I read an insight today it was titled the cost of misogyny.

In the insight the argument focused on how unfairly men are treated as suspects but the writer seemed to overlook why women became so suspicious in the first place.

Men refuse to accept it's not all men but in reality it's always a man.

"Not all men" doesn't erase the fact that many of the dangers women face are associated with men.

Funny how men are not ready to talk about misogyny.

But are so ready when it comes to misandry.

Most don't even understand what misandry means instead they interchange it with feminism.

They say feminists hate men.

Feminists don't necessarily hate men.

Not all feminists but it's always a feminist can you hear how silly that sounds.

Overall misandry should be allowed to exist without being treated as a personal attack on men.

After all men hate women as well.

It shows in their mannerism.

Their words.

Their actions.

Thei quick name calling and degoratory terms.

The crimes committed against women.

The way they think.

The stupid little laws they come up with and the government that approves them.

As a woman when I talk about my experiences I'm expected to distinguish good from bad men.

It's not all men they say.

But how am i supposed to know which category a stranger belongs to just by looking at him?

Am I supposed to assume every man is harmless until he gives me a reason not to?

And what happens when that reason comes too late?

"It's not all men", but it's always a man.

Society expects me not to anticipate the worst about men yet I should anticipate the worst before it happens to me.

In the end I get blamed for visiting him, for going there, for wearing that, for trusting him.

They'd blame me and ask why ignored the signs.

But which signs exactly????

I don't have the luxury of knowing someone's intentions before interacting with them.

So I'd rather stay cautious.

Not because every man is guilty but because i cannot afford to assume every man is harmless.

And because caution is the only protection I have against dangers I cannot predict.

Is it fair to judge an individual man based off the action of others?

Is it safe to give an unfamiliar man the benefit of the doubt or to assume he poses no threats?

Am I being unfair to a harmless man?

Or am I protecting myself from something I just can't afford to ignore?