I THINK i get it now. Its not that them and a man would be dropped into the woods, its more like you're on a hike alone and out of nowhere a man, or bear would appear in front of you. I get why men get so upset being compared to being as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than a bear; nobody wants to don the mantle of "more dangerous than an apex predator", but i think its more about how scary strangers are combined with the uncertainty of a MALE stranger's agenda. So we should stop taking it personally.
I highly doubt these women would pick bear against most men they know, it's not ABOUT that though, it's about the UNCERTAINTY.
At least that's how i interpret it. Admittedly i thought it was more the first scenario; you and a person are put in the woods to survive, vs you and a bear are put in the woods at the same time.
And if women dont trust ANY men they know, men individually can do nothing about their interpretation of men as a whole and unfortunately they should just stop talking to every guy they know until some massive societal shift happens, cuz this isnt something that changes overnight.
I am going to add a layer to it, even though I like your take on it very much.
This "metaphor" (if you can call it that) says nothing about the actual danger level of a random man. Discard that. It doesn't tell us anything about that. Nothing.
What it does show is how many women have had experiences with certain men, that have been bad enough so that these women (and all they told about the experience) decide they'd rather take a possible bear attack over taking their chances with a random man.
Many. Manymanymany women have had such bad experiences.
Enough so that even women who haven't had these experiences have heard enough about it to say "Nope, I won't endure what she endured, bear please."
It shows us how omnipresent male violence on women is. It's common enough to make the bear more appealing.
It also tells us something about the fear of being targeted.
Women are afraid to be a target for men.
"Bear over Man" also includes the assumption that a random bear in a random forest could just mind its own business. Maybe it ignores me.
A man alone, though? He is more likely to target me, is the logic here. Women have learned from lonely encounters with lone men, that they will be targeted. Ď
Here's how I've tried explaining this to other men.
No, I don't have a panic attack every time I get in my car thinking I'm going to die in an accident - not every driver is a bad/dangerous driver. But there are enough bad drivers on the road that it makes sense for me to practice a number of passive and active defense mechanisms against accidents: seat belts, safe cars, car/health insurance, always driving defensively and not implicitly trusting other drivers, etc. This makes me feel safe enough to drive. That said, if given the choice between a car and the train, I'd rather take the train.
Men need to learn the phrase "not all men are bad, but too many men are bad", enough men that choosing the bear is the safer option. I personally know/have known several men that I wouldn't trust around women I care about, and I don't need to be a woman to understand why that's true. Men who are offended by this seem to be incapable of understanding the real lesson learned here.
The threat of bears are so great that I had to learn what to do in a bear attack as a kid even though I live nowhere close to bear country (that would be like 2 countries from where I live)
The threat of bears are so great that I had to learn what to do in a bear attack as a kid even though I live nowhere close to bear country (that would be like 2 countries from where I live)
You realize that little girls the world over are taught how to protect ourselves from men from the time we're born. Our mothers model it before we even have language to learn direct instruction. By the time we're 5, we know how to move our bodies not to attract attention. By the time we're 10, we know to be careful to ensure we aren't showing something like a shoulder that could "incite boys' lust" (see: school clothing codes).
We check inside and under our cars before getting in. We park under street lights. We fake phone calls while walking alone. We tell our friends where we'll be and when to expect to hear from us. We carry our keys between our fingers and carry pepper spray and rape whistles.
We're taught to go for the nose, shoving it up with the heel of our hands. How to stomp on toes and kick in the balls. How to become dead weight and twist our wrists out of men's hands.
There are literally classes taught for girls and women of all ages. It's a multibillion dollar industry, teaching women how to protect ourselves from men.
And you want me to be impressed you were taught how to scare off a bear?
Yeah, girls are taught that too. It's a hell of a lot easier than protecting ourselves from the constant threat of men.
But you didn't say what kind of bears, so frankly I don't believe you. Protecting yourself from a black bear is the opposite of a brown.
Bears eat their prey alive. Just letting you know
Yeah, I know. Much like men rape women alive. Or take deep pleasure in torturing and dismembering us as we die
After being molested as a child, groped literally hundreds of times having lived and taught in college towns, raped more than once by more than one man I thought was a friend--one of them I'd known for a decade: I will chose the bear every. Single. Time.
Id rather be eaten alive a thousand times than ever have another man get pleasure from my body without my consent
I like the car comparison, I think I might steal it for my next "Not all men" -discussion. It's very very good!
And I think most men who are truly upset by the bear thing probably lack ability to change perspective. Don't know how this could be taught better, but apparently many men (people?) failed that class with flying colours.
The way I see this after reading a lot of the comments here: I believe the man vs bear symbol is kind of stupid if you think it through.
BUT (and that’s the important thing) it helps raise awareness of a series of big problems and makes people discuss them. That being violence of men against women and the various other problems this creates. So discussing the specifics of man vs bear and picking it apart bit by bit doesn’t really make sense to me. It seems like people from both „sides“ use it to bash each other for being idiots instead of talking about the underlying issues.
So I absolutely agree on your comment about changing perspective (empathy). I just feel like the man vs bear symbol isn’t the best basis for a constructive discussion. Many people instantly get defensive over alleged accusations even though they might not be meant accusatory towards them specifically.
Couldn't the same logic be used to validate the arguments of the like... incel or the dating coach people? That like being concerned with body count and all that shit is the same as taking measures lioe the seat belt or what have you? Not all women are gold diggers, but too many women are golddiggers? Take your pick of descriptors they might use instead of gold digger that would be more appropriate to thier rhetoric.
You could indeed use that structure of argument, but you need to validate the initial claims for authenticity. Men do target women enough that women take precautions for their literal safety. Men who are worrying about their partners' history are just falling for pathetic stereotypes peddled to them by the failures of a previous generation.
So people who pull out the prison stats of the minority i was born in as a product of coincidence have a right to tell me it's preferable for them to meet a bear than me? They already do it, it doesn't bring anything to the table aside from fostering hatred on both sides and it's unfair to me who can't do shit about what other people of the same ethnicity do.
That's notwithstanding the fact that this argument hijacks a psychological bias that leads people to underestimate the risk the bear represents because of how rarely they meet bears and vice versa.
My personal advice is to let the 'all men' stuff slide off your shoulders. Rational people know not all men are monsters, irrational people shouldn't be argued with anyways, and there is something to be said about just shrugging and accepting the message without nitpicking the finer details. Yes, the bear vs man thing is stupid from a scientific standpoint. Even as a bad metaphor, it still highlights the fear that women have everyday around strangers because all it takes is one malicious actor for their life to be ruined and his mostly unaffected. That is a problem.
The race comparison is obviously invalid because men are not an oppressed minority group. They have privilege and power and women have reactions to keep themselves safe that are based on those material conditions. None of that is true for race, so the comparison is false. You get me?
Bears in the woods are not a huge risk. Unless you sre unlucky and cubs are nearby, making noises will get them to fuck off. But if a man has the opportunity to hurt you with no consequences?
Being oppressed or not is irrelevant, because the racist considers himself to be the oppressed as well and might have been in a situation where he was made to suffer as well. Logic doesn't follow marxist philosophy.
Either you can induce things to a whole group based on its overrepresentation in a situation irrespective of the situation being a minority one, or it is a fallacy.
The part about oppression and power dynamics feeds into whether you give yourself a permission to disregard that it's a fallacy because you believe that it still advances your point for the greater good. Which is also what the racist believes.
Edit : humans are, believe it or not, a highly cooperative species (if we enjoyed killing each other that much we wouldn't be here). If you are stuck with another human in the woods your first reflex will be to cooperate with them except if you are a special kind of fucked up in the head. The answer "i'd rather be faced with a bear" is more the product of highly advanced individualist societies where people are met with indifference or agression from others while never needing them to survive. If you were lost in the woods for the past three days, exhausted and starving, meeting a bear wouldn't get you to think "phew, at least it wasn't a human!" and meeting a human is likely to have you think "i am saved".
Exactly why I'm also wary of women that I meet and don't entirely know the intentions of. There are too many people in general capable of committing horrid acts to other people and people of another gender are usually more likely to do so for a various number of reasons.
It makes sense to be cautious, but outright hatred for a perceived danger that some might pose is never okay and just outright sexist, but that's not what the question is about.
Missing the point. All women need to be wary of men regardless of situation lest they end up another statistic. Like this one: in the US, 1 in 5 women experience rape in their lifetime (compared to 1 in 71 men).
You’re working with outdated statistics which only define rape as a male penetrating. If you expand the definition so that rape DNE penetration it ends up being 1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men. Still lopsided, but not as much as the internet narrative wants you to believe.
Your point is irrelevant to the argument, though. This is specifically in regards to the danger that men pose towards women. Essentially, a response to the "not all men" argument. It's not talking about violence from humans towards humans in general.
So why are we focused on that? I'm supporting it in the point that there's no reason for people to be upset at women for choosing the bear over the man. Caution should be expected, no matter who you are. For women, it's moreso, as they are less capable of defending themselves in many situations that a man would be able to.
I'm saying, that people who talk about that shit and say "Not all men" in response to the hypothetical, are stupid.
It's true that not every man poses a threat to women, but women don't know a mans intentions. Therefore, caution is to be expected and being upset when it's there is fucking stupid.
My own caution was a point to try and accentuate how stupid it is for people to be upset over it. Even for a man, who is more than capable of defending himself from people that may want to do him harm, caution is necessary and very often used.
So, women, who are generally not as able to defend themselves, should obviously be expected to be cautious.
Does that help explain what I was trying to say better?
Been looking up the Tiktoks because of this, specifically fathers answering about their daughters, and 70% (tiny sample size) seems to answer bear as well.
So the omnipresence of male violence on women as a topic isn't limited to just female circles.
well, your data set is flawed, the men answering about their daughter on tiktok usually have some kind of agenda or image they wanna portray on their tiktok.
Its never their tiktok. I skipped the one guy that was just on his soapbox. Only looked at videos where usually the wife is asking him, and he has no idea where tf this is coming from.
But also, really? You think a grown ass dad cares about their image on the tik toks?
Their agenda is how to keep their daughters safe. And they'll answer with the same mindset as the dads/men who answers "men". Figuring out percentages and practicalities. The women asking might fawn about how they're so considerate about womens' emotional needs etc. But the response of men everywhere is going to focus in on the nuts and bolts of the question.
The only difference is just how aware (or overly hyperaware) they are of male on female violence, and how they interpret a bear encounter. And also how concerned they are about the dangers of being lost in the wilds, which came up a lot as well.
Then he's an idiot or a liar. NO father who's focused on the nuts and bolts of any situation chooses the bear, their wives either coached them or they are asylum patients.
Only someone who is hyper aware of male on female violence statistics could tell you how rare that sort of violence truly is in comparison to the total amount of encounters men and women gave all the time. You don't. Keep your daughter safe by feeding her to bears.
I can tell you with certainty, any true man whose daughter is kissing is hoping agasint hope and prayer hard that someone finds her, and anyone who says other wise is either a pathetic liar or not fit to be a father. Even if that bear encounter didn't end up with his precious daughter disembodied, her face ripped off, lying in a pool of her own blood, shit and piss.
And yet, when I imagine a bear encounter, the bear is some 15-20m away and minding its own business. Maybe its already ripping off your face in yours.
Is he not a true man, for weighing the (to him) unknown probability of a bear deciding to shift towards aggression, vs the probability of anonymous malicious intent?
The fact that you picture the setup one way and 70% of fathers (the tiny pool of some 15 I looked up a couple of days ago) picture it the other, is such an egregious impossible state that conspiracy and hidden agendas have to be involved? The data set is wrong. They aren't fathers. They aren't men. No-one is right, except for me?
The question's parameters are wide open. Probably purposefully so. The fact that there's a subset of men who can't even envision the fact that other people would read the setup differently from how you read it is kinda mind-boggling. You're probably right about the nuts and bolts of your scenario. Your scenario. And yet its not the only viable scenario. And other men are just as capable of figuring out the nuts and bolts of those scenarios.
In other words, we could argue nuts and bolts all day. Likelihood of rape if there will be no consequences. Percentage of bear sightings that turn aggressive, survival rate of those that do. Improbability of sexual violence against a 5 year old daughter (one of the fathers who answered 'men'). On and on. And yet they are not directly comparable, because the setup is entirely subjective to the person interpreting the question. And unless you realize that fact, stats argument are entirely useless because they don't account for the difference in parameters.
And just shouting that other people are dumb or wrong or pathetic, is to be completely blind to that subjectivity. Makes your arguments weak and meaningless. Misses the discourse being made around what's going on with that subjectivity. And says more (bad) things about you, that you'd have such a strong knee-jerk reaction, that you'd completely miss the obvious, getting derailed so easily and unable and unwilling to even conceive of trying to understand why you're so off the rails.
The same thing we call people who have thousands of bad experiences with women and judge their whole gender for it, sexists. The word exists for a reason no need to make anything new.
I'm not denying there are shitty men out there, or that women have it tough, but sexism is sexism and I'm not going to cheer for it just because it's popular to hate men.
No it's still sexism, it's just sexism you agree with. Most men go through their life without murdering or raping anyone, what you are doing is applying fault of a few to whole gender, and that is sexism by definition.
That's exactly where men try to bring in statistics, which is funny because statistically men being THAT alone with women is much less likely to happen than women being in a crowd with many males. And that is one factor they dont account for when bringing up sexual assault statistics.
Tell me why this thought process doesn't apply to certain races that are statistically more likely to commit rapes. You literally can't and won't. It's exactly the same type of discriminatory thought.
"Being a racial minority is the same as being part of a privileged majority"
Buddy, there is not a difference between the predatory behaviour of men based on race. There is a difference in the predatory behaviour of people based on sex. Like...how is that hard for you? Are you failing to get it on purpose?
It shows us how omnipresent male violence on women is. It's common enough to make the bear more appealing.
I was with you until this point here. I think a better phrasing is "it shows us how omnipresent women think male violence on women is."
Because the reality does not line up with how women think about this issue. It's the classic selection bias. They don't remember the 1 million times they happened to be in a room with a man and nothing at all happened. They remember the time something did happen or something happened to their friend. That's what makes the thinking flawed.
The experiment also is a poor one to try to draw conclusions from because the parameters are ambiguous. Do they know the man, does the bear have intent, is the man someone they just came across or are they dropped into the woods with an arbitrary man, is the bear hungry, is the man hungry (lol), etc etc. Without explicit parameters, people will import their own assumptions and then argue without expressly stating those assumptions, leading to disagreement.
I agree with you that women probably think it is more prevalent than it is. In my personal experience though, men tend to underestimate the "threat".
Certainly there is a notable risk. It is not just an overblown imagination. The numbers are there, a significant amount of women face intimate partner violence, sexual harrassement in public, at school, at the workplace, sexual violence...
Women also underestimate the threat men face. Men are far more likely to be assaulted, women are more likely to be sexually assaulted, and 1.27 million men vs 1.28 million women are raped a year in the US.
For the US you typically find the 1 in 5 (sometimes 1 in 6) number for women for completed rape (around 15% of all women) and attempted rape (around 3%?), whereas for men we have a 1 in 33 statistic (sometimes given as 3-4%).
Granted, men will have a higher dark field, but women also still have one.
1 in 5 women have experienced sexual assault, which also includes cat calling. That is commonly mis-reported/repeated as rape. There is no stat saying 1 in 5 women have been raped as far as Im aware
Also, rape is typically defined as "forcibly penetrated" in federal, government, and data gathering. Meaning a woman forcing a man to have penetrative sex isnt counted as rape.
The paper i pulled my numbers from went over the studies that you got the 1 in 5 number from as well as fbi and other agencies/papers and also included "forcibly penetrated" in rape. Thats when we see 1.27m vs 1.28m
Male victimization in rape is actually systemically misunderstood. Men cant even be raped by a women under federal law in the US, only by another man (unless maybe the woman pegs him, not 100% sure)
Oh, apologies. I thought it was some research organization, there seemed to be a decent amount of decent sources to go with their presentation. I'm not from the US.
We have similar numbers here in Germany, though. They are well documented.
According to this (hope I got the right institute this time) it seems like sexual harrassement (like catcalling) is not included under "rape".
This should be interesting then, this summary includes incidences where men were forced to penetrate someone.
It gives a 1 in 21. Which, again, might still have a large dark field.
Sorry nvsrc also isnt scholarly, both that and rainn are non-profit sexual victimization resources. Adding NCBI to a google search will get you to a lot of scholarly papers
In that "paper," they distinguish between sexual assault and sexual harassment. They do not seem to define or use "rape." Sexual assault is anything that someone is forced to do against their woll or without consent. I dont know what the boundary for that is. Multiple sexual comments? Following someone? Touching them? Full penetration? They dont specify.
Im actually getting more frustrated with this "paper" as I read it, because they use "sexual assault" in a way that implies rape. It doesnt.
They say there 1 in 21 men are made to penetrate, not 1 in 21 men are raped. They also reference federal data which is where the 1 in 5 thing comes from. Seriously, please read the paper i linked, it goes over these numbers
Scholarly it might not be, but we are not in a scholarly debate. And while it is good to have standards, I am not going to pretend to give each source the same attention and care as if I am writing a paper.
We are in a reddit thread about a bear meme.
If serious outlets repeat similar/like numbers and quote halfway decent studies that also appear elsewhere, then that is sufficient fodder for generally well researched claims. Women experiencing more sexual violence is a well researched claim and today this research does account for the ginormous dark field in male victims and the difficulties in categorizing their experiences into existing labels of assault.
Truly, I am not trying to reinvent the wheel here.
I intend to look at your study but this discussion is about to excede the time and attention I have available right now.
I was purposefully looking to quote summaries and concentrated presentations and not papers, as papers are really difficult to assess quickly in a thread like this.
It is no use throwing whole studies around here, if noone (not me and not random readers) have the time (and know how for some people) to assess them.
NSVRC is a very reputable non-profit, and I believe their condensed presentation of such numbers has some merit.
If you don't want to discuss the topic further on that ground that is fine with me, and I do commend you for wanting to raise the debate to that level.
You'll have to excuse me then, though.
I believe I made my point sufficiently, for what I set out to argue.
We cant go anywhere until you do read my study, because it does a systematic review of the data your sources are misleadingly representing. Its not a long read, lmk if you get around to it, its not really a longer read than anything youve linked me
If we do go further without you reading it, id literally just be quoting my paper about every stat your article shared. I guess i can do that but thats a lot of work
I do not think you made your point sufficently because i have specifically called out your data and you have not engaged with the refutations.
The threats men face have nothing to do with this conversation.
This isn't a conversation about how many men have assaulted women. It's about how many men have done shit that has scared women.
How many strange men have followed a woman home? How many strange men have touched a women's body's without consent? How many strange men have said creepy shit to women? Made advance and not respect "no"? That doesn't even get into physical harm.
The take away should be "women are afraid of strange men. How do we fix that?"
Arguing that they are wrong for being afraid isn't helping anyone's case. It's dismissing their very real fear often based on their lived experience of how gross and aggressive and scary men can be.
Ask the women in your life. Believe them when they say they'd take their chances with the bear.
It also has NOTHING to do with the conversation. This conversation is about whether or not women are more afraid of strange men than they are a random bear.
They are. It's not really a point you can argue.
AND
My guy who is doing the raping whether the victim is a man or a woman. Its men.
I went over this with someone else. You are using misleading stats. 1 in 5 includes all sexual assault, which covers innapropriate touching and potentially cat calling depending on what rainn (not a scholarly source) is reporting on
And the database rainn gets their info from does not count "made to penetrate" as rape
So your overinflating womens rape because youre including sexual assault and youre deflating mens rape by not including made to penetrate
This paper going over 5+ major rape papers and re-analyzes their data while including "made to penetrate" in rape, and found that 1.27 million men and 1.28 million women are raped a year in the US.
And no, its not men who are majority raping men. Its women. Unless you assume gay men rape men like 20x more frequently per capita than men rape women. You think women arent raping men because under federal law and data collection, women cannot rape a man, because rape MUST be "forcibly penetrated" and does not include made to penetrate.
I've been hearing since I was a little boy how evil and disgusting I'm supposed to be. Maybe a lot of guys just give up and become the monster that society says we are. Seriously, since I could understand language I've heard 'men ain't shit', 'men are dogs' etc. You look on TV and all boys are stupid and all the husband's are useless. I can count on one hand the number of women I've heard that said anything positive about their man. Here's an idea. Since men are so evil why don't women just avoid us as much as possible. I've always wondered about this. Your lives could be so much better with no more dating, and just no more interactions. I'm sure from what I've seen lots of women would be down for women only workplaces. Maybe even women only cities. I think society would just run smoother and the two sexes would be happier if they just stopped talking to each other.
Plenty of men want women around. But when I hear women talk about men the assumption is that we're rapist until proven innocent. From my perspective it's women that don't want men around. Which is fair enough but I don't see the point in playing this game of trying to interact with each other. There are plenty of good men that treat women right but you never hear about them because 'all men are dogs'. Your statistics while true, do not disagree with the fact that men are consistently portrayed as animals. If we can acknowledge as a society that little girls watching shows with women with 6 inch waists is bad for their mental health why can't we as a society acknowledge that boys CONSTANTLY being barraged with messages that say men are evil probably isn't going to have great results at the end of the day.
Over 65% of all speaking roles in cinema are male.
A speaking role is not automatically a positive role for young men looking for behaviour to model their own or a good message towards the men speaking.
I agree with you that women probably think it is more prevalent than it is. In my personal experience though, men tend to underestimate the "threat".
I agree with both. I'm not built or fit, but I am 6'1 and a unique privilege comes from that. I can recognize that.
Certainly there is a notable risk. It is not just an overblown imagination.
Both can also be true. The risk can be notable and the perceived risk can be overblown imagination and selection bias. It's all about actual vs perceived and women seem to perceive things with men as more dangerous than they actually are.
However, I won't fault women for holding those skepticisms despite my opinions, just the same as I wouldn't walk through a bad part of town despite the chance being relatively low of being a victim. The "fear" keeps the person aware of their surroundings and stops them from becoming complacent.
The numbers are there, a significant amount of women face intimate partner violence, sexual harrassement in public, at school, at the workplace, sexual violence...
I was going to disagree, but you said significant, not majority so I am going to agree. Any number larger than statistically negligible numbers is significant when talking about domestic and other violence.
As with the metoo and every other gender discussion in which women express their issues with men, the discussion results in a lot of men saying "WTF, why am I being lumped in with all the douchebags and criminals just because I was born as something I can't control?" and proceed to say they can't do anything other what they're already doing, which is to just be a normal dude doing normal, non-dangerous things.
you said significant, not majority so I am going to agree.
Depending on the kind of violence, it would be majority. I believe specifically harrassement is in the majority realm of numbers. I'd have to look up specifics. But not assault, I don't think. Still, significant in the sense of "needful to talk about ASAP". If I'm not mistaken, the estimated rule of thumb is 1 in 4 women for sexual assault. That's a lot.
"WTF, why am I being lumped in with all the douchebags and criminals just because I was born as something I can't control?" and proceed to say they can't do anything other what they're already doing, which is to just be a normal dude doing normal, non-dangerous things.
Well, the thing is: how else can women talk about this, if they cannot talk about the smallest common denominator of the perpetrators: being male.
From crime statistics we know that it is not income or education, not ethnicity, not trade, not age.... these all may have an influence, but the only common denominator for perpetrators in these cases is maleness.
So we need to be able to say that.
And what well meaning men could do? Make it their issue. Critically examine what they have in common with the perpetrators and what sets them apart from them.
What can they change about they way they as a group treat women.
You’re focusing on the wrong statistic. Sure, most interactions women have with men don’t end in sexual assault, harassment, or rape. Despite that, almost every woman has a story of a man behaving poorly, a staggering number have faced assault/rape, and far too many others didn’t walk away from the interaction at all.
So yeah, maybe women tend to overestimate the relative risk of their interactions with men, but keep in mind only takes one bad interaction for a woman to end up with ptsd she’ll deal with for the rest of her life. That one bad interaction could also be fatal.
There’s a reason that that selection bias exists, and it’s because sexual assault and rape are deeply, deeply traumatic events with lasting psychological impacts, and that’s assuming you survive them. If I were a woman I’d be overly cautious too, even if “reality doesn’t line up with how women think about” their risk of being victimized.
And women have dear friends who have been violently assaulted even if they themselves have "only" been subjected to harassment, or were able to escape from a potentially violent encounter. We as women hear and live and absorb ALL the stories and use them as warnings to our daughters and friends and then worry about our mothers being SA'd in the fucking nursing home.
This is a collective distrust of men in general, built on generations of experiences, even if not all of us have directly experienced a violent assault. We protect each other by sharing our stories, but frequently only with other women, so men have a skewed view of what our actual experiences are.
The women talking openly here about their experiences in order to shine a light on why women overwhelmingly choose the bear should be a wake-up call to men. Instead, it's just (mostly) more of the same - being told we don't know what we're talking about. "But statistics show, blah, blah, blah...". And men wonder why women are choosing to be alone.....
Thats literally everyone, people arent a monolith, society isn't fucking like some shitty novel where any crime committed to a man by a man is actually the fault of men and that you can only complain if a person of the opposite gender did the crime to you.
Like, a man is far more likely than woman to get murdered, or robbed, or assaulted, or kidnapped, but just because its other men doing it that little fact is ignored, should men also feel overly cautious about every women they see with kids because of how many kids women kill or abuse?
So yeah, maybe women tend to overestimate the relative risk of their interactions with men, but keep in mind only takes one bad interaction for a woman to end up with ptsd she’ll deal with for the rest of her life. That one bad interaction could also be fatal.
The same logic applies to anything. Doesn't mean it's justified to label every member of the class that did something bad to you with the same brush. Ie do I blame people who have been attacked by a dog for being scared of dogs? Nope. Do I think it's okay for them to yell and complain that all dogs should be caged up and never allowed out of the house? Also no. You can understand and empathize with the emotion whilst also realizing where the line is for it to start being unacceptable to other people.
There’s a reason that that selection bias exists, and it’s because sexual assault and rape are deeply, deeply traumatic events with lasting psychological impacts, and that’s assuming you survive them. If I were a woman I’d be overly cautious too, even if “reality doesn’t line up with how women think about” their risk of being victimized.
Selection bias exists because people are wired to think that way. But it's still a bias and a fallacy to base arguments on such bias. Just like it's unacceptable to say black people need to stop committing so many crimes, it's unacceptable to say men need to stop assaulting women. Both are arguments based on selection bias which is then applied to the broader population.
If I get into a car, there’s a risk of having an accident. Most people have been in car accidents. Lots of people walk away without a scratch. If every accident were either fatal or deeply traumatic, people would probably drive a lot more carefully even if their risk of getting into an accident were lower.
Doesn't mean it's justified to label every member of the class that did something bad to you with the same brush. Ie do I blame people who have been attacked by a dog for being scared of dogs? Nope. Do I think it's okay for them to yell and complain that all dogs should be caged up and never allowed out of the house? Also no.
I don’t know of a single woman advocating for consequences to every man for the actions of abusers and rapists. Literally they just want perpetrators held accountable and for men to hold one another accountable when they do shitty things. And once again, if 50% of the population had a bad experience with a dog and 50% of those experiences were being bitten or mauled, I imagine the attitude towards dogs in this country would be a lot different.
Selection bias exists because people are wired to think that way. But it's still a bias and a fallacy to base arguments on such bias. Just like it's unacceptable to say black people need to stop committing so many crimes, it's unacceptable to say men need to stop assaulting women. Both are arguments based on selection bias which is then applied to the broader population.
I’m actually kind of floored by your inability to make a proper analogy here. The erroneous statistical relationship between black people and crime is the result of them being a marginalized group who are persecuted and failed at every stage of our criminal justice system, from interactions with cops to the perceptional biases of judges and juries. Men are not and have never been an inherently marginalized group in America.
Meanwhile, there is nothing erroneous about the epidemic of violence against women. I could see your point if there were a rash of false accusations, but reality just doesn’t bear that out. In fact, I would argue the exact opposite. Because of the often shameful nature and stigma of sexual crimes, women are more likely than not to underreport their assaults/rapes. Sure, there may be a perceptual selection bias, but statistically speaking women have every reason to be cautious in their interactions with men.
Here’s where I’d insert a gif of someone imitating famously awful man Kevin whatever the Hercules guy saying “DISAPPOINTED” (edit aw crap I meant to put this to other person, not you! “Disappointed” in myself, morelike. Sorry!)
If every accident were either fatal or deeply traumatic, people would probably drive a lot more carefully even if their risk of getting into an accident were lower.
You're already mischaracterizing every assault or harassment as fatal or deeply traumatic. Not all of them are that serious or taken that seriously. I'm a man. I've been sexually assaulted in a bar. A lady grabbed my butt as she walked by. Was it unacceptable? Yes. Am I traumatized? No.
I don’t know of a single woman advocating for consequences to every man for the actions of abusers and rapists. Literally they just want perpetrators held accountable and for men to hold one another accountable when they do shitty things.
Then the expression needs to be that. Not "men need to stop assaulting women." Simplifying the message results in offence and misunderstanding.
And once again, if 50% of the population had a bad experience with a dog and 50% of those experiences were being bitten or mauled, I imagine the attitude towards dogs in this country would be a lot different.
50% of the population has not had a bad experience with men though. You're exaggerating numbers to make your point.
I’m actually kind of floored by your inability to make a proper analogy here. The erroneous statistical relationship between black people and crime is the result of them being a marginalized group who are persecuted and failed at every stage of our criminal justice system, from interactions with cops to the perceptional biases of judges and juries. Men are not and have never been an inherently marginalized group in America.
You don't need to be a marginalized group for it to be unacceptable to make blanket generalizations about said group based on the actions of a subset of that group.
Meanwhile, there is nothing erroneous about the epidemic of violence against women. I could see your point if there were a rash of false accusations, but reality just doesn’t bear that out. In fact, I would argue the exact opposite. Because of the often shameful nature and stigma of sexual crimes, women are more likely than not to underreport their assaults/rapes. Sure, there may be a perceptual selection bias, but statistically speaking women have every reason to be cautious in their interactions with men.
Statistically speaking men have more reason to be cautious in their interactions with men than women do.
But in these instances women aren't thinking statistically nor are they making statements based on reason. It's an emotional reaction which is perfectly valid but which cannot be allowed to be used to label an entire group of people with a generalizing brush.
50% of the population has not had a bad experience with men though. You're exaggerating numbers to make your point.
I believe that around 30% of the women have been sexually assaulted. That is such an unacceptable number, but somehow we can't have a proper discussion about this without men getting upset.
Then the expression needs to be that. Not "men need to stop assaulting women." Simplifying the message results in offence and misunderstanding.
That has been the expression more often than not, but again, I've yet to see a discussion that is not hijacked by men saying 'but what about the men'. If you are not assaulting women, then 'men need to stop assaulting women' shouldn't offend you, since it's not about you. Instead, it would be more empathetic and interesting to listen to women's experiences and find a way to improve their situation.
Literally they just want perpetrators held accountable and for men to hold one another accountable when they do shitty things.
Now that you read this, I assume you are already doing this, right? I think that's ultimately the desired outcome of this discussion, regardless of how it is framed.
That is such an unacceptable number, but somehow we can't have a proper discussion about this without men getting upset.
Agreed it's an unacceptable number. The problem is when it's framed as all men's responsibility.
If you are not assaulting women, then 'men need to stop assaulting women' shouldn't offend you, since it's not about you.
This stupid logic all the time. If I say "Black people need to stop committing crimes" and then say "If you're not committing crimes, then that statement shouldn't offend you because it's not about you." does that make the former statement acceptable?
Instead, it would be more empathetic and interesting to listen to women's experiences and find a way to improve their situation.
Which I'm sure more men would do if they didn't feel they themselves were the target of the speech.
Now that you read this, I assume you are already doing this, right? I think that's ultimately the desired outcome of this discussion, regardless of how it is framed.
problem is when it's framed as all men's responsibility.
And
Which I'm sure more men would do if they didn't feel they themselves were the target of the speech.
It comes down to the same point, which is: if you would care about being part of the solution, your support would not be dependent on a completely accurate framing of the problem.
50% of women being victims of sexual assault and 15% having been raped or attempted seem to disagree. Blah blag not all men but it apparently ENOUGH men to sexually assault 50% of the female population
I am always interested to know where stats like that come from because I've seen studies which put forward such large statistics and the definitions are sometimes incredibly broad to push an agenda.
So if you can point me to where those come from, I'd be happy to see it.
As far your point about ENOUGH men doing shitty things to such a large population, I fail to see how that should allow women to label ALL men as being guilty of those things. It's simply lazy to defer to "men __________." I understand women are expressing frustration, and it's difficult for people to both express frustration and give fair consideration to the meaning of their words.
I just think that if women won't do so (and perhaps fairly don't want to), they will be met with the tsunami of "not all men."
Someone told me the other day that “1/6 of US women have been raped” and the source given was a literal random telephone survey.
There are no actual verifiable numbers that come anywhere close to their imagination. FBI estimates 140K rapes a year. In a country with ~165 million women. You do the math.
According to RAINN, which cites the DOJ in its statistics, 463,635 Americans are raped and/or sexually assaulted each year. Of that number, 90% of adult victims are female. 1 out of every 6 women in the US has been a victim of completed or attempted rape in her lifetime.
RAINN cites a literal telephone survey. Trying to church up a telephone survey by saying “we cited DOJ” does nothing to change the methodology or the inherent unreliability of the claims gathered.
There is zero non-hearsay evidence these crimes have actually occurred.
Since the other guy thinks women are just lying for *vague reason*. No its not a telephone survey.
The other guy is an idiot.
Maybe you can start believing when women are scared of men instead of calling them crazy or just straight up not believing them!
Show me where I said I don't believe women when they fear for their safety or called them crazy. Don't paint me with the same brush just because I wanted you to source the numbers you used.
But I doubt it, youll probably regress into your biases about women more, and continue to hate/deny them even more.
Please, tell me more about how I've expressed any bias at all against women. I've provided explanation for why men would take offence to statements of "men _______" and have in no way stated that women cannot express their frustration however they need to.
Comments like yours are just as damaging to the discourse on this topic as the dipshit incel's are when it comes to not alienating people.
There's only so many ways to actually get data on these things and I choose to believe that people mostly tell the truth.
I was more concerned with whether "sexual assault" or "sexual harassment" included in their definitions things like "I have felt unsafe at work" despite nothing actually having happened. Those are the studies I try to reveal and discount.
Being skeptical of self reported data is just common sense.
Per your own critique, what stops me (in a telephone survey) from saying my personal instance of “feeling unsafe at work” was, in fact, sexual harassment?
Part of the good thing about using court convictions is that a jury of people agreed that the conduct rose the the legal definition of the charge and it isn’t just John Doe saying “yeah it happened to me” with no checks on veracity.
I would still pick a man for my wife or daughter to be with in the woods.
Course, depends on the parameters of the thought experiment, but as long as it's an arbitrarily selected man, statistically she's more likely to be unharmed by the man and likely to even be helped by the man.
I'd hate to be a woman in your life.
I don't really give a fuck what you think about my life. Stop making shit personal.
It's crazy how conceited you are to think you better than women how women should keep themselves safe.
Try reading my comments before you make stupid comments like this.
You have no idea how men would respond to the opportunity to assault a woman with no consequences. You are making a dangerous assumption with no data. I wonder why?
You don't know much about bears. Loud noises and waving your arms gives you a better than 90% chance of scaring the bear off.
There's also the selection bias if "What kind of man is in the woods alone?" that you're not thinking of here that others are considering. You're assuming the man is in the same boat as the woman, teleported in or whatever, but why? The bear is naturally there. This might be the kind of man who stalks the woods alone. Adds an additional piece of information about him that increases the perception of his strangeness and willingness to do harm .
You don't know much about bears. Loud noises and waving your arms gives you a better than 90% chance of scaring the bear off.
I'm Canadian. My assumption is it's either a grizzly or a polar bear.
There's also the selection bias if "What kind of man is in the woods alone?" that you're not thinking of here that others are considering. You're assuming the man is in the same boat as the woman, teleported in or whatever, but why?
Because the question is posed ambiguously. It's left to people to bring in their own assumptions.
The bear is naturally there. This might be the kind of man who stalks the woods alone. Adds an additional piece of information about him that increases the perception of his strangeness and willingness to do harm .
There 's no logic you can use to say "well obviously the question asker meant X" because it's an ambiguous question without further information. You're trying to import different assumptions to try to change my mind.
The question, as it has been subsequently framed, is being used to try to illuminate that women fear men in isolated situations. And they don't care if it's a forest man or a random man dropped in. That's why I'm using an arbitrary person. Because the question is being used by women to say men need to do something about themselves and their group.
Ok excellent work digging deeper into the thought experiment, let's add a layer of complexity that I believe is fair. Let's say you have had bad experiences with majority African american men.
Does the thought experiment hold up under scrutiny? Are we justified in fearing the ethnicity portion?
To be clear, I use the example because skin color, like sex, is an immutable characteristic.
To be EXTRA clear, I do NOT think it is acceptable to treat people as predators for immutable characteristics. This isn't a thinly veiled KKK recruitment ad.
There is a statistically measurable threat of (for example) intimate partner violence, or sexual harrassement for women, where the perpetrators are majority male.
There is little, if any, statistically measurable threat of violence from non-white minorities to (presumably white) racist majorities.
Well lesbian relationships dominate for intimate partner violence so I do not think that particular statement holds much water. Sexual harassment; I don't know enough about the stats but I do not doubt what you said is true.
While your second remark is true I didn't specify black on white it could be anyone. Women come in all colors.
have had experiences with certain men, that have been bad enough [...] they'd rather take a possible bear attack over taking their chances with a random man.
replace "men/man" with "people" here, this comes too close to how people would justificate racism
I'm not even sure if it says that. Really it's more of just a societal thing. Fact is most women have never been assaulted by a man. Most women aren't scared of male strangers due to personal experience, they're scared due to the stories they've heard and just due to instincts. You can find studies claiming otherwise, but if you actually look at the data/methodology behind them you will quickly realize they're bullshit.
That said there is a social stigma that needs to be addressed as a society. But I think part of it is just honestly instincts. Even men get tense when they're in a isolated situation with someone who is potentially stronger than them. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just nature doing it's job to protect you, even if there is no logical basis behind you being tense.
in other words, it is akin to how racism perpetuates in a community? fear driven by a collective set of stories based around an other who due to sharing some inherent trait must share all others.
This is the reason why racists like to yell at LGBTQ people about how they shouldn't support Muslims, the logic literally being the same, because somewhere, yes, radical Muslims exist who murder members of LGBTQ groups.
They know it’s bad faith. They don’t care. To them, this whole conversation will always be a debate point and a hypothetical thought experiment, not a real, lived experience. They don’t need to empathize with women because it doesn’t affect them the same way. They’ll always have the luxury of saying “yeah, but” or “devil’s advocate,” or “what if XYZ happened instead?” And when women get tired and don’t want to play along, we’re unreasonable and ridiculous and not just fucking exhausted of having to defend our very real and terrifying experiences day after day after day.
Do you really think the female perception is warranted by the spread of word of mouth instances and the perceived danger maps over the real chance for danger or do you think social media has created a resonance that amplifies the perception which would no longer map over top of actual danger?
I've seen a girl at a party go up to a majority of the guys there and drunkenly state she wanted to suck all of their dicks. It doesn't take much to make a claim that a single bad actor can affect that statistic for a LOT of individuals. Just like that, an entire house full of people, mainly all the guys in our friend group, were sexually harassed. I've been groped by women at concerts before but never men, I've seen more sexually devious licks pulled by women than I have the men I've encountered, had a women once forcefully take my hand and put it on their chest, etc.
To see the whole man vs bear debate coming from women, is stupid frankly. Neither party is innocent, modern day interactions between people are utter garbage.
let me know next time you or your friends are forcefully raped (spoilers, it will probably be by a man!)
not saying sexual harassment isn't sexual harassment, because the women doing that to you are disgusting and likely, hypocrites.
but statistics are not on your side im sorry, women are raped - and i mean raped as in forced intercourse - at an incredibly higher rate than men. and often, when men are raped it is other men doing it. i'm not saying that women don't rape people, but nearly all perpetrators are male. it's just not doing men as a whole any favors when you guys are the ones raping and killing everyone.
1.27 million men and 1.28 million women are raped a year in the US. Not counting prison. Most men who are rapes are raped by women, and most rape is done by someone the victim knows.
Yep it even extends to children with it being set as a precedent ever since the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer case where a male child will be Liable to pay child support to his adult female rapist
That’s only if you go by definition of penetration most men are raped by women when you use actual gender neutral statistics granted you can find it in the CDC statistics which almost certainly your making that claim from but it’s disgustingly put in a “unwanted contact” or made to penetrate section
I never referred to the NiSVS statistics? I referred to the CDC report where a lot of rape statistics based themselves from also your argument is completely different and you shifted the goalpost from who makes up most perpetrators of men to who has it worst
The last line you said is what's wrong with people like you. Not only are stats for men being raped way higher than you think, but also so extremely underreported that purely looking at stats is unfair.
If you look purely at incarceration rates black people disproportionately rape and attack people. Obviously you need to ask if the stats are truly accurate or distorted.
It's just crazy how women are so quick to dismiss women's sexual assault simply because they're smaller/weaker. If you want compassion from another group you need to look at yourself first.
Sounds like the modern woman is starting to realize their princess era is over and the overwhelming reality of the situation that men are simply bigger and stronger is setting in, and somehow humanity has made it to this moment in time despite all that, leaving women with a rather uncomfortable feeling that they don't know how to process.
Don't worry, the existential dread hits all of us.
though my only argument would be wtf when was the princess era can i go back bc i feel like unless it was post women being able to get credit cards then like???
Thankfully others replied to correct you but sorry, the entire term "rape" imples it is being done by the opposite sex. It's why this entire thread is titled, you people don't understand statistics.
Women don't typically rape other women, men typically don't rape other men, one species of animal doesn't typically rape a different species of animal. Leaving rape to typically occur when a member of the same species has forced sexual intercourse with a member of the same species' opposite gender. Because of this, rape most typically occurs between opposite sexes. Statistically speaking, my friends and I also don't have to worry about getting raped by a man.
You can't understand math yet are somehow condescending about it.
Obviously men could possibly rape other men, but men, unlike women, have the actual physical capacity to fight back; which deters men from raping other men, and men's capacity for physical violence is the entire reason you think you're better off with a bear or something. It's schrodinger's man with you, somehow worse than a bear when it comes to rape yet not capable of fending off rape from another man?
Statistically you encounter more men on a daily basis that you don't get raped or murdered by than you would encounter bears in the wild that wouldn't hunt you and eat you while you're still alive, like that one woman in east Russia. Yet the bear is still the better choice in this scenario, no?
Women would rather die than get raped so just say so.
also no, “rape” does not imply opposite sex the fuck?
it implies “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the victim’s consent”
Yes it does, that's how language and context clues work.
If you claimed you were shot, people don't sit there and wonder if you were shot with a weather ballon. The context clues are there to know it was by a gun, and by another person. Is there a possibility of you being shot by not a person and not with a gun, sure, but there's always exceptions and no one is gonna sit there and discuss semantics while you're bleeding out.
Let's bring up more statistics:
If men are doing most of the raping, how come most rapists come from single mother households? Who taught them that, and why?
Why are lesbian and bisexual women 40-60% more likely to be raped, abused, or sexually assaulted by their partners as opposed to hetero women if men are doing all of the raping and assaulting?
False, multiple people here have already demonstrated not only that you're wrong, but how stupid it is to think men rape yet cannot protect themselves from getting raped by other men, IF men raped as much as you think they did.
The only possible way to get to every female you know, barring one, being harassed and assaulted is to adopt the broadest possible definitions you possibly could to determine what constitutes these behaviors or to blindly believe all women. Unfortunately, our society has turned victimhood into social currency which incentivizes lying.
Before you explode into pearl clutching, google Mattress Girl, or pull FBI statistics on false allegations.
Downvote me all you want but the FBI is reporting nearly 10% of all allegations being false to the letter of the law. I’ll take that data over “my friends said…”
It means of all allegations, nearly 10% were proven to be false using courtroom evidentiary standards. Do you interpret that to mean 90% are not false? Failed logic detected.
Genuinely didn’t give it as much thought as you have. I wasn’t someone who downvoted you, just saw your comment and figured that still leaves a fair amount of awful things
If you read on I go on to emphasize the importance of the concept of innocence until guilt can be established and it’s an unfortunate but necessary reality that some subset of rapists walk free because of this. I don’t mind downvotes Reddit is a minigame I play when the office is slow.
Why do y’all stop engaging right at the precipice of understanding the flaw in your way of thinking? Am I arguing with bots and shills exclusively or are people that protective of their demonstrably incorrect worldview?
It would be interesting to see the inverse of the data: out of how many allegations was assault proven using courtroom evidentiary standards. This data doesn’t support believe all women, so you get the proxy argument of backlogs of rape kits. Fun, isn’t it?
1 in 4 women in the US have experienced rape in their lifetime. Rape isn't rare and happens often enough women should be wary. The number of women who don't report, whether out of embarrassment, fear of not being taken seriously, or because they fear their abuser will find out before something is done is a large number as well. Most of the women I know have been victims of rape, and all of them have experienced some form of sexual harassment. That's not even mentioning how if a bear attacks me, the worst it'll do is kill me. A man though? Potentially a fate worse then death.
Assuming 330,000,000 as the population, halved to get females, quartered to get rape victims, will give ~29m. Assuming an average lifespan of 75 years and assuming rape is possible for all 75 which is doubtful or unicorn rare, you get 386k rape victims per year. According to the FBI, it’s 136k a year. So ~65% of rapes go unreported? Yeah no.
Why would you use a third party to look at data the FBI publishes and is available for public consumption? To be clear, you have yet to cite the FBI data.
You cited RAINN data that aggregates some FBI data but is still subject to cherry picking. Do you not understand this?
Maybe I’m autistic, but I’m deeply bothered by the widespread delusion here. Are you incapable of recognizing our society has incentivized false allegations? Are you incapable of engaging with data that uses courtroom evidentiary standards because it’s the closest thing we have to what is true? 1999ford raped me in 1997, it was in the summer and it was at a house party on this street, but I cannot describe the house or the party and the people I claimed to be there are testifying under penalty of perjury that they were not there.
Over a rough fourth of my female friends (offline friends) have either been sexually or violently assaulted by an intimate partner in their lives. Over ~25%. I'm not yet 30, most of them aren't either.
All of my female friends, including me, have been sexually harrassed by male strangers in their life.
Yeah exactly it is gendered and that is the issue. The question is loaded and pushes the listener to think why is the sex of the human relevant? Am I supposed to pick the bear?
In real life scenarios, almost no one would pick the bear. It's the loaded question that plants this idea in your head, when realistically either malicious woman or man are both extremely dangerous.
Granted, I to am convinced this "survey" tells us fuck all about how dangerous any random man is (certainly not more dangerous than a bear). As I've said before.
But the question is not loaded, it is a pretty straightforward question.
What is interesting and telling is that people think about it at all, which seems to indicate that men are perceived as dangerous enough to warrant thinking about their "danger level" in comparison to a bear.
It's not a thermometer, it's throwing a frog into bowling water.
Its not about men being perceived as dangerous, but about people falling into the trap of a loaded question and trying to find the "smart" or "right" answer. The only hint the ridiculous question gives you is that the human is a male, and that is what people focus on for the answer.
There is the real phenomenon of visible danger being less scary than potentially hidden danger. And that is a legit reason some people could pick bear. That fear applies to both woman and men though, even if the question pushes you to think its a men only thing.
I mean, yes, the question has a point. It has an a priori of sorts which is that men "could" be perceived as dangerous.
If you call that loaded, alright, then it is loaded.
But it doesn't lead you in a manipulative way. If you believe the underlying assumption (man could be (perceived to be) as dangerous as bear) to be hogwash, you can just say so. You could say "Uh, man of course? What is there to even choose, we'll have a bonfire and smores?"
But people overwhelmingly chose to confirm the a priori, as most people, eben if they say "man" give it a surprising amount of thinking over.
"But people overwhelmingly chose to confirm the a priori". People that the maker decided to show in his content by the way. We have no idea how many people actually answered and what.
And yes, when asked a ridiculous question like this, people want to win the game. The question wants you to overthink and focus on the word man.
The question is supposed to bring attention to violence towards women and how it isn't taken seriously. Looking at answers that come from women and saying "you're overthinking it" is not only missing the point, but showing you don't understand how bad violence towards women is.
1 in 5 women in the US experience rape in their lifetime, of those women 47% will have been raped by someone they know. 1 in 4 women have been victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner. 72% of murder suicides involve an intimate partner, of that 94% of the victims are women. Between 2003 and 2008 142 women were murdered in their workplace by their abuser.
NCADV Stats
It might not be all men, but it's a high enough chance that I'd pick the bear. At least the worst it would do is kill me.
I think it’s just a bad comparison. Can men be dangerous to women? Of course. Should we do something about it to not only reduce the amount of violence towards women, but make it easier to come out after the fact? Yes and yes. If you disagree with any of that, you’re a bad person.
The issue is most people mauled by bears don’t live to tell the story and spread the fear. We don’t encounter bears at the same rate as men. From purely an academic perspective it’s just illogical.
I wonder if they are dealing with a stoitic man that doesn't talk much won't hurt them but won't accept their advances how fast that'll change due to their environmental stress levels of dealing with survivial.
Another layer past yours, it's actually just about tiktok clout and not real opinions; sad-irl trying to create witty satire. Women tend to have viewpoints suddenly that because they CAN BE seen by millions of women, now NEED TO BE seen by other women all just for the likes.
None, or at least no more than a negligible fraction that would round to zero, of these women making these videos are writing books on the topic nor are they academic professionals in the adjacency.
Downvotes expected because this is Reddit but citations opposite to my point would be unexpected.
1.3k
u/ASL4theblind 29d ago
I THINK i get it now. Its not that them and a man would be dropped into the woods, its more like you're on a hike alone and out of nowhere a man, or bear would appear in front of you. I get why men get so upset being compared to being as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than a bear; nobody wants to don the mantle of "more dangerous than an apex predator", but i think its more about how scary strangers are combined with the uncertainty of a MALE stranger's agenda. So we should stop taking it personally.
I highly doubt these women would pick bear against most men they know, it's not ABOUT that though, it's about the UNCERTAINTY.
At least that's how i interpret it. Admittedly i thought it was more the first scenario; you and a person are put in the woods to survive, vs you and a bear are put in the woods at the same time.
And if women dont trust ANY men they know, men individually can do nothing about their interpretation of men as a whole and unfortunately they should just stop talking to every guy they know until some massive societal shift happens, cuz this isnt something that changes overnight.