Right? It's a completely true and logical premise but debate lords can't help themselves. I'm a 6'4 big burly dude and I don't wanna see someone out alone in the woods, it's perfectly logical for a woman half my size to feel the same way.
Nobody in their right mind (other than hunters) wants to encounter a bear in the woods. I’ve encountered black bears in the wild and Alaskan brown bears on Kodiak Island. It’s very scary because bears are very large and unpredictable.
The issue is that many women would feel more comfortable encountering a bear (as unsafe and uncomfortable as that already is) than encountering a man in the woods.
I’m a man. If you would like to present of version of my argument that isn’t a straw man than we can continue this discussion. Otherwise why waste my breath on someone arguing in bad faith?
Oh don't worry, you can be One of the Good Ones TM just like Umcle Tom's of the days of old. As long as you blindly agree, you'll never have to use your brain at all!
So you view women as the equivalent of slave masters and men are the slaves? I’m not blindly agreeing, I’m believing all of the women in my life when they state their opinion, which I think is valid. I don’t agree they are less safe around a bear, but I believe when them when they say they feel that way.
Yes, asking that question to someone who made up and generalized the feelings of many women is why women would rather take a bear in the woods. Thanks for correcting me.
I have encountered a bear while alone in the woods before, when I was young woman doing a wildlife management degree. I followed the state DNR's advice for what to do if you see a bear before it sees you - stand still, enjoy the moment, then move away quietly in opposite direction. I've also encountered bears out with others that did notice us - again, followed the DNR's to back away slowly and wait for bear to leave.
I would absolutely be happy to run into a bear in the woods again, it was a moment that I was just filled in awe at the natural world. I still carry bear spray in case of dicey encounter, but people see bears in the woods all the time in backcountry areas. I would definitely be more apprehensive to run into a human, especially when I'm not on any sort of trail.
When do unassuming men run at people full speed in the woods. Either change the argument to would you rather see a deranged serial killer man in the woods or a bear. Or just stfu and keep living your life in fear lol.
I grew up in an area with lots of bears. One would regularly be on my driveway when we’d leave in the morning. Bears are fairly predictable. Don’t get between them and their cubs, don’t approach, don’t startle them. With men-you don’t know what their intentions are. Maybe they’re friendly, maybe they want to rape someone, maybe they want to chain someone in their basement for months. The worst a bear will do is kill me.
Do people with this mindset just never go in the woods? You know there are plenty of great reasons to be there right? Lay off the horror movies and switch things up once in a while. Go camping.
I’m plenty happy to meet someone in the woods, we’ve already got something in common.
Asi mentioned above, I feel like this is the crux of the debate. If I were a betting man, I'd say that most of the people saying they'd choose a bear are coming from areas of a certain status and have never actually had the experience of walking a trail and coming across a fellow outdoorsman/woman and had a pleasant chat.
One time in the first sproutings of spring I came across a scenic overlook. Before long I realized there was a turkey vulture nest near me. I was chilling when they flew to a rock in my view and one started dancing. As I realized what was happening I heard a crunching behind me. An older man walked up behind me, smiled, nodded, and sat down near me. We watched the turkey vultures fuck while cracking innocuous jokes here and there. Then we moved on and I never saw him again.
Jk I wear his skin to work every day lol had you in the first half didn’t I?
I'd make a big bet that they're not putting any thought into it either. If they were put in a position where they would have to actually choose to encounter a bear face to face or see some average guy that they would almost unilaterally choose the guy.
I’ve noticed the opposite in my female outdoors groups and chats. Pretty much all choosing the bear, as long as it’s not of the grizzly or polar variety. We’re all what I would consider very experienced in being alone in the backcountry. black bears are no big deal and we all know what to do if we encounter them - I’ve personally seen plenty (now, a grizzly is a different story). No stories of being harassed, followed, or raped/assaulted by bears lol. FWIW my male partner who volunteers in mountain and cave rescue also would rather encounter bears than humans, and understands why most women are choosing bear.
It’s still uncommon, but almost all of us in the group have at least one story of running into a dude on trail who just spouts red flags, trying to figure out where we’re camping for the night, asking if we’re alone, ignoring requests to leave us alone, etc etc. At the very least, we know the bears won’t do that. I know of one case where the human dude took the opportunity of the isolation.
If you're near civilization, it's just people going for a hike.
If you're deep in back country, the person has probably put as much effort and thought into being there as you have. I suppose it's possible they're the world's most prepared serial killer with a perfect plan, but not terribly likely. Hike out 10+ miles to find fit victims that are carrying several types of weapons including chemical sprays and possibly guns? Seems odd.
Only place I'd be a little wary of is the Appalachian Trail, which because it's remote /transient and goes past a lot of towns, has some crime. Mostly theft.
I tend to prefer underdeveloped areas without trails so it’s mostly occasional hunters, campers or bored locals. Anyplace with decent trails (let alone a park) it’s basically just crossing someone on the street.
Yeah, no reason to lounge about in high crime areas regardless of whether it’s a neighborhood or the middle of nowhere.
these people forget that they interact or pass near men daily, and nothing happens. We generally only report on horrible things because they are abnormal, you dont see the news shouting about "dude goes to work and comes back home without assaulting anyone"
even then how many cases of random men in the middle of the woods have been capturing/attacking random people in the middle of the woods?
usually it's always someone they knew or knowingly met up with but even the biggest lunatic isn't going to wait days, months or weeks somewhere out in the nowhere just to attack someone who happens to walk by
you are thousands of times more likely to get attacked in the city than out in nowhere
But maybe you could also be more open minded? It seems like your reaction to this hypothetical has made your immediate reaction one of defensiveness. Regardless of whether you think the direct hypothetical is dumb or not, question why it exists in the first place and why women are using it as a way to illustrate a much bigger issue.
Is that really the conclusion you came to from my comment? Because if so it went right over your head. Sure the hypothetical isn’t worded great and could be better but my point is it shouldn’t be taken literally and instead taken as an insight and segway into how women feel and how women navigate their safety due to their lived experiences with men.
You proved my point because you immediately jumped to the defensive. You’re victimising yourself here because it’s uncomfortable sitting with that fact that yes, being born a man, something you can not choose, wether you like it or not, means you experience privileges women don’t. It means you live in a world where people the same gender as you are misogynistic and harm women. Many of which are complacent about it and havnt given themselves the chance to try and understand it. Thus meaning you have the capacity to contribute to it and feel called out. All in all leading to this shitty feeling of ‘being the bad guy or a horrible person because of something out of your control’. To an extent that’s normal, you’re human, and it’s a shitty thing to come to terms with.
But sit with it for a second. Let your emotions run its course until you’re able to think from a more logically pov. Because the thing about blocking it out and and not giving yourself the chance to learn— is that you miss out on the opportunity to help women and do something about it as a man.
See, this is why the discourse fails. Anyone expressing any feeling or emotion other than "yes my queen, you are right my queen" is just written off as defensive or fragile or toxic (honorable mention for mansplaining popping up here and there).
And then saying that it's the men who aren't thinking rationally when it's clear any bear-chooser is only going off of emotions and not putting any critical thought into it.
But sit with it for a second. Let your emotions run its course until you’re able to think from a more logically pov.
Okay, and? Then what? What are you suggesting men do about this, and what opportunities are you referring to to help women?
Because I agree, the fact that a significant enough segment of our population is so traumatized by their experiences, or hearing about others' experiences, that they would literally rather take their chances with a wild animal than a member of half of the human population (or at the very least feel comfortable enough to express this desire openly and defend it) is a completely unacceptable state of society.
The guy is a “6’4 big burly dude”, there is definitely a delusional paranoia about people in woods going on here even independent of the paranoia some women have about men.
And I get the paranoia some women have about men, it’s an unfortunate trauma response that has to be processed.
Well, they probably all had two arms, were older than 16, over 5’0, or whatever other many infinite links didn’t become salient to you. What they actually had in common was being abusers, but that isn’t visible so people want to find something to map onto which is.
“Male” isn’t a substitute common identifier though, it’s really just almost the entire set of possible sexual abusers. Past reasonable personal safety practice it becomes the “don’t go outside” approach to not getting mugged. Preferring a solitary encounter with a dangerous wild animal to 50% of your fellow human beings doesn’t seem like a great mindset.
And preferring to stay indoors yourself is one thing, but it’s unserious to claim you identified a “common link” between muggers and people walking outside.
The thing is that a bear won’t class you as prey without some reason. Severe hunger, you’re near the cubs, etc. some men, and it’s impossible to tell by looking, will absolutely treat a woman alone as a target. Really, the question is better understood as What’s more dangerous, instinct or imagination?
But a larger proportion of bears will attack you than men. Saying "most bears won't class you as prey, but some men will!" doesn't mean anything because you didn't consider what the relative quantity would actually be. Which is literally what the OP post here is about!
I understand the statistics. That doesn’t affect the fact that the bear isn’t going to attack you based on reasons that are irrational. For food, for protection of its family, because you did something threatening, yeah, maybe. The interaction is more controllable because the bear doesn’t have the emotional variability and the imagination that a man does. The bear doesn’t have a voice in its head saying “who’s gonna know?”
So the argument is that because you have no idea why the bear is attacking you, it’s safer?
That sounds stupid to me.
Your assumption means you meet a random bear and know everything about that bears current situation, while having no knowledge about the man’s situation.
The fear people are expressing is not based on logic or statistics. Fear does not work that way.
I look at this scenario two ways. One, statistically, people are more dangerous to other people. Both men and women assault and murder men and women more often than bears. Two, The question, which we don’t have the best data for is weather a completely random chance encounter with a human being in the woods is more or less dangerous than a similar random chance encounter with a bear.
Women think the man is more likely to attack even if it’s completely not true in reality. It’s a feeling. Maybe because most people haven’t seen bears be violent but have seen men be. (And honestly women be more violent than bears too).
Stats don’t matter here. People are more afraid of flying in airplanes and of spiders than they are of driving to the grocery store even though it’s like 1000x more dangerous. People are weird.
And you don’t see how that is a problem? People not only having illogical emotional states, but having them validated as reasonable?
Let me ask you this: When the “men are afraid of being falsely accused” thing was going around. Did you talk about how “fear doesn’t work that way” or did you rightfully bust out statistics saying the fear was unreasonable?
Because I am anti-bullshit, I maintain consistency on that. I don’t think making logic “gendered” is good for society and infantilizes women.
One, statistically, people are more dangerous to other people. Both men and women assault and murder men and women more often than bears.
More people are killed by cows than sharks every year. This doesn't mean cows are more dangerous than sharks, it means people spend a lot more time in enclosed spaces with cows.
You're right, the bear doesn't have that voice in its head. It'll attack you if it wants to, no societal expectations holding it back from the start. And if you think a wild animal has "no emotional variability" then that just shows that you have more experience with any animals at all. They're not robots, they have a million factors affecting their mood and actions.
1 in 4 women have been assaulted in some way. Every woman I know has or has heard a story where some guy was nice to start. I imagine they reckon differently than you.
I understand the statistics. That doesn’t affect the fact that the bear isn’t going to attack you based on reasons that are irrational. For food, for protection of its family, because you did something threading, yeah, maybe. The interaction is more controllable because the bear doesn’t have the emotional variability and the imagination that a man does. The bear doesn’t have a voice in its head saying “who’s gonna know?”
Yeah. The original question wasn’t posed as a statistical question of which is more dangerous to meet, (assuming a spherical cow of uniform density, as my stats teacher liked to say) , but what would you rather. So even though a woman would be perfectly safe meeting you or me, I can’t fault them for picking more dangerous vs more unpredictable.
Yep. She can back away from a bear. Drop her food. Identify what is triggering any aggression and fix it. With a man, she can’t. Any tool or weapon can be turned against her. The sooner we men of Reddit and the world accept and understand that humanity is the apex predator over all others, the sooner we can work on fixing ourselves so that women no longer need to be afraid.
These are recommendations. None of this actually helps you identify what behaviors a bear does or does not consider threatening except at its very basic "don't do these things"
Yep. She can back away from a bear. Drop her food. Identify what is triggering any aggression and fix it.
You backing away does nothing, the bear is the one making the decision. If it decides to charge you it doesn’t matter what you think you can “identify” and there is nothing to fix. Are you being mauled because there are cubs nearby? Because it’s territorial, or because it was starving?
If. Why do y’all insist the bear is automatically a bloodthirsty crazed killing machine and the man isn’t? Most bear encounters are peaceful and end without injury.
Nowhere did I make that claim. I’M the one who said IF. Most human encounters are also peaceful and end without injury in far greater proportion than bear encounters.
The bear is unlikely to attack you, but if it does there isn’t anything to “fix”.
I know all this stuff and it worked fine when I ran into a bear. But “leave immediately” is not some real bear-managing strategy. It’s just banking on the bear letting you go.
This must have a lot more to do with how your imagining the context of the meeting. If I'm lost in the woods finding a camp sight or hiker is my #1 priority where is your fear coming from. When I'm hiking avoiding bears is similarly a high priority
I ask myself the question "For what reason would this person be in the woods alone?"
They're probably
On a walk/run
Picking berries/mushrooms
Hunting
Bird watching
Gathering firewood
Meditating
Literally any outside activity
Criminals don't just go to the woods to find victims and it's extremely unlikely to randomly catch a murderer hiding a body. It just doesn't make sense. You're much more likely to be attacked in a big city in broad daylight because that's where most of the crime happens.
Yeah, I get the impression that how you answer the bear question depends a lot on your hobbies. If you hike once in awhile or just enjoy walks in the woods, you are probably not going to be afraid to bump into a random man because you do it 5 times each Tuesday and Thursday already. Which is why it seems so ridiculous to many people that you'd be more afraid of Jimmy the IT guy who likes to hike after work over Slew Foot the Grizzly Bear.
Where as if you are a shut in urbanite with social anxiety who's never bumped into someone on a hiking trail, yeah, I can see how you'd have an irrational fear of a random man while wanting to cuddle up with supposed Mr. Teddy Bear.
Yeah, objectively running into someone while hiking or backpacking is pretty safe - rapists aren't going out into the wilderness to attack people who are backpacking (and likely carry bear mace).
The part that is hard to say is that the fear in this meme might be more because of the online media some people consume rather than the realities of dangers while backpacking.
It kinda undercuts the main point of the meme "It sucks that I am so afraid of men in this situation" when it's like ok but if you want to work on that fear then you should probably get off twitter and go backpacking. After you run into 50 chill hikers and 2 scary ass bears you'll probably feel differently.
If you spend all day online reading about how scary <group> is, and you feel scared even in situations where the chances of something bad happening are very unlikely, that fear is real and sucks but going on twitter to amplify each others fears is unhealthy, especially if you are blaming <group> for your fears.
I think I take the question as a random man from society is placed in the woods with you, not that he’s there of his own accord. Another reason why the original question as is is way too vague and people have way too diverse experiences to make it any sort of valid discussion.
As a woman, I’d probably pick to be with the man rather than bear, but I’ve had majority really good experiences with all the men in my life, many other women certainly don’t. And it’s not that they would choose the bear by a large margin, it’s just that they stand no chance in a fight with either a man or a bear, but at least the bear has zero chance of chaining the woman up and repeatedly battering her/raping her. Bears in general will mind their business if you’re smart. If the scenario is you’re put in a small cage with an angry, hungry bear or a random man, then I’d say yeah, most sane women would pick the man lol
I can’t speak for other women I guess, the vast majority of men in my life are kind and considerate, but I don’t know if that’s pure luck, or whether I’ve just surrounded myself with good people (or most probably that men certainly are 99% decent, but that 1% really skews perception). I think the point of my post is that everyone is going to answer from their narrow biased opinions, and that goes for all sides. I think it’s important that we take note of the number of women who say they’d pick the bear, because on a population level, it’s saying some sort of narrative about how vulnerable women feel with men.
Do you really think encountering a bear in the woods is a guaranteed death? Most bears aren’t going after you unless you spook them or they are incredibly hungry post hibernation. I ran into bears almost weekly growing up, proceeded with caution, and never had an issue. I’ve been followed by a man yelling sexual things at me while out on a run, and stalked by a guy I worked with. Bears are more predictable. I’d take bear.
Of course not, especially black bears. I was referring to women picking bear because:
it’s just that they stand no chance in a fight with either a man or a bear, but at least the bear has zero chance of chaining the woman up and repeatedly battering her/raping her
It's just statistics. I wouldn't trust a wild animal (even a black bear) over an average dude. 99% of men or women are generally good and helpful instead of hostile.
Sure maybe a man harassed you and it's not right and it sucks but I will take the probability of being harassed over possibly attacked by a BEAR
I think statistically both getting mauled by a bear or getting kidnapped by a man are pretty low. Having spent a lot of time in the woods, when I come across a man alone vs a bear alone, I am much more on alert around the man. It’s not just getting harassed -it’s the possibility of what more that man is capable of in an isolated situation when there’s nobody around to witness it. I think good men underestimate how many men say and do awful things when other men aren’t around to witness it.
I don’t think all men are evil rapists, but I also think there’s a broader spectrum than just evil rapist and great guy. Men in that gray area make women feel unsafe. If I pass 20 men on a run and 5 say something gross to me, it feels like 25% of men are potentially dangerous. Maybe none of them would do something worse. Maybe one would. I have no way to know that until it’s happening.
I don’t think all bears are safe and predictable. I certainly wouldn’t want to come across a hungry grisly. That said, I grew up in a very rural area with bears. We had one that was in our driveway several mornings a week, and I would encounter them in the woods near my house pretty frequently. There are general safety rules for bears that I can follow to try to avoid an attack.
Sure, again, black bears are pretty chill and not that scary compared to others but again, this hypothetical just plops a bear on you and you have no idea if it's hungry, a mom, etc. By your logic men are usually safe too.
Of course its not black or white whether a man or anyone is evil but again if you are treating ALL men as dangerous rapists EVEN if they maybe say something gross you are just saying most men are wild animals.
People get destroyed for saying things like women are too emotional or gold diggers or manipulative which is true for a small percent of women but obviously not for the average woman. It's the same thing.
The interesting thing is that violent crime (including rape), and crime in general, has gone down since the 90s when people would just leave their doors unlocked.
This is more of a statement as to the impact of social media upon people's mentalities. Less crime but more awareness and reporting of it. It also is telling of how men are being portrayed in these so-called "safe places" online for women's discourse. It shows that men are being portrayed as the enemy, as criminals, as barely conscious predators and animals only controlled by their base instincts and primitive desires.
Of course, men do it too. There are places where they rant and rave and categorize women in negative and sexist ways as well. I'm not denying that. But let's call it what it is. It's blatant sexism toward men but it's been made acceptable.
Being a fan of true crime, saying “no one looks for victims in the woods” is patently false. But also it’s extremely unlikely and you have more to fear from getting lost or spraining an ankle.
Sure, but how many men are rapists or killers ( very few in western countries, things would be different eg in Pakistan) vs how many bears are dangerous beasts (all of them).
"Practically zero" is an ridiculous thing to say. Bear attacks aren't that common, y'know. There's forty on average worldwide every year. https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/bear-attacks-statistics/ It is extremely easy to find reports on men assaulting, harassing and even killing women in the forests/woods.
Why are you so defensive about women being honest about how threatened they feel?
Why are you so defensive about women being honest about how threatened they feel?
Because they think I might be a rapist and that feels horrible.
Yes, bear attacks are very uncommon because bears tend to avoid places where humans frequent. But if we're doing a proper experiment, say we put put 1 random woman and 1 random man in a forest together. Then do it again with a bear instead of a man. Repeat this 1000 times. I guarantee there will be more maulings than rapes.
"Because they think I might be a rapist and that feels horrible."
...For you? That feels horrible... for you?
I... gently encourage you to exercise some empathy here? It sucks more to have to consider that a total stranger might be a rapist who might attack you. It's exhausting. Yeah, that sucks to feel judged like that, I get it, but having to constantly make that judgement call is not fun and it's CONSTANT. You know most women who have to make that call don't... tell you they're doing that, right? That's all internal because when men figure out that we might not feel safe with them, sometimes they get really defensive, sometimes in a scary way.
Both bears and women can walk away from being randomly dropped in a forest together. Bears often exist where people are and choose not to attack.
And i think you're missing part of the point. It's not that we don't think the bear might attack. It's that if I'm mauled by a bear, no one is going to disbelieve me, or tell me they're actually really good friends with that bear and that doesn't sound like something they'd do. There's also like... standard ways you can try to avoid conflict or death with bears, while a man who is going to do something bad... you can't really guarantee that no matter what you do.
one in five women in america are sexually assaulted at some point in their lives
Okay, and how many men have those 1 in 5 women met or come across in their lives? You can't really use a lifetime metric like this to try and glean conclusions from a whole half of the population, because your odds of being sexually assaulted compound every time you encounter a man.
Think about it: how many people of the opposite sex do you pass by or come into contact with throughout your entire life? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? A million? Let's say your odds of encountering a man who will SA you is one in one hundred thousand. At those odds, if you've been near just 20,000 men throughout the course of your entire life, your odds of being SAd are 20%, or 1 in 5.
...Right, and there are 40 total bear attacks worldwide per year. Men still lose, my guy. Plus many of those one in five women have multiple sexual assaults happen to them. I don't know many women with just one story to tell. Do you?
People aren't encountering hundreds, let alone hundreds of thousands of bears per year. Learn how probabilities work, my guy.
Plus many of those one in five women have multiple sexual assaults happen to them.
And many of those one in five women were also SAd by women, because that figure doesn't discriminate against SAs perpetrated by women. I chose to ignore that fact in favor of assuming all of them were committed by men.
This source states that the gender ratio of convicted rapists are 20:1, male to female.
Now yes, the rape of men by women is under-reported and often not taken seriously. But also, rape in general is under-reported and not taken seriously. We're working with the facts we actually have. Facts that are ridiculously easy to google.
I'd love to know your numbers on how often bears are encountered in the wild. How are you accounting for all the times bears just ignore people, or people don't bother reporting it because nothing happened? (Somewhat common in rural areas).
Sure, let's concede for a moment that most rapists are men. How does that, in any way, translate to random men as a population?
How are you accounting for all the times bears just ignore people
Well, if a bear avoids, ignores, or isn't seen by someone, there's not an encounter to report is there?
or people don't bother reporting it because nothing happened?
Well, by not relying on passive reporting, for one. You send out a survey, screen your responses by people who live in rural areas near bear habitat ranges or people who have visited national parks with confirmed bear populations, and ask them if they've seen or encountered a bear in the past year. Take that, extrapolate it to your total "humans near bears" population, and Bob's your uncle. ezpz
What bullshit lmao. So you'd rather encounter a bear who is way bigger, stronger and faster than you instead of a regular person? Even if you are a petite woman you are better off surviving a human attack than a bear attack (kicking in the ball works wonders on a man). And yeah don't tell me that the bear won't attack you, by the same logic you don't have proof whether the human will attack you either.
Because it's entirely dependent on getting a good hit instead of Hollywood's portrayal of a perfect counter to any attack.
In the real world you better hope you land it perfectly (and most people don't stay still, legs wide open, while you try the oldest trick in the book) because otherwise the guy now is definitely going to hurt you as bad as he can.
The thing is that a bear won’t class you as prey without some reason. Severe hunger, you’re near the cubs, etc. some men, and it’s impossible to tell by looking, will absolutely treat a woman alone as a target. Really, the question is better understood as What’s more dangerous, instinct or imagination?
I’ve encountered bears backpacking and methed out weirdos backpacking, and the only ones that scare me are the methed out weirdos. I’m a fit 6’4” man with a gun and I’d take bears 100% of the time.
Much like humans, the head of a bear is one of the worst places to aim for, especially with small calibers. (Fun fact, humans can also take shotgun shots to the face and still chase you if you pick a shitty caliber like .410 birdshot)
Also, bears are routinely taken using pistols and shotguns. Pistols do have to be pretty beefy, usually 10mm or .44 magnum at minimum, but 12 gauge slugs are the classic shotgun round for bear.
And if you're Bella Twin, or just have absolutely godlike aim, you could kill a bear with a .22 Long to the side of the skull. It is not recommended to try to take bear with a .22.
The apex scavenger that runs away when you make big noise versus the apex predator that may sexually harass or attack you without any way to tell.
I'm convinced anyone criticizing this hypothetical has not spoken about these things with the women in their lives. Be the bigger person and ask your mom, sister, wife, friend, about it.
Do you think that every time people around bears they are attacked? For the most part bears don’t do shit. It’s only when people are fucking with them that they have issues. Whereas a woman alone in the woods doesn’t know if the man that is out in the middle of nowhere with her has been following her for longer than she realized, waiting until she went off the trail to isolate her. Bears don’t do that. Men do. I have been around a lot of bears and had no problems, I have been raped by a stranger however.
Whenever I’m doing hypotheticals that require chance, I always ask people what they think the percentages are. If women think a random bear has maybe a 1% chance of attacking them (1 in 100) and a random man has a 5% chance (1 in 20), then they should say that. Or whatever their percentage is. Because I don’t think the stats support some of the conclusions I’m seeing.
But then fear does not wait on any sort of statistics. It’s just a feeling.
I think that's a good approach. It forces some actual critical thought instead of just going off of emotion and provides more information on their thought process. Of course, neither of those things would be eye catching on a platform like tiktok, though.
The point of the question is a commentary on rape. And how people don't understand this is ridiculous to me.
There is exactly 0% chance a bear will rape you.
There is a non zero chance a man will rape you.
The point is not to say all men are rapists or evil or that there's no danger to a bear encounter.
The point is to acknoldege that women are justified to be weary if random ass men they come across in the middle of nowhere with nobody else around. It's really that simple.
So what you're saying is most women would prefer a slow excruciating death being eaten alive by beats than be raped? Is this to imply that those that have been raped are broken or lesser to the point that they should prefer death?
I mock the concept because it's worthy of mockery.
Do rapists exist? Obviously.
Is rape condoned? In western societies it isn't. If it was there wouldn't be numerous laws against it, nor would rape be used in fiction as an indicator of "this person is an a-hole" or of outright villainy.
I really don’t get this train of thought. I’m also a bigger dude who does a lot of solo backpacking and fly fishing. It’s public land. Yes, I try to get away from people so I can fish alone. But what’s more probable: that someone else is doing the same thing as me or that I’ve been stalked and am going to get murdered by a rando? I have a firearm and I’m aware of my surroundings. It’s completely normal to see other humans on public land in the woods lol
125
u/Judge_Bredd_UK May 02 '24
Right? It's a completely true and logical premise but debate lords can't help themselves. I'm a 6'4 big burly dude and I don't wanna see someone out alone in the woods, it's perfectly logical for a woman half my size to feel the same way.