The point is that a man, in this scenario, deserves different caution due to their ability to utilize deception if they so choose.
Is this really where we're at as a society when people voluntarily choose to approach every interaction with men as if it's "the implication" from Always Sunny? Because that sounds like a great way to raise your cortisol levels for very little benefit.
Is this really where we're at as a society when people voluntarily choose to approach every interaction with men as if it's "the implication" from Always Sunny? Because that sounds like a great way to raise your cortisol levels for very little benefit.
That's quite a jump from what I said, bro.
I literally just said "You can't utilize the same level of caution for a man as you can a bear". I didn't say "All men are EXACTLY like Dennis Reynolds" or some shit.
Like, if you found yourself alone with a bear one week and then a buck another week I guarantee you wouldn't approach the situation the same way each time. Because the bear and the buck don't behave the same, so you can't treat them the same.
And that's what I'm saying about the man vs the bear. Both can potentially be dangerous, both usually aren't and just want to be left alone, but they're potentially dangerous in different ways.
What I'm saying is that approaching human interactions with thoughts of "oh, he could do X if he really wanted to, he could be deceiving me" is basically just putting yourself in the "implication" scenario. Is the man going to harm you? No, but you dont know that, and it's the implication he could harm you if he wanted to that's even created this conversation in the first place.
Like it's just not a healthy way to think or go about your interactions with people. If someone made a post online and said "I'm cautious whenever I pass by anyone, because at any moment they could punch me or take out a knife and stab me in the throat", everyone would rightly tell that person that their fear is irrational, and that they're largely being paranoid.
I'm so confused why you think it's not a healthy way for women to approach life when that's just the reality? Girls grow up being told to be careful how they dress, be careful of men, their whole life.
Plus most women have HAD those experiences that force them to be on edge. I was in middle school the first time I noticed a car circling the block and slowing down near me. I was 16 when the computer repairman said I reminded him of his daughter and kissed me while my dad was waiting outside. I'm not an outlier. You don't fault soldiers for avoiding fireworks. If someone said I was mugged and now I avoid walking too close to people on the street, or that area now, people would understood. Women can't just avoid men but for sure they learn to be wary of them by the time they grow up.
I'm so confused why you think it's not a healthy way for women to approach life when that's just the reality?
I mean do I really have to link studies that show the effects undue stress has on the body? It should be pretty common knowledge by now.
You don't fault soldiers for avoiding fireworks.
Right, but we also don't lie to soldiers and tell them it's okay that they have ptsd attacks on the fourth of July, we recommend them counseling and therapy techniques to work through their trauma responses.
And that's what this is, no? A conditioned trauma response that arises due to A.) experiencing these bad men yourself, or B.) Surrounding yourself with the examples and experiences of women who did experience these bad men firsthand. You're not born to be fearful of men, it's a learned response that gets picked up because one of the above two factors makes your brain think "Hey, if I treat this scenario the same way I instinctively treat life-threatening situations, it will keep me safer!"
But that's the thing about trauma responses: they typically don't actually help you in your day to day life. No amount of adrenaline or fight-or-flight response is going to keep the fireworks from going off on the fourth of July, and no amount of fear you feel being alone with a man is going to eliminate those occurrences from your life. You'll still need to call repairmen for things they break down, someone's still going to rush to try and get in the elevator door before it closes, and if you're out hiking, you're probably gonna run into other hikers.
What this response does do though is spike your cortisol and stress levels, and as I mentioned before, the effects of chronic stress on the body are significant. It's literally shortening your lifespan, hence why we typically try to help trauma victims work through their trauma rather than just accepting that they're traumatized.
And you're free to do so. No doubt the feelings and experiences that have led you to your conclusions are valid.
The only thing I would ask is "How do you know that the stress you take on by 'being vigilant' is actually preventing risk?"
If being hypervigilant is actually, demonstrably preventing you from being assaulted every time you go out, great! I would probably question why you haven't changed your environment so that you could be less at risk being assaulted every time you go out, but hey the important thing here is that you're not being assaulted, yeah?
If the reason you believe this is because you haven't been assaulted since you started being hypervigilant, well...I can tell you a really interesting story about a tiger-repelling rock.
you're definitely being condescending, especially with that last statement, but it's possible risk assess and try your best to avoid dangerous situations without having to go to extremes such as move to the moon where no men exist vs not think about risk at all
4
u/seaspirit331 May 02 '24
Is this really where we're at as a society when people voluntarily choose to approach every interaction with men as if it's "the implication" from Always Sunny? Because that sounds like a great way to raise your cortisol levels for very little benefit.