Snakes

Here's everyone's daily reminder that, in the US at least, 40% of rapists are women, and fully half of rape victims are men.
- Why is that pertinent to this meme?
  
  ::: TW: Discussion of sexual assault, rape, penetration, math
  Ooooh, actually, I made the mistake of looking at where that claim came from, and it came from a comment they made. In it, for evidence of their math, they link to this article. The article is... something, but I'm setting that aside because the claim the article makes is patently incorrect; the data comes from this surveillance study at the CDC. (Got the link from the article, trying to leave an obvious path here.)
  The claim is that the numbers are artificially uncoupled because the rape statistics for men don't include forced penetration of another person, where the male is the victim. However, this is a line directly from the Results paragraph-
  "An estimated 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetimes, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences. The percentages of women and men who experienced these other forms of sexual violence victimization in the 12 months preceding the survey were an estimated 5.5% and 5.1%, respectively."
  Emphasis mine.
  The main premise of the Time article, that the report doesn't include being made to penetrate is false. The 40% number isn't backed up here, either, and the thing that the Time article is linking for it's evidence is a summary of a series of phone surveys! It's kind of an update-to-the-data thing... Why bother citing a random summary when we can just refer to the wholesale data the CDC was updating?
  Since we clearly value the CDC reporting (since that was the only source used in the previous Time article), I'll use them!
  Here's a webpage, from the CDC, titled 'About Sexual Violence.' Surprising perhaps no one, it states unequivocally the following:
  Over half of women and almost one in three men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes.
  Still concerned that the number here isn't representing men being forced to penetrate someone? Well that CDC page has, after that sentence, a citation of a study- one done also by the CDC- but the weird thing is, they didn't hyperlink it. That's okay, they included the name of the study and the people who did the study, so I was able to find a PDF of the information, and now, you can view it here if you like as well. For clarity's sake, this is titled, "The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017 Report on Sexual Violence." And in it, it defines sexual violence-
  This report addresses five types of sexual violence. They include rape, being made to penetrate someone else (males only), sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and sexual harassment in a public place.
  Why is this important? Because if you add together the 12.6 million men who reported being made to penetrate someone in his lifetime to the 4.5 million men who reported completed or attempted rape victimization at some point in his lifetime you'd get 17.1 million. We'll assume that every single one of those victimizations was a woman assaulting a man with zero male on male aggression.
  Your claim was that 40% of all rapes were female. Let's roll this math forward.
  Same page, 33.5 million women claim completed or attempted rape at some point in their entire lifetime (I have chosen to leave out any other types of sexual violence against women, to try and make this a more even thing, because I am actually trying to get as close to a good-faith number here as possible). Hm. Total victims here, 50.6 million, of that 50.6 million, we are generously saying 17.1 million are male (no overlap, straight math, all assaults and penetrations are counted separate).
  33.79% of all victims of physical contact, sexual assault, were male, leaving 66.2% to be female. This does not support that 40% of all rapists are women.
  Do I think that male numbers are underreported? Yes. I also think female numbers are underreported. I never reported any of the terrible things that happened to me, and I'm a woman- I know other women who have said the same thing. But misrepresenting these numbers helps no one, and inserting an article where someone claims erroneously that these numbers don't reflect reality, and using that as your only source, really doesn't help. If we want to help, we have to provide factual, no-nonsense information, and we have to provide resources for survivors, not skew information to try and make the awful, awful reality look different than it is.
  TL;DR- No, it's not 40% of rapists are women. Closer to 34%, and that's assuming a lot of things to favor a higher number being perpetrated by women.
  Edited to add- I forgot a sentence that was kind of important, and also I cleaned up the language a bit. And then I edited it because I realized I'd left some language in there that, without the bit I cut that was after it, looked like I was minimizing rape, which was not my intention.
  :::

Reminds me of when Donald Trump Jr. compared Syrian refugees to a bowl of M&Ms with some of them poisoned. Same argument, same mindset.

I'm just reading this thread and finding it hilarious how many are triggered by this. The post isn't even saying "all men" do anything, it's specifically pointing out a small subset of men.
- I like to think about Lemmy comments as coming from 30 of my closest autistic friends.

I'm going to ignore the most heinous aspects of this and just say, I'd love to be introduced to a variety of venomous and non-venomous snakes and would likely find it to be a pretty cool experience. Snakes are neat and the venomous ones are often beautiful and fascinating.
- Have some empathy for the large amount of regular dudes that wouldn't hurt a fly but constantly get lobbed in with rapists and pedos.

This comment section is amazing. Good job all

So we're fixing the division along gender lines by becoming... more divided?
Feels like the insinuation here is that, as a woman, it's acceptable to base your personality on men as long as you believe all men base their personalities on hating women.
Maybe just accept that humans are complicated and nuanced and you can't judge an entire gender based on the actions of the worst members of that gender.

I understand the problem people have with men and more specifically toxic masculinity, but this gender wars bullshit only serves to further separate people. What's the purpose of saying "men are rapists" or "men are violent"? It's fine in the context of venting/talking with people facing similar problems, but because it entirely misses the sociological causes, it can cause people come to incorrect conclusions like "kill all men" or "all men are inherently bad because..." which essentialises their gender.
Men aren't inherently bad. It's patriarchy and toxic masculinity that you should be upset at - two sides of the same coin, really.

And some of them are poisonous. You need to eat snakes to procreate.

I think the point is that people who say (shout) "Not All Men" are usually frustratingly insensitive and the thought of throwing them into a snake pit is fun. We know it's not all men, we aren't stupid, but we also know that even 1% would be one percent too many to feel safe alone with a stranger (and, unfortunately, statistics suggest harassment is certainly more than 1%!).
Well, most people aren't that stupid. There's a few who are, but I don't think they'd be posting here, lol.
That said, reading the comments, I get why some are offended even though being male is the privileged class in this comparison (after all, I don't feel afraid to walk home at 1am). Men are fucked by the patriarchy, told to repress their emotions, degrade people who break from masculinity, and so forth. But instead of saying "you're being sexist against men," please try to think of the systemic problems that led to that X% of assholes who make it unsafe for a woman (or POC, LGBTQ, etc) to walk alone on a street in America.
- after all, I don't feel afraid to walk home at 1am
  That is not because you are part of a "class". It might be your fully personal thing, it depends on your previous experiences, it depends on where you live or go (and this can also be an expression of being in a privileged social class), etc.
  Depending on where I go, I do not feel safe walking alone all the time. I do not consider being sexually assaulted among the possibilities, but instead perhaps being mugged, or be bothered by someone looking for trouble or wanting to feel "alpha male" (as someone who grew up in rough neighborhoods, this is way too common during teen years).
  I really don't understand where this idea that males have the privilege of going outside without ever worrying about anything comes from. I have seen it multiple times in discussions around this topic.
  
  There can be multiple factors, we call it intersectionality. You're feeling unsafe because of social class or nationality or another factor. That does not mean you do not benefit from being male in a world ultimately built around men. That's why people use the term privilege, since you have at least one advantage (others could include health, straightness, etc). And fortunately it's less of an advantage today than it was a hundred years ago.
  And that's not to say life is perfect under that category-- I literally just mentioned some men's issues. I'm just not exactly worried about someone stalking or kidnapping me over it.

There’s no progressive form of sexism
- Except calling people incels for disagreeing with you
  
  Except calling people incels for disagreeing with you
  Sounds like something an incel would say.
  
  Better than an orangutan fucking an onion.

Like, I really understand where this is coming and I see why it's that way. But I'm also really tired of being seen as a threat just because my way home seems to have some overlap. How do I react to make clear I'm not interested in rape, violence, stalking, whatever? I just want to get home to my dogs, there's no need to prepare your keys to gouge my eyes out.
- ... there's no need to prepare your keys to gouge my eyes out.
  When I see women do this around me, I feel a little glad for them that they don't need to do this and a little sad they don't (and really can't) know that they don't need to do this.
  I understand feeling hurt that someone might be afraid of me, but that gets erased when I exercise a little empathy for that person who is afraid.
- Unfortunately, there's no one stop shop or one size fits all solution to this, I think. If there were, bad actors would abuse it and it wouldn't work anymore. If you're around people regularly and you'd like them to know you're no threat, getting to know them in a neighborly fashion might help a bit, but I'm afraid that in general we're just dealing with a mass erosion of trust in general.
- But isn't that also true with snakes? All of the times that I've stumbled across copperheads or rattlesnakes, they've just wanted to do their thing, and go on their way. They didn't want to bite me. And 99.999% of the time, as long as you back off, the snake isn't going to do anything.
  ...Except there's that .001% of the time when a snake is going to chase someone, and attack them. And that makes everyone terrified of all snakes, because they never know which one is going to be that .001%.
  It's understandable, but it's not fair, and yeah, it sucks to have people think you're a threat when you're trying hard not to be.
- Ditto: I literally take pubic transit to work every single day and every single time I hop off I hop off with these 2 other ladies, and they always pretend to check their bag so that I walk ahead of them and they can see me.
  I totally understand why they do that but it still is just dehumanizing to me, specially after literal years of getting off at the same stop.
  
  If it's the same two women every day then you could say hello and introduce yourself?
- In all seriousness, what are men supposed to do with this besides feel bad?
  Or is that the point?
  
  If it's not about you then don't worry about it
  
  On top of not suggesting that making men feel bad is the point (it's not), this comment seems to provide helpful tips: https://reddthat.com/comment/18247122
  What I'd also recommend is being an ally to women in your life already. If women felt more male allyship during the inside/day, then maybe they'd be less fearful of men outside/at night.
  
  Not getting mad when someone feels threatened by you is a pretty good start.
- Run up to them, and announce that you don't intend to harm them and then ask where they live so you can safely escort them home.
- This constant promotion of the sense of fear is one of the biggest ways we destroy any sense of local community.
- Just avoid looking at anyone for longer than a second or two, but don't try to look like you are avoiding looking at anyone. If in close proximity, acknowledge their existence and then focus on something else. If they start conversing, reciprocate but do not try to keep the conversation going if it trails off. If they don't appear to open to a conversation and you are in close proximity, a small nod to indicate you noticed them and then changing your focus is a really good way to indicate you noticed them, but are not interested in interacting with them.
  This really puts victims at ease. I mean strangers. Yeah, strangers.
  Seriously though, just existing in the same space and not forcing interaction does put people at ease. Being overly friendly or acting like you are trying to avoid noticing their existence is suspicious for good reasons.
  
  So I have to run through a check list for every single encounter I have just to not be treated like an animal. I can't just exist and go about my life? I mean, I don't see this helping the problem.
  
  Me: exist without an extensive list of precautions.
  Women: oh no!
  But to be honest, I've stopped looking at people at all because this costs me so much energy and at some time I just gave up. If this makes me look like a threat then I'm sorry.
  
  You say that like a joke but that is unironically what I do. Am I an idiot?
- Yikes - no, not at all.
  If it’s late, separate yourself from anyone else that might be a threat to you or your safety. Don’t encroach on peoples’ personal bubbles. Be aware of someone encroaching upon your own.
  Walk swiftly, with a purpose and destination in mind. Be aware. If you notice that you’re inadvertently following someone after a while (it doesn’t matter what their gender is), consider an alternate route, or find somewhere to divert for a period of time — as a courtesy. It’s not going to become some new form of societal expectation.
  Expecting everyone in the world to behave in some specific way that you personally believe is asinine. You cannot control what other people are going to do, you can only control your reactions.
  
  If its late at night and a woman is walking in front of you, lower your speed. Let them get some extra distance. Then its not so awkward for you going the same way either.
  I'm going to disagree because then it seems like you are following them. Changing your behavior because they are present is paying a lot of attention to them.
  Acknowledging them, maybe stating where you are going without asking where they are going, and passing at the same speed has been very successful in my experience. The worst reaction I ever received was "I don't care where you are going" which means they were comfortable giving me grief. The best reaction, which has happened a few times over the years, was a response that they were going the same way and asking to walk with me.
  
  I generally walk faster then other people, so that'll be a hard one. I get really irritated at work when people won't get the fuck out of the walkway.
- You see, some people just hate men. You can't really change their opinion, they're just trash people.
  
  Hating and fearing are not the same
- But counterpoint; why do you care what other people feel around you? The best response to women scared you're going to rape them is to not rape them.
  Anything past that is your own insecurity and need for emotional validation. Sure, you could devote time and energy into being an activist in whatever forms you want, but some strange lady you don't know is still going to cut across the sidewalk when they see you approaching. AND YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. DEAL WITH IT.
  Men "overcompensating" for this valid fear is what's driving movements of really stupid, shitty men who like to roleplay stories on reddit how they had the cops called on them for hanging out near a playground. We don't need to do this. Make the world better, make your emotional state better. Don't worry what other people feel or think, you will never be broadly loved by everyone, or even broadly accepted by everyone. You'll be lucky if you have several people in your ENTIRE LIFE who trust you. That's the sticks. Sorry kid.
  
  Bad take, you're dismissing society's effect on the psyche of many men by saying these things

That'd work until you happen to get a reptile enthusiast on the show that can recognize the species, at which point you just have a show of a guy completely missing the point whilst nerding out over snakes.
- I would like to nerd out over snakes please
- I would watch that show. 😉
- Not a reptile enthusiast, but knowledgeable enough to know a few things about them.
  A well fed snake, hell most snakes (not all, some constrictors you don't want to fuck with) won't see a human as food, and won't attack unless provoked. Don't sneak up on a snake, don't step on a snake, don't harass a snake and it won't give 2 fucks about your presence.
  A venomous snake usually (there's always an exception) has a "neck", if you can see where it's head ends and it's body begins it's more likely venomous than it's danger noodle looking counterpart.
  
  There are a lot of exceptions. Most of them, as it happens.
  Vipers have that "neck" and a wider head than their bodies. Elapids typically don't, and can be extremely venomous. In fact, the most deadly venomous snakes in the world are elapids including cobras, taipans, and black mambas.
  Tl;dr: Rarely wise to step on snek.
  
  If red touches black, you're ok, Jack.
  If red touches yellow, you're a dead fellow.
  This aphorism only works in North America, but it is a pretty reliable way to determine the difference between a coral snake... and a milk snake, also many other kinds of similar looking, non venomous snakes.
  You may note that the milk snake has a bit more of a defined neck, head vs body seperation, than the venomous coral snake... which ... would mean if you followed your rule, you may end up a dead fellow.
  ...
  Now... many, venomous snakes make some kind of an alert sound, a hiss or rattle or someother bodily mechanism of saying 'back the fuck up'.
  But not all of them.
  ... and a great many venomous snakes... well they hide in the shrubbery and tall grasses, meaning you can easily accidentally come upon one if you're moving through brushland, or a wetland...
  You're right that you should never intentionally sneak up on a snake... but... it is usually more like accidentally happen to be too close to one, hear the alert sound, waaay too close to be comfortable... and then you fucking freeze, try to figure out where exactly it is by your ears alone, and then very, very slowly back away untill you can't hear the rattle anymore.
  At least thats what I did when that happened to me, and I lived, to insufferably recount the tale as I am now, lol.
  There's... only one kind of rattlesnake in Eastern Washington state.
  And it is venomous.
  Say hello to my missed connection:
  But hey, your 'does it have a neck' rule works for this one!
  Too bad I never saw it, at all... its got pretty good camoflauge for the one to two feet tall grasses and shrubs it resides in.
  Snake bites are of course, overall, a very uncommon thing for most people to be worried about... but if you are regularly involved in some kind of outdoor activity, or just kinda live out in the sticks, or are renting an AirBnB out there... you should probably familiarize yourself with the local wildlife.
  ...
  As a final note, I am not any kind of snake expert at all.
  But I do know that if you are, then the actual word for that is... Herpetologist. Expert in Herpetology.
  Consult your local Herpetologist before you derp around in the badlands, lol.
  ...
  EDIT: Final addendum: Female snakes often tend be considerably more pissy, apt to warn and stike, when they are in heat.
  
  that rule has so many exceptions that it's better to assume they are all dangerous
- Count me in!

Let's play a game. Swap the demographic to see if it's sexist.
"Men are rapists"
Now let's swap it out for a different demographic.
"Black people are rapists"
Wow, turns out y'all are a bunch of sexist pigs.
- None of this kind of discussion is intelligent.
  The correct reply is "Don't broadly generalize anyone."
  Clever swap-around games distract yourself from the point more than anything, and the people you're trying to present this to don't care about reasonable arguments OR racism.
  
  Well, yeah, that's the goal, and most people follow most of it. But for those people who have blind spots like op, that's the exercise you want to do to see if you're being an asshole.
  And it is a reasonable argument.
  
  Whoosh
- "Men are rapists" was nobody's point, "men are rapists" is the strawman on which "not all men" relies.
  
  "Men are rapists" was nobody's point
  Then why have I seen multiple adult women say that and mean it?
  I'm with you that the dude you're replying to is gross, but let's not pretend reality isnt what it is, yeah?
  
  If "men are rapists" isn't the point, then why say it? Y'all say one thing and keep claiming you mean something else. Maybe you guys are telling the truth the first time and just backpedaling when people call you out on your jackassery.
- Tbh it really just sounds like you wanted to type "black people are rapists"
  It's always "black" slotted in on this argument, especially in regards to sexual assault. Unless it's a reference to violence, then the comparison pulled out is usually "muslim."
  Ever notice that? I wonder why....
  
  Those examples are used because there is plenty of well-known racism and religion...ism (forgot the word) discussion along those lines. It's like asking why people use squares and circles as their go-to example shapes, it's part of the cultural consciousness. They're using those examples because they know people consider them to be racist, and using that to imply that "men are rapists" is similarly sexist. It's easy to twist this behavior into something problematic, but it's really not.
  
  Alright, how about "women are rapists"? Or "Muslims are rapists"? Or whatever oppressed demographic you want. LGBTQ, religious, whatever.
- We found a volunteer for the snake pit
  
  So you think black people are all snakes? That's pretty racist.

Guess we should fear all snakes then! Or all sharks! That hasn't lead to extreme fear based reactions where entire populations suffered because of fear due to a portion of the population being potentially dangerous.
The point about not knowing which one might be dangerous is a good point, but example is terrible. Use unsafe mechanical equipment or something instead.
- Dudes will queue to use unsafe mechanical equipment, while telling you "hold my beer".
  
  Set that beer on the unsafe mechanical equipment you damn amateurs!
- I mean, pretty good advice to just treat all unknown snakes/sharks like possibly dangerous people. Give them a wide berth and try not to draw their attention. Look for a place to retreat to if things become more dangerous. Try to calmly alert others that leaving the area may be best.
  
  I promise you I will always treat every shark like it might eat me (except the ones they let you play with at the aquarium, but there's a sign there that says it's okay.)

That's snakist.

It's a trap fellas! Playing with snakes is gay so you get boned whichever way you answer.
- Trouser snake!

You're baiting them again, @Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net.
- Oh good, there's one person I can block for this ragebait to disappear.
- I'm a master baiter
- I love nibbling on the bait!

How to differentiate between snakes easily: https://reptilestime.com/venomous-vs-non-venomous-snakes/
That said, snakes tend to avoid being visible, as they could become someone's lunch, so YMMV.
You can also tell if a bite is venomous by the marks (usually venomous snakes have fangs, non-venomous have teeth).
- This entire article is an irresponsibility stupid thing to put on the internet. It lacks the asterisk of "in North America" at the top because all it contains a is a list of halfassed ways to determine if you're looking at a viper or not, and for the most part rattlesnakes (which are pretty damn distinctive to begin with). True, many venomous snakes in North America are indeed vipers including copperheads, our several aforementioned varieties of rattlesnakes, and cottonmouths.
  But the most deadly of the snakes found in and around North America and indeed the rest of the world are not vipers; they're elapids or colubrids, which display few or none of these alleged telltales.
  For instance, here is a coral snake which is an elapid and one of the few snakes you'll encounter in the continental US that can absolutely kill you stone dead with its neurotoxic venom.
  Take note of the:
  Lack of triangular head
  Round pupils
  Fangs not visible
  No rattle
  Banded pattern
  Fairly blunt tail
  ...And it also has at least two very similar lookalikes which are not dangerous to humans, namely the milk snake and the kingsnake. So, are you absolutely sure which one you're looking at before you touch it? A better idea is, don't touch it.
  And outside of North America this is even worse advice because the rest of the world is absolutely rotten with deadly non-viperid snakes.
  
  Apart from the coloration this could just as well be a simple corn snake, which are absolutely harmless. Despite having owned (mildly venomous) snakes myself for years I still wouldn't touch any wild specimen without adequate protection.
  
  Red touches black, friend of Jack.
  Red touches yellow, kill a fellow.

Red next to black, jump the fuck back. Red and yella, cuddly fella.
- I know this is a joke, but for informational purposes, it's the opposite of what this guy said

Flip it around.
Dating show where the men have a one in six chance of being hooked up with a psychotic.
Now watch the guys who'd line up for a chance to be on the show.
- That's better odds than we normally get
  
  Thanks for proving my point

I heard it stated in a skit this way:
Person 1 "Not all men"
Person 2 "But enough of them"
- Let's do the usual exercise.
  Person 1 "Not all Women"
  Person 2 "But enough of them"
  Wow, turns out you're a sexist.
  
  This doesn't make sense as any kind of "gotcha."
  No, that's not an invitation to explain it. This whole post is pointless and stupid rage-bait.
  These are the kinds of mindless internet posts that have eroded our very society because it amplifies everyone's voices equally, and not all voices are equal. There are TONS of people we wouldn't listen to if we knew their agendas, their ages, their backgrounds or their investment in the topic.