Perhaps this post hasn't had enough visibility, brigading and sock puppets for it to happen, but it very often happens, there are plenty of posts where comments like mine get buried.

Which gender gets discriminated the most? Not really relevant. The issue is the societal response to men being discriminated against, not only in generalizations, but also in topics like incarceration rates and lengths of incarceration, even when accounting for criminal history, and severity of the crime.

And yet, people act like one argument is valid and the other one isn't. Neither one is valid, both racism and sexism are incredibly damaging.

Now watch me be downvoted to hell in record time for this statement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Portrait_with_Bandaged_Ear + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends,_Romans,_countrymen,_lend_me_your_ears + me chuckling to myself while hiding at the restroom at work.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if you actually need help and are just suffering and can't see it, or if it is just someone doing a bit like Ken M. Either way, cheers.

Friendly reminder to take your meds, buddy. Hope you are well, I worry about you and think of you often.

To mostly quote you:

Any amount of [wo]men doing that shit is unacceptable.

And that's exactly my original point. Whether we're talking about a large number of perpetrators or a small number, the people responsible for those crimes are the perpetrators, not their entire gender.

Are you a part of that plurality? If no, why are you mad?

I'm not claiming your “date rape is bad” stance is equivalent to “kill all men.” I'm pointing out that the defense you're using is the same: Make a sweeping statement about men, then when someone objects, insinuate that their objection itself is suspicious rather than engaging with the criticism.

And the difference in prevalence doesn't really resolve that issue. We can acknowledge that certain crimes disproportionately involve one sex while still asking whether collective blame is appropriate.

More importantly, if the goal is actually to reduce these crimes and help victims, I'd rather see the discussion focus on things that can accomplish that: effective laws, enforcement, appropriate punishment, prevention, victim support, and making sure victims of all forms of these crimes have access to those things.

That's what I was getting at originally. I'm not defending date rape, and I don't think anyone here is. I'm questioning why assigning blame to a gender seems to be the first avenue rather than addressing the mechanisms that allow the crime to happen in the first place.

And your response just proves my previous point, having a discussion with you is entirely pointless, you respond like you were trained to escalate things and then play the victim, Are you sure you're not AI?

Anyway, feel free to reply, or don't. I am not engaging with you anymore.

Edit, typo

Because when problems affecting women are discussed, most people act like it is the end of the world, like men need to risk and even lose their lives to protect them, but whenever issues that affect men are discussed, we are met with dismissals such as yours.

If people pointing out shitty things that a plurality of women do upsets you enough to try to debase those concerns, attempt to throw shade and even attempt to paint the other person as someone who roofies women, then there is no sense in having a discussion.

It is the same regurgitated arguments that people who claim "kill all men" is not hate speech, and ridiculing anyone who takes issue with said problematic statement.

Same as mothers committing infanticide, parental alienation, paternity fraud, rape and many other crimes.

Acting like an entire gender is guilty of the crimes of a few is inherently wrong and it is called collective responsibility, and it can also be played both ways, which is a complete waste of time.

It just leads to fighting, throwing blame around and it does not help bring solutions to the people actually suffering.

I was wondering why this thread was so long and full of personal attacks, then I noticed who you were interacting with. Ugh, that person is pretty toxic.

In one side, in academia lots of researchers use email lists of benefactors, without checking every single one and automate the donation request for higher chances of success. So people can allege ignorance.

On the other end, there is optics. It is easier to investigate a no name than someone who is constantly donating money, people's morals can be compromised when they think "It is a tenuous accusation, and if we freeze their funds, all of this science projects, charities and good deeds would also be affected, so best to err on the side of caution", giving associates of the evil person time to hide or destroy evidence, tip the evil person about the investigation, and give the henchmen of said evil person time go blackmail, threaten and even murder the people behind the investigation.

Decisive action is important in law enforcement, and both optics and soft power can be a hinderance to investigation when used in that way.

Same as every religion, there are extremists and ignorants, like all the christians ignoring the bible and the 10 commandments while pretending that the current president of the US was handpicked by their god to save them.

Or maybe the person thought "We're already beyond fucked, might as well die a pious death while praying, bet that will get me into the A list", or some variation of that.

Way to bark at the wrong tree, I'm gay, I don't look for women but sure, go off and claim I'm a conservative, lol. It is perfectly normal, natural and healthy to have, expect and respect boundaries, and there are also non negotiables.

So, if you feel asking men to disregard their non negotiables is perfectly valid, Would you ask the same from women? And if so, that's just fucked up and unhealthy, I recommend you read and meditate on that.

If my non negotiables include not dating people with kids, you don't know my reasons. Blindly asking me to disregard them and get to know them first, it is setting me up for failure. I will not expand on my reasons for children being a non-starter, because it is traumatic and I don't owe you an explanation.

Because not wanting to be a parent automatically makes one a conservative, got it.

You do know that some people just don't want kids at all, Right? And then there is the added danger, in case of a separation, even without marrying the woman, that the guy who according to the courts, acted as a father figure, gets hit with child support, and even alimony?

Lots of people act like it is conservative or incel behavior to try to protect oneself from systems designed to exploit and harm us.