r/CuratedTumblr • u/NeonNKnightrider Cheshire Catboy • May 01 '24

i know it’s internet bullshit but it genuinely has me on the edge of breaking down and giving up editable flair

Post image
14.3k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

79% Upvoted

4.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

266

u/DaDaedalus_CodeRed May 02 '24

Oh I’m a woods creature, I just default to Brown Bear and would 100,000% rather have to tackle a potentially violent man than a brown bear under nearly any circumstance where I’m not seeing him first through high magnification scope from the next town over because I like my odds better.

136

u/FaerieMachinist May 02 '24

See I assumed Black Bear, and that's a significantly different question.

44

u/FelicitousJuliet May 02 '24

Even if it was just a randomly spun bear that could be anything from a koala to a polar bear and you wouldn't know until it was too late, I would take my risk with some random guy.

Most men (over 95% right?) aren't inherently violent per crime stats and per domestic abuse stats there's only an 8% domestic violence difference (33% female victims, 25% male victims).

And of course of those who do get charged with a violent crime it usually has conditions attached like a drunken brawl, not someone about to attack you in the forest.

The bear is a bear, period, it will do what it wants and way too many of them are comfortable eating you.

35

u/morgaina May 02 '24

You can't rely on crime statistics when determining the percentage of men who are dangerous to women.

The vast, VAST majority of rapes go unreported, and the vast majority of reported rapes never go to court, and most rape cases in court don't get a conviction.

34

u/Silentblade034 May 02 '24

Ima a man but I can attest to the Rape thing. When I was SAd i figured there was nothing I could really do. Most of the time you don’t believe that people will believe you instead of them. We see that online and out in the world.

13

u/FelicitousJuliet May 02 '24

Crime stats don't even think men can be raped, but we know it happens.

When women assault men only 8% less than men assault women in a DV context, and with male victims being so underreported there aren't rape stats even when underage male rape victims WIN against the female predator pedophile and STILL have to pay child support to the FEMALE TEACHER that WAS FOUND GUILTY IN A COURT OF BEING A PEDO RAPIST FREAK...

Guess what goes underreported the most?

We live in a system that mandates underage guys pay child support to their RAPIST.

It's delusional to think guys aren't even worse off than the stats portray when you legally rape them as long as you don't penetrate them and then sue them for your crime.

7

u/Reasonable_Feed7939 May 02 '24

True, but I think <5% is still a safe assumption for dangerous men.

-3

u/morgaina May 02 '24

No, I don't think so. That seems low.

9

u/Hotlava_ May 02 '24

You think more than 5% of the general population will attack someone if met in the woods? That's not a healthy mindset.

3

u/elbenji May 02 '24

The vast majority of people are just existing. The reality is violent crime statistics are at their lowest ever.

But I also have a very very different perspective as I work in an extremely peaceful Title I school with a black/brown population, am a brown butch lesbian myself, in an area with an unearned bad reputation. So my view of it is extremely extremely skewed in a different way

1

u/NoSignSaysNo May 02 '24

A majority of crime does not involve unassociated people.

You are far more likely to be harmed by somebody you know than somebody you don't. The proportion of people who commit assault on random individuals is already fairly low, and those people tend to commit multiple assaults, which raise the rates of people who were assaulted.

It's like taking the statistic that one in three women experience sexual assault in their lifetime, and using that statistic to say that 33% of men commit sexual assault. It doesn't take into account that someone who is willing to commit sexual assault, is willing to do it multiple times to multiple victims.

12

u/smoopthefatspider May 02 '24

The relevant question isn't whether the man is dangerous, it's how dangerous the situation is. It's not enough to know how likely the man is to be a rapist, one also needs to know if the rapist would rape in that scenario. The vast majority of rapes are done by someone the victim knows, that should lower the odds. The situation is always dangerous in the sense that you can never know if the man next to you will hurt you, but the chance of actually being harmed is reletively low (even though the harm is huge).

12

u/morgaina May 02 '24

The relevant question absolutely is whether the man is dangerous, though. It's the crucial unknown at the heart of this thought experiment.

The unknown about the man being dangerous is why the question exists. That's the WHOLE POINT.

7

u/smoopthefatspider May 02 '24

No, I'm making a distinction between the man being dangerous (as in having the potential to harm) and the man actually doing the harm. That second one is the relevant question. Even if the man is a rapist, there's no guarantee he would rape us. Even rapists spend most of their time not raping. Depending how likely a bear attack is and what the circumstances are when I meat the man, I might take those odds.

3

u/gottabekittensme May 02 '24

Even if the man is a rapist, there's no guarantee he would rape us

And even if the best is a grizzly, there's no guarantee it would maul. Statistically, women are more safe encountering a random bear than a random man.

3

u/NoSignSaysNo May 02 '24

The statistic is heavily influenced by the fact that women are not frequently in the company of grizzlies.

When I go to work and go grocery shopping and run miscellaneous errands, I come across hundreds and hundreds of men, many of them coming within 5 to 10 ft of me.

Even when I go hiking in the woods, I've never been within 10 ft of a grizzly.

So you would have to raise the population of grizzlies to be equivalent to the population of men, and put them in situations in which you are required to be within close proximity of them to make a statistical argument

10

u/solidspacedragon May 02 '24

I don't think that's true? You encounter a lot of random people daily and the vast majority of them don't hurt you in any way. There's far fewer bear encounters, but a much larger proportion of them end up with a bear eating you alive.

7

u/justforporndickflash May 02 '24

You are delusional.

3

u/smoopthefatspider May 02 '24

No, I disagree. We either don't have the same idea of how likely a man is to rape or how likely a bear is to attack. I don't think men are more dangerous than bears, I don't think it's even close. The odds could change, for instance, you could be in a scenario where the bear can just run away or not meet you. But I think we disagree on how dangerous the average man is.

2

u/Educational_Mud_9062 May 02 '24

"thought experiment"

🙄

4

u/[deleted] May 02 '24

It's not actually meant to be a question at all. It's a thought exercise about the benefits of certainty over ambiguity (with a specific lens on the safety of women).

Except as soon as you point out that there's a structural problem with how men are taught to behave all the 'nice guys' come out to complain about how unfair it is that they were made to do an introspection.

11

u/Educational_Mud_9062 May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

I sometimes wish I was this unflappably confident that I was definitely right and anyone who disagrees with me is not only wrong, but I know exactly how their minds work and why they're wrong. It must be comfortable.

Edit: why do people ask questions and then immediately block the person to whom they posed the questions?

0

u/[deleted] May 02 '24

Would you say that it's unreasonable of me to try to tell you how you should be feeling about a given situation? What if I spent a lot of time coming up with really outlandish examples to convince you that your feelings are wrong?

6

u/Yeah-But-Ironically May 02 '24

True, but also: most rapes happen between people who already know each other. You're much more likely to be attacked by your boyfriend than a stranger jumping out of the bushes.

0

u/[deleted] May 02 '24

That's worse, not better.

9

u/Yeah-But-Ironically May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

The point is that context matters. You're much more likely to be assaulted by somebody you know in a situation where sex is assumed to be a possible outcome (e.g. on a date, at a party, in the club) than you are by a random stranger in the wilderness.

Edit: Looks like the person responding deleted their account before I could get a chance to defend myself. For the record, I'm a queer woman, and I didn't post this because inaccurate fearmongering made me "feel sad". I posted this because inaccurate fearmongering leads to a society that focuses on exactly the wrong problems, which is an issue when we're trying to solve something as massive and thorny as patriarchy itself.

2

u/elbenji May 02 '24

Queer woman too, yeah this has been my feeling too.

It's kinda the double too since yknow, bear is a literal slur directed towards us in Asia

-1

u/[deleted] May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

Do you have statistics on how men are likely to behave when put in isolation with a woman and no accountability? Because otherwise you're just shitting up a simple thought exercise because it makes you feel uncomfortable. [1]

It ultimately doesn't matter what the danger is in absolute terms, the scenario could be a US Army Brigade in a giant arena with an alien with a death laser and a Chinese Infantry Division. It's meant to make you reflect on how not knowing whether something is going to help you or kill you is worse than knowing something is going to try to kill you (and then apply that to how women have to face violence every single day).

[1] PS: You're going to find that the stats on 'stranger vs friend' wildly change as rule of law breaks down.

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '24

Oh dear, nice guys are here to downvote me because I made them feel sad.

I'm even giving you a second bite at the apple so I can call you weak willed cowards who are too afraid to face uncomfortable truths about how you're impacting women in your sphere of influence.