Your Views: Men interact with women at their own risk

Letter here. Jump the paywall by Googling the first paragraph text. Excerpt:

'He squeezed a handful of flesh. Now Sen. Al Franken is history. But what does that mean—a handful of flesh? Squeezing one’s waist? A shoulder? An arm?

A simple accusation and one’s entire life can be ruined. Simple as that.

During a recent group discussion, I told a woman participant I am afraid of her. Surprised, she said, “Afraid of me?” I explained, not just her, any woman today, adding, I am afraid to ride an elevator with a woman today unless there are others present. I will get off first.'

57 users have voted.
I like this


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If women won't start The Women's Republic of Femina...

... maybe men should start the Men's Republic of Masculus.

Seriously. Once we have sex droids up to snuff, men have all they need and need to know to create a new society made of men and the hot androids we fuck. Once ectogenesis is developed, we no longer need women as reproducers.

By 2100, both will be in place. If not the ectogenesis, soon enough. We could start with a run-down city. By 2100, Detroit'll probably be a good takeover candidate. There'll be a lot of work to do to restore buildings and infrastructure but 50,000 men with the right skills and moolah could make short work of it. It will have depopulated down to maybe 100,000 people remaining. We could pay them to move. Men could stay of course but anyone who would take the payout could do so and leave.

Failing taking over a city, we could build our own.

I'm dead serious. This is really a viable possibility. But yours truly will be croaked well before 2100. So this is a project to get rolling in 2040 or 2050. The younger fellers'll have to run with it. But it's well within the realm of possibilities. Imagine a life free of female demands, complaints, or the dangers of being around them. And the peace? It'll be the most law-abiding of places, too. Communities of only men are notoriously peaceful. Monasteries, for example, and towns here and there that have become devoid of women for whatever reasons.

Just a thought. The man to make it happen hasn't been born yet, but he will be soon.

17 users have voted.
I like this

Fear works both ways

I wasn't able to jump the paywall, but from what you cite I can really relate to what this man had to say. I've met similar reactions from women when I've voiced feelings of mistrust and misgiving ... and sometimes even fear just being around women. It's as if they could never imagine a man would every feel that way. Why should it be so hard to imagine?
I've never been sexually intimate with any woman but my wife, and I don't often meet women who even tempt me. So I ought to be totally free from worry about accusations, right? But the possibility always makes me nervous. I recall the time an overwrought female student marched into my office, slammed the door behind her (I always keep it open when I meet with students, female or male), and threw her keys down on my desk. Her keychain had a large plastic tab with a bit of feminist 'humor' on it: "Men are like diapers, they're full of shit." Then she started in on me about the demands of my class, about how her jerk of a boyfriend had just dumped her (can't say I blame him), about how her boss was expecting so much of her ... I confess that I panicked. I could tell immediately that she was the sort of woman who would not hesitate to concoct a story about me. I wanted to tear into her, remind her of her pathetic performance in the class and what she needed to do if she wished to pass, and then invite her to leave. But I HAD to treat her with kid gloves, and I ended up giving her breaks I would not ordinarily have given any student. Afterwards, I felt blackmailed and resentful. She ended up not passing the course, and I rather enjoyed giving her an F, though I felt nervous about it because I feared reprisal in the form of a false accusation.
When possible, I always take stairs rather than elevators, partly because I need the exercise but partly also because I don't like being alone with women I don't know in a place like that. When I'm in Japan and see the "women only" train cars, I've asked some people if that's a gesture toward equality. They say it's because some women are afraid of being groped in crowded trains. To which I ask, what about men who are afraid of being falsely accused by some lying b***c? The response to that question is always wide eyes and incredulousness that such a man should even exist. Remember the Duke Lacrosse team! All men have plenty to worry about.

21 users have voted.
I like this

"Avoid the company of women"

This used to be the advice given to young seminarians. It was about avoiding "the occasions of sin", "temptation", mostly in the emotional sense and less so in the physical one.

Today it would seem men in general are like the seminarians of yore in that they may reasonably receive such advice and just as reasonably heed it, but not because being with women marks an "occasion of sin" or "temptation", be it emotional or otherwise, but instead because it creates an opportunity to be falsely accused by one who seeks to discredit you for any number of reasons: some kind of payback for a real or perceived sleight, or to eliminate you as a competitor for a job/promotion (whether you are one or not), or to do harm to someone close to you (by getting you, she gets them), or anything else. One of today's SJW feminist types may just decide to falsely accuse a man as a kind of general payback. SJWs do not see people as individuals but instead as members of a class. Any kind of grief they can inflict on a member of a different class is considered a good thing, esp. if there is some historical injustice they feel they can redress by doing so. The dream MLK Jr. had of people being judged by the content of their character vs. skin color (or gender, by extension), seems to still be a dream, at least when reviewing what SJW/feminists now seem to believe.

Of course you need not have met a woman, even, to be falsely accused by her. Famous men get falsely accused by nutty women they never met of all kinds of things. Thankfully the authorities are smart enough to spot them when they emerge. But for how much longer? Guess we'll see. (There I go again.) But the chances a man will get falsely-accused of something drop significantly if he minimizes interaction with females. The less he interacts with them, the less likely he is to be targeted by one.

Men of various description, MRAs and not, decades ago warned of such a state, wherein men may be reasonably concerned for their well-being when exposed to females, especially in private settings, because of the ease with which they could level false accusations. In truth men have always been in such jeopardy but reasonableness and a sense of fairness in regards such accusations has mostly dominated. Today, with the new religion of America being WOMEN and anything they want, reasonableness, fairness, measuredness, etc., are out the window. High-status men are of course favored targets, but any man could be. I have these past few decades said that advice such as that represents overkill, a kind of paranoia in itself that reflects the kind of so-called thinking of feminists. Meeting extremist thinking with extremist thinking is not generally conducive to the interests of sanity or justice. However, we've reached an inflection point with #MeToo. That point is when any accusation is presumed valid, with or w/o evidence of some kind, and no refutation on the part of the accused is considered credible. "Believe the victim" presumes 2 things: 1. There is in fact, objectively, a victim, and 2. She is speaking the truth, whole truth, and nothing but, without admission that she may not be doing so, nor would she have any reason ever to lie. Both of these assumptions aren't just false, but absurd. But this is the effect of religious thinking: suspend critical thinking, believe in something patently unbelievable. The more outrageous the claim, the better, or so it seems.

So I regrettably must conclude that the time has come to endorse the advice given to seminarians in years past: Avoid the company of women. Don't buy them drinks (anyone reading this site for more than a month who was still randomly buying women drinks.... dunno), initiate contact, whether in social environs or not, etc.

In situations wherein you may or may not have a reason to speak to them, err on the side of not doing so. Saying "hello" if she does so first in response as you pass one in the grocery store is fine, but leave it at that. As for dating, avoid initiating contact. TBH I think there is less risk in banging cheap hookers vs. trying to have "a relationship" with a woman these days. If hookers ain't your thing, use Tinder or whatever the kids are using these days, just be REAL careful what kind of female you decide to meet. If you still want to have "a relationship" with a female these days, be prepared as always to spend, spend, spend. So pony up for a face-to-face dating service instead of playing Internet Dating Site Roulette, who knows what kind of nutjob you'll dredge up there. As for meeting and so on the old-fashioned way (e.g., by happenstance), not only does it take a long time to pan out, but it's too hazardous a route to take these days.

This is harder on the younger guys whose T is still really high and their dicks get hard when the wind blows, I know. But for the older among us (less T = greater sanity, at least as pertains females), taking or leaving women is pretty easy. Once they're too much trouble to deal with, it's easier to leave them. And unfortunately, I think we've hit that point.

To you younger guys, hang in there. Decent sex-bots are not far off. Save your pennies so you can afford one when they finally go into mass production.

Oh yeah, I have this to say to women who think this is overkill: silence = approval. Do you think #MeToo has gone too far? Well then, say something. By remaining silent you are tacitly condoning the feminists who claim to speak for you. They claim to speak for women in general. By staying silent in the face of it, you acquiesce and condone. There's NO reason why any man should think you aren't on the same page as the #MeToo crowd unless you clearly and openly denounce them, and not in a failing voice.

Some women may not like what #MeToo is doing but do like the feelings of POWER they get when thinking, good, finally, we got those nasty old men scared of us, ha-ha! Enjoy yourselves, then. Hope it makes you happy. Smirk quietly to yourself. Just remember, all injustices have a price. Just exactly what price you pay for letting yourself be a party to it, you may never actually know. But there is a price to be paid for everything. As my dear old mum has often said, "Life is a series of trade-offs." It can be hard to make sound decisions about things when you aren't even aware of what you're giving up to get what you get, but, I guess, such is life. No guarantees.

10 users have voted.
I like this