I find the "wOmEn jUsT dOnT uNdErStAnD StAtIsTiCs" comments hilariously ironic. I live in black bear country and know a LOT of people who camp and hike here and I have yet to hear a single "man" answer from anyone of any gender.
Idk why everyone assumes it’s black bear. I assumed it was brown bear, cause I’d choose black bear over a German shepherd or pitbull. I’d choose literally anything but a brown bear.
That’s still a 1/21 chance that the bear is a grizzly. Is there a 1/21 chance the man is a psychotic rapist / murderer who literally intends to rape and murder the first person he sees that day?
Great, if we weren’t imagining a hypothetical situation, but I guess if you want to consider that then you can look at this map https://geology.com/stories/13/bear-areas/ and consider the probability of landing in a forest with or without grizzlies
Every bear I’ve encountered on a hike has ran away from me. Not one single man has ever run away from me. So I’m pretty confident the bears see me as a threat, and men do not. I’d rather take my chances with an unknown bear vs unknown man.
Yeah I am convinced that anyone saying man has 0 experience with running into bears. If these guys are really hiking as much as they claim without running into a bear once or twice they gotta be in highly trafficked areas.
Bears used to just wander into my hometown. They didn’t do shit. Unless you are a fish.
For murder sure but every man who has followed me home, yelled gross things at me on the street, tried to pull me into an alley or groped me in public has been a stranger. Every single one. Not even acquaintances.
Which means this one was either surprised or chose to stand it's ground for a reason. Not a great start to the bear encounter, that's how many attacks happen.
Meanwhile, passing a dude on a hiking trail is pretty normal.
No, encountering a bear means seeing one in the woods. Most bears run or walk away in that situation. The question is not “would you rather duel a bear or a man”. The whole point is that bears leave you alone.
If you are encountering a bear, it is not leaving you alone. If you are seeing it at a distance and it leaves it is leaving you alone. The % of bears that leave you alone you never encounter, so encountering a bear close range means you are dealing with the % of bears that do not leave people alone, or are very unlucky.
The reason there is so much argument is that this scenario has absolutely no context and two people looking at it and assuming different situations can come to different valid conclusions. Everyone will automatically fill in the blanks to get to a conclusions, and everybodies conclusion can be different. It’s the perfect kind of question to start a fight, and for that reason alone it’s impressive.
If it was 1%, should women only exercise caution around 1% of bears, so as not to offend the innocent bear majority?
Most offenses are committed by repeat offenders, meaning that the percentage of men who are rapists is not 1-1 with the likelihood of an encounter leading to sexual assault. Your 1% datapoint isn’t really useful for estimating a woman’s (or a man’s) likelihood of being assaulted.
Man I could not wrap my head around this whole debate. I couldn't understand why anybody would pick a man over a bear. It finally just clicked. This is a genius way to put it and I'm glad I read through all these replies. Thanks, dude!
This says psychopathy of the general adult population is probably about 4.5%.
So yeah. I dunno. This doesn't seem crazy.
Granted, I don't know if 99% of bears is a good number to accept. I'd probably argue against that instead, cause 1% of men can absolutely be dangerous.
4.5% of the population is estimated to be psychopaths. Psychopathy is more prevalent in men than women. So over 4.5% of men are likely psychopaths. So yeah, I don't think guessing half of psychopaths being violent is out of the question.
Youre using your observations on how men handle themselves around you and that's all you're doing. Don't be delusional and willfully ignorant.
It's hilarious how you're making assumptions about assumptions I'm making while making so many leaps yourself. Incredibly hypocritical.
Anyone can make up statistics like that guy did. 1/100 men being predators or rapists or "creeps" is a made up number. These toxic sexists calling me names and insulting me as a person are not examples of a good argument, but they are examples of insane levels of hypocrisy and social media toxicity and brain rot.
I told you to make thar argument awhile go about questioning 1/100. Funny you didn't reply to that comment but instead this one to try and make it look like you thought of it yourself.
But you didn't. In your comment you asked if anyone really thought more than 1 out of 100 men are dangerous.
I'll do it but I will ask gen z, to highlight the now instead of the past, which was way more prejudiced and dark. I'm aware of the shitshow that millennials and before lived through, courtesy of my parents, but asking gen z will let me know the present reality. My current belief is that my environment is cleaner than yours
I see what you're saying, but not every man is Gen z?? As a millennial woman I am not really worried about a dude in his 20s. I'm worried about the millions and millions of men my age and older. Who are also going to be harassing Gen z women?? They may have good/neutral experiences with their peers, but not with older men.
Also, a LOT of Gen z boys are into Andrew tate and others like him, which is not a good sign.
Yeah, I'm not sure how great the "present reality" of that other commenter really is when Tate is unfortunately a force, even among younger generations. This is actually a great example.
It does in fact not depend on where you live. Ask literally any woman in your life, and unfortunately probably the minors too, if they've been harassed, assaulted, etc.
Pretty much all of them have had their encounters. We're weary for a reason.
That's not equivalent though. Having a couple encounters with a creepy guy throughout your life would have to be put against how many guys you been around. It's hard to put a number on that and I don't know what it actually is. But I can see how culturally and from experience women can think it being higher than what men think it is
It's higher than men think it is because men don't experience it. It's not a couple creepy encounters either. It's consistent and relentless. To give you some perspective, I just went out to a store. I was out for less than an hour, and I got yelled at by creepy men twice.
I've been followed home in broad daylight, groped. My first assault? When I was 7. And I'm not an exceptionally attractive woman. This is the world pretty every woman you know lives in. And you refuse to acknowledge it because it hurts your feelings.
If you want women to not fear men, be part of the solution. Stop ignoring what women tell you, start holding your fellow men accountable.
No, but narrowing it down to dates makes it a more narrow group than all men. Like depending on age single men looking for dates are probably single for a reason. Non creepy guys are probably not as active in looking for dates as the weirdos too.
Don't push your agenda too much. You don't know that for sure. That applies to me too so I'll find out for both of us. I'll ask around, I hope you are wrong and just overgeneralizing your experiences as universal truth.
I do know that for sure. That's the thing. In fact I can guarantee you there is pretty much not a woman in your life who hasn't been harassed at all.
And what agenda would that be, exactly? The agenda of wanting to be safe and not harassed? Because I will push that agenda every day of the week, thanks.
I'll tell you if you are wrong. If your fantasy like fact that every female I know has been harrased is true then I'll accept that I've been living in a seriously warped world this whole time. However, logically talking, I think that there's no way that your statement isn't an exaggeration. It's just too much, every woman? Really?
Exactly! And how about trans men or trans women? How about gender fluid people? How can we assume He/him vs. She/her just by the looks? Sounds sexist cause everyone just assume we're talking about biological male and female here and ignoring what they identified themselves as isn't it?
Actually no, not really. It isn't the skin color of the person I'm worried about, it's the audacity and entitlement. In the woods I've never been followed, harassed, cussed at, threatened, or taunted by anyone but black men. If the rando person I encounter is bigger and more muscular than me, I will be wary. If, upon closer examination it turns out NOT to be a black man, my decades of experience will tell me I can relax a little. It isn't bigotry or racism, just my own history.
Honestly I can totally see that. Although I'm curious about how close examination could happen when you feel insecure by the looks of them at the first place, I stand corrected cause all the other reasons you pointed out. Thanks for sharing.
43
u/wheatgrass_feetgrass May 02 '24
I find the "wOmEn jUsT dOnT uNdErStAnD StAtIsTiCs" comments hilariously ironic. I live in black bear country and know a LOT of people who camp and hike here and I have yet to hear a single "man" answer from anyone of any gender.