pixxelkick

The analogy isn't a good fit.

When you sum up the entire concept of a relationship with another person as being equivalent to eating 1 skittle, you will just end up alienating men and further polarizing.

The analogy is simply just not a good one. It completely misses what matters.

The skittle analogy is a great example of one that tries to sound smart but when you analyze it, it fails under scrutiny.

It's easy to just "not bother" with eating a skittle, it's just a skittle.

But relationships aren't a bowl of skittles at a party you can just shrug your shoulder and go "no thanks" too. There's other food than skittles, and Skittles aren't even very nutritionally sound.

A better analogy would be something like:

You live in a giant castle where there is an eternal feast enjoyed by all. However, one item at this feast is poisoned and will cause you extreme unpredictable harm if consumed. This is the only good food available though, your only other option is to live off an extremely flavorless gruel that is gaurenteed not poisoned, as if you leave the castle, you die. Thankfully though if you make friends with the other people in the castle, you can gain some insight on what foods tend to be poisoned vs not, but it's not perfect. Many people also remark the food is the greatest they have ever eaten, and they enjoy their meal safely each day... Do you choose to risk the very small chance of harm, or do you choose to starve?

That is a closer analogy to the actual situation, and suddenly the answer is no longer so black and white. Skittles are not an apt comparison to a relationship, because a relationship is deeply coveted and desired by most people. People in history have killed and gone to war over relationships.

No one has ever burnt a city to the ground over a skittle.

I knpw what the analogy means, it's exactly what I addressed above.

The analogy implies women only interact with men akin to a bowl of skittles at a party. They never meet them at work, they have no friends who know some they cab recommend, they literally only interact with the "bowl of skittles" in a discrete moment and must make their assessment explicitly and directly on dedicated time.

Which is a very incel way of thinking relationships work.

In reality the "bowl of skittles" is pretty much constantly being observable anytime you step outside the house, in fact it's pretty much impossible to not be swimming around in the bowl of Skittles anytime you step outside the house.

You don't have to specifically dedicate time to sit and study a skittle.

Furthermore the "studying a skittle" time is made out to be a labour intensive, solitary, strenuous activity in the analogy.

In reality we call that a date and most sane people consider such things to be quite fun and engaging, and in fact are often considered to be the best times of their life.

So to take something as fun and interesting as "going on a date with a potential partner" and turn it into "studying and dissecting a skittle", signals pretty big incel terminally online energy.

It's what makes the person talking about it sound bitter and lonely, and like they've never actually gone out on a real date. Normal sane people in real life dont view dating like that.

If you had a bowl of Skittles, and you were told that one of those Skittles was poisonous, would you dissect and study and take hours and hours to understand which one of the Skittles was going to do it? No. You would dump out the bowl. You would walk away,

Analogy would only make sense if:

1. A person's desire for partnership and a relationship over many many years in a LTR, could be compared to a person's desire to eat 1 single skittle.

2. You worked with, encountered, hung out with, and met with countless skittles every year.

3. All your circle of trusted friends new skittles that they could personally recommend or vouch against, helping out a lot with the initial analysis work for that given skittle.

None of this is the case, so it's a stupid analogy.

In reality all the above does apply to dating.

Unless you literally never go outside, never participate in anything, don't have a job, and order delivery for everything, its stupid to compare.

It's also dumb because it tells single women trying to find someone to connect with, that their deep troubling loneliness and sense of disconnect, is comparable to eating 1 single skittle.

Which is pretty disparaging in my opinion, I'd be pretty annoyed if someone tried to tell me that my deep longing ache in my chest was no more painful than someone not being able to eat a skittle.

Fuck that analogy, it's patronizing towards women and treats them like idiots, and minimizes/invalidates single women experiencing loneliness/heartache.

I always just assume this analogy is only made by bitter incels who want to sour grapes the dating experience as a way to justify the fact no one wants to date them. You see it used just as often by incel men and women.

That and literal teenagers who are just terminally online and haven't even participated in a real dating scene yet.

If true, sounds kinda personal and will prolly result in repercussions.

But the fact so many MAGA idiots were acting violent towards FEMA operatives prolly is enough to justify it. Can't blame em, if a group of people are actively fighting against your help then it's better to not waste time/energy/safety on em.

I heard shit about MAGA idiots pulling out guns on FEMA folks, that's fucked up lol

She didn't become a millionaire afaik.

She has a podcast that's slightly popular and was already well off.

Anon might stop feeling so jealous if they perhaps stopped making up random facts, or believing lies on the internet?

But they also know that 99% of rapists are men, and 91% of victims are women, that added to the aforementioned 1 in 6~ women that will have been raped in their lifetime means they are gambling just being alone with a man.

1 in 6 sexually assaulted, not raped, to start. Which is still way too high but don't get it twisted.

Second, these 2 numbers actually have no functional relation to the odds of a random man being a rapist.

If you have 1000 people (500/500 men/women) and 1 of them is a rapist, and a man, you could say "100% of the rapists in this group are men"

Which is true, but what you actually care about is, in that case, only 1/500 of men in that crowd are a rapist.

As for the 1/6 women are assaulted, it's a similiar issue.

If that 1 man proceeds to rape 50 women, you now could say (and be totally correct) that:

• 100% of the crowds rapists are men
• 100% of the victims were women
• 1 in 10 women got raped

But all of that actually is missing the fact that in reality, if one of those women picked a man at random to be alone with, it'd only be a 1 in 500 chance she got the rapist.

Now. These are obviously hyperbole facts to demonstrate the mathematical hole.

Let's find out the actual number then...

David Lisak's research probably gives us the best estimate at around 1 in 16. Which is still quite high, but it is also very far away from numbers like "91%" or "1 in 6"

So now you're looking at a 1 in 16 chance of a randomly selected man being sexually violent.

This suddenly starts to demonstrate how the "I'd choose the bear" statement comes across as sexist.

Because choosing a bear signals a vastly hyperinflated representation of the risk of a man.

This is, indeed, sexist. You're taking the actions of a small minority of men and casting their actions over the average.

That, my friend, is textbook bigotry.

The reality is the vast vast majority of men (~94%) aren't sexually violent and perfectly normal people who would be helpful and good to have around for survival.

If you seriously don't see casting the 6%'s actions as a negative generalization on the other 94% as sexist, then I think you gotta go reflect on that for a bit.

What you are continuing to fail at is that I get the point.

I'm saying that the point is being conveyed atop a sexist mechanism

You might find this wild, but a cry fir help can simultaneously be sexist. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

You are arguing about what is being conveyed on the mechanism.

I am arguing the mechanism being used itself is a shitty one

Things can be more than one thing at the same time, which is tough for some people to understand I guess.

If you continue to keep trying to argue that a sexist post being a "cry for help" somehow nullifies it's sexism, then you will continue to make zero progress here and, more importantly, you'll continue to keep being part of the problem

I'm talking about electronic counting machines. Which have been repeatedly demonstrated to be far more accurate than counting by hand.

I haven't met anyone yet who was pro Trump and didn't have a "fuck Trudeau" bumper sticker or flag or whatever.

But I do live in Alberta where there are just straight up genuinely people, in droves, that are pro trump antivax idiots.

The other day several people all in a group tried to convince me that electronic voting was unreliable and only hand counting votes could be relied on...

I love my province, but I feel an incredible sadness for most of the people that live here.

And how would you react to if a TERF posted the same thing but changed it to a trans woman instead of a man?

Still a woman posting about her fear of being raped.

But now you maybe see how fucking awful ot sounds, right? How it makes you sound super bigoted, perhaps?

All that typing but you wouldn't write it.

Deep down inside you know it's a sexist statement, but you'll twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify it.

It's sexist, get over it and just admit it. It's a shitty thing to say.

Fear is fear, you can't pretend justifying sexism with fear is any better or worse than justifying racism with fear or justifying any other type of bigotry with fear.

If some TERF shithead posted "I'd feel safer alone in the woods with a bear than with a trans woman in the bathroom" or some shit you know how bad that would be.

You have to sit and look in the mirror and confront the fact that you think sexism directed towards men "doesn't count".

It does. And until the general public wraps their heads around what should be a very simple concept, shitheads like Trump are going to keep getting elected by reactionaries

No, I know what it is. Hyperbole when taken too far is just a fancy way to dress up sexism/racism.

The litmus test here is so easy.

Replace "man" with "black man" and repeat the phrase, tell me if it's still something you'd say out loud amongst friends or not.

Suddenly doesn't sound so paletteble does it? Maybe sounds kinda racist?

Literally anytime you wanna try and argue if a phrase maybe is problematic, and you wanna try and argue that because the subject is "men" makes it lt count, just change it to "black men" and double check it didn't suddenly become super fuckin racist sounding.

If it did, it always was sexist.