe that if they’re not part of the problem, then they must be part of the solution, which simply isn’t true. being part of the solution means educating yourself by talking to the women in your life about their experiences to understand their perspective instead of getting mad about it. if 1 in 10 men are shit and the other 9 do nothing to support and protect women, then they might as well not even be there.
Posting a picture about circular reasoning instead of addressing the actual argument is an interesting way to demonstrate that you have no counterargument.
What argument? They simply asserted that truly harmless men wouldn't be offended, without explaining why. That's precisely the reasoning I'm criticizing. A man objecting to a negative generalization about men doesn't establish that he's dangerous or guilty of the behavior being discussed. Treating his objection as evidence against his character is the entire problem I'm pointing out.
You’ve spent more time explaining why the comment is wrong than it took the person to write it. For someone demanding an argument, you seem remarkably invested in winning a debate nobody actually started.
You initially criticized me for not explaining my counterargument. Now that I've explained it, you're criticizing me for explaining too much. Which is it?
You criticized me for not providing a counterargument. I then explained exactly why the original claim was flawed, and now you're dismissing that explanation as an "essay defending my need to be right."
If my reasoning is wrong, explain why. Otherwise, you're just criticizing me for responding to the criticism you made in the first place.
FYI I didn't even respond to this person's meme because, in and of itself, a woman protecting herself when she doesn't know if a man is safe or not, has never been nor will ever be an "accusation."
Another Kafka trap. You're assuming that a genuinely harmless man couldn't both understand a woman's perspective and object to being negatively generalized. Those aren't mutually exclusive. Being empathetic doesn't mean someone forfeits the right to take offense at how they're characterized.
If you understand her position and you still are more bothered by the way she needs to prevent bodily harm to herself making you feel bad, you feel you are broadcasting that her safety is of zero concern to you and that puts you in the dangerous men catagory.
i think a man can be harmless and ignorant at the same time. i don’t think being offended means they’re dangerous. it can simply mean that they don’t understand women’s perspective in that regard. being curious and willing to learn is key, i think.
I understand and acknowledge why women take precautions around unfamiliar men, and I support their right to do so.
What I'm specifically criticizing is the negative generalizations that sometimes accompany these discussions. A man can understand women's safety concerns perfectly well and still object to being characterized as dangerous or predatory simply because he's male.
Being offended by that rhetoric doesn't necessarily indicate ignorance of women's perspectives.
Do you think the relationship with white people as a black person is equal to the relationship with women as a man? You think it’s the exact same in all ways? Odd. I hope you gain some perspective someday.
No I don't think that they are equal at all but there are some parallels in how people act in certain situations just based on someone sex or race etc.
If you're doing it because they're black it's racist. If you are doing it because you don't know that person or why they are approachong you, or you do it also when white people you don't know approach you, it's not racist.
Well exactly. The point was that some people act differently based on the race of a person in the same way that some people act differently based on sex when they meet someone in the dark alley. For example.
Cool. How do you plan on legally getting me out of the country and into one of the good ones? “Just move” is not an available solution for the vast majority of people who live in hellscapes.
Although I'm under the assumption that most of people here are from USA.
Americans have the easiest time moving to other countries and have huge earnings.
You could live comfortably in most places with a minimum American wage. As long as you are lucky enough to work remote, of course
It’s all a balance from the woman’s perspective at the end of the day. As a man, I enormously prefer to interact with women who trust me. There are both emotional and practical reasons for that, with the practical reasons principally being that a woman who trusts you is less likely to abandon you or otherwise hurt you. That said, obviously women must take into account their own safety as well and therefore cannot blindly trust all men. I’d think about it less in moral terms and more in practical terms from the woman’s perspective
I think you're misunderstanding why some men take offense in the first place.
Most aren't upset about women taking reasonable precautions around unfamiliar men.
They're upset about the negative generalizations and rhetoric that often accompany these discussions, where men are collectively portrayed as dangerous or predatory simply for being male.
There's a difference between acknowledging that a stranger could potentially be dangerous and assuming that he probably is because he's a man.
You can support women's right to protect themselves while still criticizing unfair generalizations about men.
There's a difference between acknowledging that a stranger could potentially be dangerous and assuming that he probably is because he's a man.
Get back to me when women account for the majority of violent crime. In 2023, males were perceived to be responsible for 75.2% of violent incidents in the US, compared with 20.1% for females.
If you’re a man walking down a street alone at night and hear footsteps behind you, your first thought isn’t going to be, “Oh no, I hope that’s not a woman behind me!”
And that alone should tell you something about how well your argument holds up in the real world.
None of those statistics refute anything I said. I never denied that men disproportionately commit violent crimes, nor did I argue that women shouldn't take precautions around unfamiliar men.
You're arguing against a position I never took. My point was about the distinction between acknowledging potential danger and making negative generalizations about individuals based on their sex.
The fact that men account for the majority of violent incidents doesn't establish that the majority of men are violent or that any particular unfamiliar man is probably dangerous. You're confusing the proportion of offenders who are male with the probability that a given man is an offender.
You’re arguing semantics while ignoring how risk assessment works in the real world. Women don’t need to believe every man is dangerous to recognize that the danger isn’t distributed equally.
Precautions are based on risk, not personal accusations, and confusing the two is your mistake, not mine.
Again, that's not my argument. I explicitly acknowledged that women can take reasonable precautions around unfamiliar men. My criticism concerns the negative generalizations and rhetoric that sometimes accompany those discussions, not the precautions themselves.
You're arguing that precautions aren't inherently personal accusations. I agree. That's why I distinguished the two in my original comment.
There's actually a biological adaptation for that, girls kind of annoy guys by default, normal guys don't mind, a girl shows up fifteen minutes late for the date and the guy will say "no worries, traffic can be awful out there" an abusive man will say "you're late, we agreed upon a time, you should have left earlier" you just gotta watch for these signals, a man should put you at ease and make you feel like you can be playful, an asshole will make you feel guarded
So I’m interested in what people think women should do in these situations, rather than simply being told they should have known better after something goes wrong.
Its pretty easy, apply your precautions to all men, including those you find hot af.
Cause we both know all your little rules go flying out the window
13
u/P0Rt1ng4Duty 1h ago
Man here.
When a woman I'm not familiar with utilizes any of the protective measures you listed it does not hurt my feelings.
It makes me sad that men have historically done so many horriffic things to women that bothers me and I don't blame women for defending themselves.