I'll be cutting some of the quotes short due to length:

My awareness stems from an instinctual need to protect myself from the possibility of physical harm. [...] As a woman, I do have to be afraid that a man might hurt me.

Let's get more specific. You're right in that more often than not, I'm not afraid that most women I'm surrounded by will be able to overwhelm and defeat me if we were to get into an altercation, but I'm wholly aware that just about anybody, man or women, will be able to physically hurt me. And there are women out there who would be able to overwhelm and defeat me, if it came down to it. It depends on the apparent build of the particular person though, regardless of gender. I've been near women who looked like they could easily hand my ass to me, if they had cause to attempt it. Just something to keep in mind. It's not an "automatic" thought I have that no woman can overpower me, therefore I don't worry about it; it's just that it turns out to be more often than not, most of the women I've been surrounded by in the past didn't seem like they could. By the same token, I'm sure you've been near guys before who seemed scrawny and meek, and wouldn't be able to easily intimidate you. It comes down to the person, not what gender they are, in realistic, everyday scenarios.

Do I necessarily jump to the conclusion that because he is a man and more physically powerful than me that I believe he will absolutely try to hurt me? No, of course not.

I'm really happy to hear you say that. It really does mean a lot.

But the reality for me, as a woman, is that I have to be aware and cognizant of his potential to harm me.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with sizing up the people around you and being conscious of their perceived abilities, gender aside. Just don't judge them as good or bad people before they've made a move on you.

I'm not sure I can say that this is comparing two things that are the same. [...] Chances are he'll leave you the fuck alone.

If I was in this position, I would honestly keep my distance a bit, just in case. I'm not judging his character as a good or a bad person, I don't know him, so that's not fair. However, by merely taking some precautions that I don't need to make known to anybody, I'm putting myself in a position where I can easily remove myself from a potentially harmful situation, without making the big guy feel as if I'm purposely avoiding him because I think something of him. I'll just quietly exercise caution. If all goes well, I have no reason to judge anybody. If for some reason (unlikely) he tries to hurt me or something, I'll judge him as a bad person, but not all people who look the way he does, dress the way he does, or have the same build that he does. I will acknowledge him as one particular case of a person I want to avoid, and consciously force myself to start fresh when I meet a new similar person in the future, as hard as it might be after such an experience. But I'll force myself to do it, because it's the right thing to do, and I'll be a better person as a result.

You could argue that every person on this planet has the potential to hurt someone else, regardless of gender, and that is true. But when your gender is disproportionately victimized by those of the opposite gender, well, past experiences are the best future predictors. It's shitty, but it's true.

I agree with you up to "past experiences are the best future predictors". I believe that can only really fairly accurately apply if you're talking about the same exact person who has victimized you in the past, like a repeat offender. I can see why you think the way you do though. As for "disproportionately victimized", yeah, I know women tend to be more victimized than men. That has to do with women tending to be weaker than men, and nature's strongest will always more often than not overpower the weak. That will never change.

My problem is with, instead of targeting real abusers exclusively, all men just get lumped into the same pot, because no one can be bothered to pick out the harmful ones and deal with them as individuals in their criticisms of all of us. This strikes me as excruciatingly lazy, inappropriate, and downright offensive. If you want the good men of society to side with you and help rid society of the troublesome ones, don't turn us against you. Instead, target the abusers, recognizing that there are many more men out there who will never even think of hurting you, and welcome us as allies.

If you were on an African Safari [...]

Well, speaking of apples and oranges, lions are not only a different species with a different place on the food chain (they see us all as food, men don't see women as food), but they can't be reasoned with, and have no sense of being held accountable for their actions if they are caught doing something "wrong". But they don't even understand "right" and "wrong" the way that we do, so I don't think I can really speak to this example. It's just not nearly the same thing. But I get what you're trying to demonstrate. The bus stop example was better.

Yes, I did say this in a general sense. Generalizing isn't a good thing, I get that. I can't speak to your behavior or personality anymore than I can speak to the next stranger I meet. But because I can't speak to individuals, what else can I do but speak in a general context?

You can qualify "men" with "men who abuse", instead of just "men". It makes a world of difference. Then people like me know you're not talking about us. Please do include this separation. The words go a long way.

Again, I'm not saying that it doesn't matter that are good people, because it does. But I sure as hell hope that those good people are standing up for what is right instead of getting offended because I didn't personally applaud them for doing what's right.

We don't want applause for behaving appropriately. We just don't want to be frowned upon by default, when we haven't even done anything. Let's admit it, many feminists out there today think that because I am a man, I'm automatically unqualified to speak about women's rights, in any regard, even if I support them, because I can't understand women. I never chose to be born a man. I can't do anything about it. But I do understand people. And I try to help. So god damn it, listen to me! (Not saying this about you).

Another Redditor said it best, why should we be congratulating the majority of men for NOT assaulting women? That in itself is condescending! To me, that's like saying: "Awesome job man! You didn't assault a woman today because you know that is wrong. Gold star!" It baffles me that this is even a thing!

See above. We don't want a pat on the back, just everyday respect, free from being judged by default for being a man. Judge the abusers. Leave the rest of us alone. Casting us as the same as them is almost like reverse abuse to us. Have you ever thought of that?

And I truly am outraged that men DO get tarred with the same brush because I have brothers who would NEVER hurt a woman that way. But instead of being incensed that they would be generalized in that way, they make a point of saying "Fuck those guys that hurt people! We gotta do better as men and make sure that shit stops happening!"

Well, I'm not them, but I can tell you the following: 1. I respect women and stand up for them, 2. I don't respect women who don't respect me just because I'm a man, and 3. I don't respect men who don't respect women.

I honestly don't feel that I am perpetuating a stereotype here. That sounds like victim-blaming to me. The men that ARE committing these crimes are the one perpetuating the stereotype, not me.

Victims are victims, but they are not always 100% innocent themselves. You were wrongly victimized, and at the same time, you (much less harshly of course) turn around and make victims out of people like me by lumping us all in with the abusers who wronged you. If there is a hierarchy, it goes like this: 1) Most at fault: man who abused you, 2) Less at fault: you for judging me when I wasn't even involved, 3) Not at fault: me, because I wasn't even involved.

One issue that I really take with the "not all men" argument is that people like yourself take it as a personal attack and that is how it completely derails the issue. [...] is the equivalent of saying "blah blah blah, I'm not listening to you because I don't hurt women".

You don't get it. "Not all men" is not a defense for anything. It's only a "I didn't do anything". And that doesn't mean that people who say it aren't going to take some kind of action to try and prevent people like you from being victimized in the future. It's not an argument. It's just what we say to remind people like you that there are men out there who do not do what some bad man has done to you. That's all it is, and nothing more. Please don't twist it.

Running out of space so will stop quoting every little thing now.

At what point is it ok for me to pass judgment that a man has the potential to harm me? Do I have to wait until he's actually doing it before being wary of him?

I say "judging" as in judging character, good or bad. You can't do that until someone has done something. It's different to "judge" ability based on their looks or build, but that wasn't how I was using the word.

You've told me to be wary of men. But not ALL men.

No. Be wary of all men. But don't judge all men. Only the ones that have taken action against you. You've misunderstood what I was getting at.

Watch out for myself but don't be judgey.

Exactly. Remain aware of what can happen, but judge only if something happens.

"Not all men" assault women, but ALL women have to live with the consequences.

This is exactly how "Not all men" is intended to be used. Do you understand where I'm coming from now? Just recognize that "not all men" are the problem.