Part 1: Introduction.

This is another perfect example of Feminist cakism, where people want to have it both ways. You can't say that only creepy men worry about false allegations or coming off as creepy. Feminists tell men that they have nothing to worry about if they are not creepy. Again the Kafka trap of society telling men that "oNlY cReEpY mEn wOrRy aBouT mAkInG wOmEn fEeL uNcOmFoRtaBe".

While also in the same breath say that women can't magically tell which men are good or bad. That men are statistically more violent. So women must be cautious, and assume all men are potential threats for their safety. This is why women say they give fake numbers, because they don't know how a man will react to the word no. Hence why they use phrases like "it's not all men, but it's always a man" or "It's not all men, but it's enough men". Or bear vs man.

The funny and ironic thing is that some feminists will tell men that a woman knows when a man is creepy or not. It's interesting how, whenever the topic of men not approaching women or interacting with women anymore comes up. This is when women's psychic powers start to kick-in, all of a sudden. Women all of a sudden can know what men they should avoid now (thinking emoji RN).

Part 2: Monolith argument.

And before you guys bring up the "women are not monolith" argument or the "another PPD man who thinks women are a hive mind" argument.

I'm going to use two arguments that debunk the monolith argument here.

A) Argument 1:

Even women themselves are treating women like a monolith, whenever they make these broad statements about what women like or dislike.

For example.

Sally: Women hate it men approach women. Because it's creepy and makes us feel uncomfortable. SO MEN STOP APPROACHING WOMEN.

Cindy: Women have no problem with men approaching them or shooting their shot. Men like you are just socially awkward and don't know how to talk to women because you have no game or rizz.

You know what Sally and Cindy have in common here? They both are acting like they speak for all women with their broad statements. So before you call me out for treating women like a monolith. Make sure you also call out women who treat women like a monolith too.

B) Argument 2.

The monolith argument ironically proves my point. Because what one woman considered flirting. Can easily be considered creepy by another woman. Especially when it's an attractive man "rizz" vs unattractive man "rizz" (there is actually a meme about this). Say it louder for the people in the back.

This is why

Point A) Feminists calling men paranoid, autistic, or Incels for being afraid to approach women or interact with women.

absolutely contradicts

Point B) Women saying they can't magically know which men are good or bad, therefore they must be cautious with their safety, and assume all men are potential threats.

It's actually common for women to get pissed whenever a man responds with "Not all men" or "I'm not a creepy guy". They will tell that man that women have no way of knowing if a man is a nice person or a creepy dude. So again women must be cautious, and assumeALL MEN are potential threats. Because it's better to be sorry than harmed. RIGHT?

  So from a man perspective. Why in the world wouldn't a man be cautious about approaching a woman who might view them as a potential threat?

You can’t call men paranoid for avoiding women, then also tell women they should fear men. Those messages can’t coexist without hypocrisy.

Part 3: The Status Quo Of Male Gender Roles.

Let's cut the BS here. And talk about the elephant in the room. We all know why this gender paradox is happening in the first place.

Again this is related to Feminist cakism. Wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

They want to push this misandrist narrative of men being violent predators, and women choosing bears over men because men are so scary.

But at the same time they still want to hold onto traditional male gender roles (I.E. the status quo). Where men must still be expected to approach or pursue women.

Again this whole paradox exists because feminism wants to have it both ways. They paint men as dangerous predators, yet still expect those same men to confidently pursue and approach women like it’s the 1950s.

They’ll hide behind excuses like “men are just being paranoid,” or “this is about combating misogyny.” But the truth is, men’s caution is a rational response to mixed social messaging. Then they’ll shift the blame again, saying women are losing workplace opportunities because men won’t interact with them. It’s the same pattern, shaming men for the symptoms of a culture they themselves created. You can’t demand caution and confidence from men at the same time without creating contradictions.

In conclusion.

I’m not saying women shouldn’t feel cautious. I’m saying it’s contradictory to shame men for being cautious about that caution. If women are told to assume danger until proven safe, then it’s perfectly rational for men to assume social risk until proven safe too.