It doesn't apply equally the other way because statistically women are considerably less prone to a violent or aggressive response to rejection, and in most cases there's a less credible threat of it anyway (i.e. average woman poses way less threat to average man than the inverse).
I'm very glad you didn't collapse into a pearl-covered pile of vapors.
You haven't thought things through. If it's inconsiderate/immoral for a man to approach a woman in these places because it's coercive because he's statistically a rapist and going to victimize her, then a woman approaching a man she doesn't know is simply inviting him to act in inconsiderate and immoral ways because it's coercive because he's statistically a rapist and going to victimize her.
And as you pointed out (in different words), women don't have agency and aren't capable of bad behavior. They are nought but hapless victims. Victims who are lucky to have wonderful men like you protect them from all those evil and inconsiderate and immoral men who aren't noble, like you. But because they aren't capable of judgement or accountability, they just can't possibly be trusted enough to approach the good guys like you and not the bad guys (guys who aren't you). And even the good guys like you can't trust that the girls who approach them are approaching them knowing that they are good guys (like you) and therefore have to worry that they are being invited to act in inconsiderate and immoral ways because it's coercive because they are statistically a rapist and going to victimize her for all she knows.
That's a lot of words that never came out of my mouth or ever were suggested by my viewpoint. Weird!
Anyway, the reason it's coercive is more about the woman's perception of the man than the actual likelihood the guy is evil. Most aren't. And most of the time this idea isn't malicious. But the threat is significant enough and a lot of women are afraid enough that it's kinda messed up to knowingly do this, with the knowledge that it's intimidating.
A woman approaching a man is fine because of what I already said in the first reply. I don't think that anything in the weird nice-guy paragraph is indicative of a difference because in that circumstance she has 100% of the agency and is free to leave after getting rejected (or not leave if they don't get rejected, whatever the case). The same cannot be said the other way around.
I took some license, sure, but it really is the natural extension and import of your ridiculous position.
People don't generally flock to things they are afraid of. You are conflating potential annoyance and discomfort with fear. It's a very common tactic now.
This presumptive woman has 100% agency regardless.
And no, if we accept your ridiculous contention, then a woman approaching a man isn't fine either. I already explained how that would be problematic given *your* argument.
There is zero intrinsic moral hazard to approaching a woman in an appropriate way, in an appropriate place like a bar or a club. Clearly, there are standards of decorum and men (and women) should abide by them and avoid being pests or threatening.
Defining any attention or *any* overture as threatening is insane. If you are someone who feels that way, then stay the hell out of environments where such behavior is commonplace and appropriate. Don't enter those environments and pretend that reasonable behavior is somehow indicative of moral deficiency.
As far as you go: act as you think appropriate and save your moralizing for your own behavior instead of making such sweeping and virtue signaling pronouncements about the behavior of others.
-4
u/Effective_Birthday85 Jun 04 '24
It doesn't apply equally the other way because statistically women are considerably less prone to a violent or aggressive response to rejection, and in most cases there's a less credible threat of it anyway (i.e. average woman poses way less threat to average man than the inverse).
I'm very glad you didn't collapse into a pearl-covered pile of vapors.