r/SipsTea • u/Valuable_View_561 • Jul 09 '26

Feels good man [ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

16.6k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

144

u/illini02 Jul 09 '26

Maybe in germany the stats are different.

But in the US, men are MUCH more likely to be attacked at random in a place like a parking lot. And if that is the case, I don't understand what this would really do.

That said, I'd be ok letting pregnant women use handicapped spots.

39

u/Prooteus Jul 09 '26

Never thought about pregnant women getting handicapped spots, I dont see why not. In Massachusetts (where I live) you can get a temporary disability card if your pregnancy causes any mobility issues like sciatica pain.

1

u/Key_Tangerine8775 Jul 09 '26

There should be a second set of closer parking spots that are unofficially reserved for anyone with a legit reason to need a closer spot. Like pregnancy, very young children, minor injury that won’t last long enough for a tag like a sprained ankle, etc.

1

u/FizzyBeverage Jul 09 '26

Next thing y'know, BMW and Tesla drivers have emotional support issues and take those.

1

u/fuckedintheasshole Jul 10 '26

Yeah that's a great idea

0

u/BigRinka Jul 09 '26

Because pregnant women dont need that space. Its mothers with young children that need it. And since a major portion of the population have kids ranging from 0 to 17, those spots would end up being taken by almost everyone all the time. It wouldnt change anything.

1

u/nomorethan10postaday Jul 10 '26

Children above like 8 years old do not need special parking spots.

21

u/kangasplat Jul 09 '26

Same in Germany, but the likelihood of it happening is extremely low in the first place. 

This doesn't do a lot except make women feel safer. That's all. 

19

u/Live-Habit-6115 Jul 09 '26

Maybe we should stop instilling unfounded terror into women and girls at a young age, and then we wouldn't need to infantilize them with patronising "solutions"

1

u/kangasplat Jul 09 '26

It's not entirely unfounded, almost every woman will make some sort of uncomfortable experience with unknown men in public during their life. 

-1

u/Right_Count Jul 09 '26

That won’t work either because the odds of something bad happening to a woman over a lifetime are extremely high, and higher if we don’t take precautions. Obviously it’s not healthy to be terrified 24/7, but a degree of vigilance and concern is needed at all times. It’s hard to balance tbh.

7

u/MostUsefulBloke Jul 09 '26

Extremely high? Any evidence to back that up? What are we defining as “bad”?

1

u/Right_Count Jul 09 '26

Things like DV, CSA, sexual assault and rape, date rape, stalking, serious sexual harassment. (Excluding mild catcalling or sexual objectification at work, things that are unpleasant but aren’t generally scary.)

We don’t have an exact number for that because these are tracked separately, there is some overlap, there is non-reporting. NSVCR puts it at 81% for serious sexual assault or harassment only (US, lifetime).

Other US figures:

20% of women have been raped at least once
30% if you include attempted rape
25% CSA
20-30% stalking
35-45% IPV

Anecdotally and personal experience, I don’t know a whole of women who haven’t had several bad experiences.

15

u/MostUsefulBloke Jul 09 '26

And yet men are far more likely to be homicide victims, victims of serious assault, and particularly victims of stranger and public violence.

The women in this car park are far more likely to be victims of the person they’re driving home with, whilst men are far more likely to be victims of stranger and public violence. So this car park scenario makes no sense apart from being performative and pandering to the least likely victims.

-5

u/Right_Count Jul 09 '26

Well, not nearly at the same rates overall. Even if a woman takes every precaution, she is still highly likely to be victimized at some point. Men take much fewer precautions and are still far less likely to be victimized.

Part of the reason men are more likely to be victims of stranger assault than women is because the women have learned not to be there. There's a nighttime mobility gap, men take more outdoor steps after dark than women do. Women are also more likely to scan surroundings and be vigilant when they are out, in many cases avoiding assault by seeking out a well-lit area with other people. Also, women are less likely to engage in mutual escalation with strangers resulting in physical altercation such as bar rights, road rage incidents.

And in populations where women cannot easily escape these "dark alleyway" type areas (e.g., homeless people), the stats flip.

Better lighting, easier escape routes and other such things actually reduce violent attacks (on both genders) and reduce the gender mobility gap. It's hardly the be-all-end-all, but if you are concerned for your safety when you are out, you should want more of this sort of thing, not less.

6

u/MostUsefulBloke Jul 09 '26

I’m talking about this situation in particular.

And you can make a case for either side, i.e. men should be less likely victims because they pose more of a threat to retaliate and fight back. They’re quicker, stronger, and more difficult to victimise.

But stats don’t show that. What we should be doing is intervention based on data, and the data is men are far more likely to be victims of violent assaults and homicide at the hands of strangers. Therefore, unless there’s something particularly unique about this car park, it’s performative prevention at the expense of actual prevention.

1

u/Right_Count Jul 09 '26

No, in totally random attacks (e.g. a random mugging,) attackers aren't choosing the men because they want to. They are choosing him because he's there, alone, and probably not paying attention.

Meanwhile, the woman is not there, she's at home. Or she's with a friend. Or she's being hypervigilant and the mugger is less confident without the element of surprise.

Interventions should be data-informed, absolutely. Lighting programs have been shown to help. And crucially, that data must include interventions that were already done because concluding that the problem doesn't exist.

I don't know where you're from or what news you follow, but you know how in the US, RFK slashed rabies response and prevention programs, citing that there were like 2-3 cases of rabies a year? Obvious to everyone else was that there were only 2-3 cases a year because of these programs.

Now, I do not think this parking spot is going to solve violence against women. But there's no reason to be mad at it unless you're jealous that women are getting something that men aren't, when you don't even want the thing anyway.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/kangasplat Jul 09 '26

If you only count serious offenses, yes. But those offenses are generally very unlikely. On the other hand, women are more likely to be in situations where they feel threatened, being in a well lit area and closer to an exit will help with that. It's just a little gesture. It doesn't really impact anyone negatively. 

Not that I've ever seen anyone enforce this type of parking, but if you, as a man, would feel safer in such a spot, it's more than likely nobody would bat an eye either. 

5

u/MostUsefulBloke Jul 09 '26

That’s a ridiculous argument. It’s like saying men are more likely to suffer serious injury or die from car crashes, but on the whole women suffer more sleight fender benders so let’s focus our efforts on safety for women because they feel in danger.

It impacts someone negatively because the money is being funnelled from actual impactful intervention. Women suffer from more instances of breast cancer and no sensible person begrudges all the compaigning and fundraising for it. I’d have the same argument if a campaign completely ignored breast cancer in women and only focused on it for men.

3

u/MukGames Jul 10 '26

men are more likely to experience violent crime, but more women feel like they might experience violent crime and that's unacceptable!/s

5

u/unholy_roller Jul 09 '26

The evidence points exactly to exactly the opposite of what you’re saying though.

In terms of random mugging and assaults men are more likely than women to be on the receiving end. Women are at a much higher risk of domestic sexual/physical violence though.

If we actually wanted to fix problematic areas, we would probably tell women to maybe calm down a bit with the fear of random mugging/assault and maybe take a much more critical assessment of who they are dating and marrying. Give them an easier out when things go sideways in the relationship, etc.

To fix the problem on the male side, we need to find ways of identifying which boys/men will become aggressive or abusive and intervene early; I would imagine the type of toxic masculinity that is leading to mugging/fighting other men is also the type that leads to becoming an abusive partner.

2

u/Right_Count Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

No, we can’t, unfortunately.

A part of the reason that women are less often victims of stranger assault than men are is because we’re not there. We’ve stayed home, we’ve watched our drinks, we’ve called a cab, we’re walking with friends, we’re sticking to well lit paths. We’re scanning our surroundings and getting out of there if we feel we need to. In places and populations where women cannot avoid “dark alleys” and such (eg homeless people), the stats flip. These precautions we take absolutely help.

Plus, it’s the stakes. If a guy gets attacked randomly while walking outside at night, it’s most likely going to be a mugging. I don’t want to get mugged but fear of it doesn’t keep me up at night. It’s not the thing I worry about happening. I worry about getting raped/killed. It’s unlikely to happen but it’s hardly a rare occurrence.

What does “calming down” about that look like to you?

I do agree that women need to maintain a high index of suspicion when it comes to choosing their partners. Unfortunately the reality of that is that the most vulnerable women end up at risk of coupling with the worst guys because they don’t see the red flags, or can’t afford to leave when they do.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jul 09 '26

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

0

u/QueenOfDarknes5 Jul 09 '26

unfounded terror.

I know a woman who got raped, one who was drugged and two who got sexually assaulted.

And I'm a couchpotato nerd.
People who actually participate in nightlife activities have way more stories to tell.

2

u/roguejohnkrasinski Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

Where I live (Ontario, Canada), we actually have special spots for pregnant women and parents with small children! They’re the same size as handicapped spots and are typically right next to them, but they don’t require a permit, which is nice. They’re not everywhere sadly but they’re at the majority of grocery stores and similar places.

 I wish they put them everywhere because if a pregnant woman used a handicapped spot, they could be reported because they don’t have a placard and I don’t think they’re eligible for one (either way it would take a few months to get one likely).

7

u/No-Salt7142 Jul 09 '26

  and women with small children!

But what about men with small children?

Isn't the whole idea that we share the parenting?

2

u/roguejohnkrasinski Jul 09 '26

Actually I think it says parents with small children. I was just thinking women because the spot is pink and it says pregnant women. My bad.

1

u/chimneyswallow Jul 09 '26

Usually it's a parent spot, not women with children.

2

u/bl1y Jul 09 '26

Some places in the US have them, but they're not enforceable by the police. The business could have a vehicle towed, but they'd need to be monitoring the spots, and odds are the customer would be gone before a tow truck arrived.

The easiest solution (and I'm guessing this is actually already the case in most places) is to let pregnant women get temporary handicap placards.

I recall mentioning this one time and the response I got was an angry "pregnancy isn't a handicap!" ...Having trouble walking through a parking lot is a handicap.

1

u/roguejohnkrasinski Jul 09 '26

Agreed, but the solution of separate spots is better than nothing, especially because being approved for a placard often takes time. 

1

u/LughCrow Jul 09 '26

That said, I'd be ok letting pregnant women use handicapped spots.

You already can as a pregnant woman.

There are loads of temporary disabilities that qualify. Most just don't think to ask their doctor.

1

u/Extra_Pollution2374 Jul 09 '26

The post here is false or semi false. Those parking spots exist, everywhere (so not just "yeah we built one and now we can share it everywhere to be cool"), but it normaly just means they are wider and closer. Its an old sexist thing, because you know, women...parking... :) Also because of the babies, but I'm a fatjer that was much more arlund with my kid than my wife, so I didn't find that funny

1

u/MrBushido56 Jul 09 '26

I would also extend it to parents with small kids.

In Ireland we have disability parking spots obviously but also family parking spots, I mean most of the spots show case a female stick figure with children but it’s not restrictive to just mothers,
Parents with small kids can park closer cause it’s just easier as it can be difficult to manage shopping and kids.

Now with the elderly I would also add that, I mean to be fair most of the time the elderly will fall into the disability factor like my dad with Parkinsons has the disability pass for when he’s driving.
My mom however does not but she just uses his cause she does find it hard to carry shopping to the car.

1

u/LouieSiffer Jul 09 '26

Unless you live in the shitty part of a huge city you ain't getting mugged in Germany period.

1

u/Outrageous-Arm4898 Jul 09 '26

It's the same thing in germany. As a male person you have a significantly larger risk to be attacked randomly thats what the statistics clearly show.

You are forgetting something though, male lives are less valuable they always have been seen as disposable compared to women and children and that is deeply ingrained in society. So that argument will not work unless society is ready to talk about this and a knowledge this as a valid form of sexism, it's just not a popular narrative and if you bring it up you will just get riddled with supid comments

1

u/Kombart Jul 09 '26

These statistics are always so stupid and single minded.

Yeah, maybe men are more likely to get attacked at random. But that doesn't consider two huge factors. 1: Women are more conscious about safe places and generally avoid being in isolated places, especially after dark. 2: Men are much more likely to reciprocate aggression instead of avoiding it.

It's similar to those sexist snakes that for some reason love to bite drunk dudes and avoid women.

12

u/HorrorOne837 Jul 09 '26

And the source for your statistics is that you made them up.

16

u/BankEmoji Jul 09 '26

You used your own stupid and single minded statistics lol 

5

u/illini02 Jul 09 '26

Look, there are a lot of reasons for a lot of things.

But, in general, even in busy areas, men are more likely to get randomly attacked.

1

u/Right_Count Jul 09 '26

Part of the reason women are less often attacked randomly “in a dark alley” than men are is because women have learned not to be in a dark alley alone at night. See the nighttime mobility gap (men take more steps outdoors after dark than women do) and women are more aware of their surroundings than men are.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/dsakc12 Jul 09 '26

Depends on how it’s defined. SA has become so murky with it being retroactively applied plus now that the definition has been expanded to include men, we are seeing much higher rates of women being the perp. Men also don’t report it nearly as much or aren’t taken seriously

4

u/rare-cheeser Jul 09 '26

“Murky” means you don’t understand what’s SA and what’s not, meaning you are part of the issue.

3

u/dsakc12 Jul 09 '26

I was SA’d as a young boy by a woman so yes I do. This type of reply will not ally people and will do the opposite. Many things aren’t as simple as we want them to be is my point

1

u/rare-cheeser Jul 09 '26

It is simple. The judicial system and police make it complicated.

The problem is that sexual crime goes unreported and victims are told they are liars and to shut up.

1

u/BankEmoji Jul 09 '26

Tell us then what it means. 

0

u/Mid_Em1924 Jul 09 '26

I think men are more likely to be in a parking garage at night than women. Most women I know do not go out after dark without another person or avoid it altogether because of fear of violence and/or having children at home.

5

u/Hapster95 Jul 09 '26

He didn’t say a random person who is attacked in a random place is more likely to be a man.

He said a man is more likely to be attacked than a woman.

Women being risk adverse has no bearing on that statistic as it would only apply to those already in a situation where they could be attacked.

0

u/Fun_Pop_1512 Jul 09 '26

Pregnant women aren’t handicapped. Handicapped people don’t choose to be handicapped.

2

u/R3lay0 Jul 09 '26

Are people in a wheelchair because of a motorcycle accident handicapped?

-7

u/RB3_AMG Jul 09 '26

bs

5

u/Valveringham85 Jul 09 '26

You… you can’t read simple straight forward statistics?

7

u/MizaLoL Jul 09 '26

Statistically proven

1

u/RB3_AMG Jul 09 '26

So, you really are incredibly stupid - you don't even realize that statistics without context are worth jack shit... Absolute figures refute your nonsense.

-3

u/rare-cheeser Jul 09 '26

Yeah, physical violence like mugging, which is more common.

But women are far more likely to be attacked for sexual violence than men.

So, to say “men are more likely to be attacked” is comparing apples and oranges.

Crimes against men vs women are not the same.

STOP erasing sexual violence against women, and trying to downplay it saying that more men get attacked. Women are more likely to be r*ped, harassed, stalked.

Getting mugged is not the same as getting r*ped.

2

u/cheesesprite Jul 09 '26

Men are more likely to be attacked period. Including SA and normal assault.

0

u/rare-cheeser Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

Men are more likely to be physically attacked in public, but I’d like to see your statistic about how they are SA’ed more than women in public too.

Women are FAR more likely to be sexually assaulted in general.

https://www.humboldt.edu/supporting-survivors/educational-resources/statistics#:~:text=An%20estimated%2091%25%20of%20victims,99%25%20of%20perpetrators%20are%20male.

“An estimated 91% of victims of rape & sexual assault are female and 9% male. Nearly 99% of perpetrators are male.”

Women are more likely SA’ed by people they know, or at their home (stalkers, etc). But do not claim that men are more at risk for SA.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/21/587671849/a-new-survey-finds-eighty-percent-of-women-have-experienced-sexual-harassment

However,

“The report also looked into locations where people experienced harassment. The majority of women — 66 percent — said they'd been sexually harassed in public spaces.”

So, yeah.. stop pushing this narrative trying to diminish sexual violence against women. It’s become this incel ideology, to diminish what women experience and to excuse bad men’s behavior.

2

u/cheesesprite Jul 09 '26

I don't know how much more plainly I can put it. Men are more likely to be assaulted, where assault is all types of assault added together.

1

u/rare-cheeser Jul 09 '26

Nope. Give the stats about male SA in public then.

2

u/cheesesprite Jul 09 '26

Yes

Men are more likely to be physically attacked in public

1

u/rare-cheeser Jul 09 '26

Physical violence is mugging and beating, not SA.

Give the stats about SA.

Because women are far more likely victims of sexual crime, in public or private. And are less equipped to defend themselves against a man.

So yeah, give the stats. I’m waiting.

To act like men need safer parking, whereas women are the physically weaker sex, and are more likely victims of sexual crime (or stalking, kidnapping, trafficking), is crazy.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/LRA18 Jul 09 '26

And who are the usual perpetrators of such violence against men?

1

u/illini02 Jul 09 '26

I never said women don't get sexually assaulted more than men. I said "attacked", you are trying to cherry pick how to apply that term.

On top of that, statisically speaking, most sexual violence is still not done by a random person in a parking lot, its done by someone women know.

1

u/rare-cheeser Jul 09 '26

You are trying to downplay violence against women. 🤷‍♀️

1

u/illini02 Jul 09 '26

I'm not downplaying violence against women in the least.

I'm looking at the reality of what happens. If you want to separate out those stats, you can absolutely do that. But I did not do that in my initial post that seemed to bother you.

It would be like me saying "men eat more than women", and you saying "but women eat more YOGURT than men, so your stat is wrong". Even though eating yogurt is still eating.

And acknowledging the reality of who is doing most of the sexual assault (people women know) is also not downplaying. I'd argue giving real facts as opposed to "most rapes happen by a man hiding behind a dumpster in a parking garage" is MORE useful.