We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12460650 and marked it off-topic.

Then why is the thread still here?

When we do this we aren't deleting the subthread, just moving it from below its parent comment to the bottom of the main thread.

"As social beings, one of the things we do is subject our fellow humans to subtle tests of their trustworthiness. If they show signs of empathy, that increases our faith that they will not seek to actively harm us."

You could have left it at that, the rest of your comment comes cross as pretty hostile.

And as for the use of the word Sperglord. Had to look it up[0]. Strikes me as a horribly derogatory term.

0: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sperglord

Haha the second and fourth definitions are golden together.

I've been that guy before, but my peers helped me to understand that was not a good person to be.

Imo, that is just turning neurosis into high art.

To flip it around, sociopaths are charming and dangerous people and they aren't going to waste time trying to make social progress with a relative brickwall, when there is buisiness skills Jane, who can't even remember what friendly lies she told whom.

I've never had a coworker tell me a quiet person made their skin crawl, I couldn't say the same for the past year in any past year for the buisiness smooth.

> If they show signs of empathy, that increases our faith that they will not seek to actively harm us.

True; unfortunately, this hampers empathetic people who have trouble expressing empathy and make life very nice for unempathetic people who are good at feigning empathy.

Great job at describing sociopaths, who, unsurprisingly, often end up at managerial positions.

> They simply do not know who among the men they interact with might try to rape them.

That would be an incredibly sexist assumption, if women were actually doing that.

Imagine a slightly different statement:

> They simply do not know who among the black people they interact with might try to rob them.

See the racism in that?

Then you should see the sexism in your original statement.

Oh, but they are doing that. Look up "Schrödinger's Rapist".

I'm sure many women would like to give men more of the benefit of the doubt. But as long as most men remain physically stronger than most women and rape culture -- exemplified by the Brock Turner case among countless other examples -- remains a thing, they have to evaluate every man as a potential rapist without strong social proof to the contrary.

If that's sexist, then unfortunately so is reality.

Women get raped by women as well.

http://www.marieclaire.com/culture/a19495/women-raped-by-wom...

And men also get raped by both genders.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/22/rape-cdc-nu...

Anyone we meet might be a rapist, thief, or murderer. Thinking men are uniquely evil is sexist, and has little connection to reality.

#NotAllMen

#OutrageCulture

Yes, women and men can be raped by women. But it happens so rarely that women in general are far less cagey about other women than they are about men. And there may well be nothing we can do about that because I think this behavior has an instinctual component.

The coiner of Schrödinger's Rapist, Phaedra Starling, is a licensed PI and knows a thing or two about crime patterns, to say nothing of her being a woman and having lived the experience. When she says that the term applies especially to men, you would be wise to listen instead of dismissing it as reverse sexism.

> But it happens so rarely

Good grief, please stop the politics and educate yourself some time. Sexual abuse is not a gendered problem. If you factor in gender and sex specific differences (e.g. "made to penetrate" is often not counted as rape, meaning penis-in-vagina can only show up in rape statistics when the woman is the victim; also women are far more likely to engage in psychological abuse than physical abuse) there are very few differences in the numbers.

What you're describing is essentially stranger danger for grownups: although it's far more likely for a person to be abused by a relative or partner, the perceived risk from strangers is disproportionately higher. Additionally the social recluse is far less likely to abuse you than the touchy-feely "uncle" everyone loves.

Everybody's a potential rapist. Everybody's a potential murderer. If that makes you so paranoid it impairs your personal and professional relationships, you should seek professional help.

Unless of course you live in a pre-feminist place like Saudi Arabia, in which case you have my deepest sympathies.

> reverse sexism

What is that? Not being sexist? Surely you aren't implying sexism is a one way street, because that would be as dumb as implying racism is only from white people towards black people.

In certain political movements the definitions of sexism and racism have been modified to only refer to racism and sexism in the presence of power (read: privilege).

If you mix this with intersectionalism, that means female bigotry towards men can by definition not be sexist because women are an underprivileged class compared to men (thanks to intersectionalism it doesn't even matter who has power over whom in any specific situation because every interaction is defined by the intersecting groups the individuals represent, not the individuals themselves).

Yes, this is crazy, but good luck trying to argue against it without being portrayed as evil incarnate, doubly so if you're any of: cis, white, male, hetero.

Let me flip that back at you: when men report being raped by women "at virtually the same rates as women reported rape", you would be wise to listen instead of dismissing it.

Another reference for that statement:

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_...