Poisoned m&m's. What behaviour is this trying to justify?
"You say not all men are monsters?
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned.
Go ahead. Eat a handful.
Not all M&Ms are poison."
This is a quote I've seen floating around, posted around by some people on Facebook etc. The quote seems to originate from here: http://thefrogman.me/post/86871780653/the-mras-are-outraged-not-because-a-violent
Now. I'm a bit confused by this 'analogy' because on the face of it it's an absolutely appalling thing to say, and it seems to my mind that this (even if it's not the intention) could be used to justify hatred towards whatever group you like because some of them are bad. For example in the light of the Rotherham case of Pakistani gangs abusing children you'd be able to say:
"You say not all Pakistani's are monsters?
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned.
Go ahead. Eat a handful.
Not all M&Ms are poison."
Now maybe I'm missing something, but to my mind this is simply an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned.
Go ahead. Eat a handful.
Not all M&Ms are poison."
This is a quote I've seen floating around, posted around by some people on Facebook etc. The quote seems to originate from here: http://thefrogman.me/post/86871780653/the-mras-are-outraged-not-because-a-violent
Now. I'm a bit confused by this 'analogy' because on the face of it it's an absolutely appalling thing to say, and it seems to my mind that this (even if it's not the intention) could be used to justify hatred towards whatever group you like because some of them are bad. For example in the light of the Rotherham case of Pakistani gangs abusing children you'd be able to say:
"You say not all Pakistani's are monsters?
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned.
Go ahead. Eat a handful.
Not all M&Ms are poison."
Now maybe I'm missing something, but to my mind this is simply an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Scroll to see replies
The analogy is an attempt to explain how women are cautious of men because they don't know which ones will assault, rape or murder them. Therefore, it is safer they treat all men as potential hazards.
A better analogy could be used as I'm sure if there was no clear indicator, nobody would eat a single M&M if 10% were poison (at least I wouldn't).
A better analogy could be used as I'm sure if there was no clear indicator, nobody would eat a single M&M if 10% were poison (at least I wouldn't).
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Ade9000
The analogy is an attempt to explain how women are cautious of men because they don't know which ones will assault, rape or murder them. Therefore, it is safer they treat all men as potential hazards.
A better analogy could be used as I'm sure if there was no clear indicator, nobody would eat a single M&M if 10% were poison (at least I wouldn't).
A better analogy could be used as I'm sure if there was no clear indicator, nobody would eat a single M&M if 10% were poison (at least I wouldn't).
Okay. But like I've said surely that can just be extended to say I'm afraid of everyone because every group of people in existence has bad eggs. Which is an absolutely untenable position to take.
Aside from the whole men aren't m&m's thing...
Also, that site looks a bit sexist (to men) from that article?
Unless Im interpreting it wrong?
Also, that site looks a bit sexist (to men) from that article?
Unless Im interpreting it wrong?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by de_monies
Aside from the whole men aren't m&m's thing...
Also, that site looks a bit sexist (to men) from that article?
Unless Im interpreting it wrong?
Also, that site looks a bit sexist (to men) from that article?
Unless Im interpreting it wrong?
I thought about that, too! Whenever we use analogies for women, we're accused of comparing them objects, animals etc... But here an analogy for men is used and nobody complains about men being compared to consumables. Petty I know, but I just wanted to point that out.
The site is from a comedian. The article was indeed sexist to men, though.
who's saying women aren't predators too? I've had women make me buy them drinks and nothing came of it - where's my £6? why else would they ask for drinks, huh?
Original post by limetang
Okay. But like I've said surely that can just be extended to say I'm afraid of everyone because every group of people in existence has bad eggs. Which is an absolutely untenable position to take.
I agree. Like I said, a better analogy should have been used. This one is pretty stupid.
Perhaps a better analogy of people's attitudes would be if different colours of M&Ms had different rates of poison, and whilst you were willing to risk food poisoning for the lovely taste of M&Ms, you decided to steer clear of the most likely. Given that you can't avoid 50% of the population (unless something even more extreme than Sharia law was enforced), such advice regarding men is ridiculous. You can however be far more picky with who you go to a room alone with, have sex with etc, so such advice isn't so unreasonable (though could be founded on a faulty interpretation or faulty data).
Original post by Hopple
Perhaps a better analogy of people's attitudes would be if different colours of M&Ms had different rates of poison, and whilst you were willing to risk food poisoning for the lovely taste of M&Ms, you decided to steer clear of the most likely. Given that you can't avoid 50% of the population (unless something even more extreme than Sharia law was enforced), such advice regarding men is ridiculous. You can however be far more picky with who you go to a room alone with, have sex with etc, so such advice isn't so unreasonable (though could be founded on a faulty interpretation or faulty data).
I wouldn't stress out about it too much. We know what they mean, we don't an analogy for that.
Original post by zippity.doodah
who's saying women aren't predators too? I've had women make me buy them drinks and nothing came of it - where's my £6? why else would they ask for drinks, huh?
Whilst I'm about to comment on that I don't much like the analogy (though it does convey the sense of trepidation a lot of us have about getting into new relationships, since even if guys appear lovely at first there are stories of them turning violent - we can't tell if you're in the 10% at first), this post is a bit ridiculous. It's not on the level of being assaulted (yes, men are assaulted by women far too often, but that isn't what you're talking about). You didn't have to buy them drinks, and they didn't have to make anything 'come of it.'
Original post by scrotgrot
I would suspect the chance of getting raped by a given man is comparable to the chance of getting salmonella from a given piece of chicken.
But is the chicken cooked or raw?
The fact is, your rapist is most likely to be someone that you know. I am not scared of every guy I know. I'm not scared of any guys that I know. But there is always a hint of wariness when I meet new guys until I get to know them, because I've met some real misogynistic ****heads in my time. That's not sexist, it's pragmatic.
I think it's saying to be cautious. Obvs in any group of people, whether by race, religion or even eye colour you will get some that are dicks and you should watch out for them, but the vast majority are perfectly nice people
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Ade9000
The analogy is an attempt to explain how women are cautious of men because they don't know which ones will assault, rape or murder them. Therefore, it is safer they treat all men as potential hazards.
A better analogy could be used as I'm sure if there was no clear indicator, nobody would eat a single M&M if 10% were poison (at least I wouldn't).
A better analogy could be used as I'm sure if there was no clear indicator, nobody would eat a single M&M if 10% were poison (at least I wouldn't).
So everyone should treat all other people as potential hazards?
It's one approach, I guess...
Original post by Chief Wiggum
So everyone should treat all other people as potential hazards?
It's one approach, I guess...
It's one approach, I guess...
Well true you CAN live your life like that if you wish, but don't be too offended if people find you to be rude/unsociable /etc.
Original post by zippity.doodah
who's saying women aren't predators too? I've had women make me buy them drinks and nothing came of it - where's my £6? why else would they ask for drinks, huh?
Cuz they were thirsty?
An example of women objectifying men.. Feminists don't seem to mind that though
Original post by Chief Wiggum
So everyone should treat all other people as potential hazards?
It's one approach, I guess...
It's one approach, I guess...
That's the idea. There's being cautious and then there's that analogy.
Just curious, what would you propose?
Well it depends on if you expect to get something good out of them. M&Ms are at the end of the day just a sweet and you can get lots of other sweets and if people knew a certain percent of them were bad then they would just not eat them. The benefit of eating them isn't enough.
A better analogy would be pills that people take on nights out, MDMA etc.
If you knew that a certain percentage of them were bad, would you not take them? Well people that like taking pills know that a certain percentage are bad and they take them anyway.
Usually they would say well it depends who you get them from, if you get them from a 'reputable dealer' then you know you're unlikely to get a bad pill (to be honest I find it hard to believe that anyone has really checked the full supply chain of how the pills have got to this reputable dealer, but anyway....)
Most women will trust themselves that they have some kind of ability to suss out what a guy is like but in the early stages when they don't know someone they will be a bit wary which is fair enough. Obviously you can't tell if someone is bad and disguising it, but thats just like you can't tell if you buy illegal drugs, you just have to take some calculated risks.
A better analogy would be pills that people take on nights out, MDMA etc.
If you knew that a certain percentage of them were bad, would you not take them? Well people that like taking pills know that a certain percentage are bad and they take them anyway.
Usually they would say well it depends who you get them from, if you get them from a 'reputable dealer' then you know you're unlikely to get a bad pill (to be honest I find it hard to believe that anyone has really checked the full supply chain of how the pills have got to this reputable dealer, but anyway....)
Most women will trust themselves that they have some kind of ability to suss out what a guy is like but in the early stages when they don't know someone they will be a bit wary which is fair enough. Obviously you can't tell if someone is bad and disguising it, but thats just like you can't tell if you buy illegal drugs, you just have to take some calculated risks.
Original post by limetang
"You say not all men are monsters?
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned.
Go ahead. Eat a handful.
Not all M&Ms are poison."
This is a quote I've seen floating around, posted around by some people on Facebook etc. The quote seems to originate from here: http://thefrogman.me/post/86871780653/the-mras-are-outraged-not-because-a-violent
Now. I'm a bit confused by this 'analogy' because on the face of it it's an absolutely appalling thing to say, and it seems to my mind that this (even if it's not the intention) could be used to justify hatred towards whatever group you like because some of them are bad. For example in the light of the Rotherham case of Pakistani gangs abusing children you'd be able to say:
"You say not all Pakistani's are monsters?
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned.
Go ahead. Eat a handful.
Not all M&Ms are poison."
Now maybe I'm missing something, but to my mind this is simply an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned.
Go ahead. Eat a handful.
Not all M&Ms are poison."
This is a quote I've seen floating around, posted around by some people on Facebook etc. The quote seems to originate from here: http://thefrogman.me/post/86871780653/the-mras-are-outraged-not-because-a-violent
Now. I'm a bit confused by this 'analogy' because on the face of it it's an absolutely appalling thing to say, and it seems to my mind that this (even if it's not the intention) could be used to justify hatred towards whatever group you like because some of them are bad. For example in the light of the Rotherham case of Pakistani gangs abusing children you'd be able to say:
"You say not all Pakistani's are monsters?
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned.
Go ahead. Eat a handful.
Not all M&Ms are poison."
Now maybe I'm missing something, but to my mind this is simply an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
It's like comparing apples with oranges or EBITDA with EV, an M&M cannot interact and the only way to find out whether or not it is poisoned is by eating it. On the other hand, it is often possible to figure out whether people are good or not.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
