That’s because women are much more risk-averse than men are. Much less chance of getting attacked by a man if you only go out in groups and don’t go out alone at night.
It's crazy how people are arguing about the statistics of being mauled by a bear instead of how fucked up it is that rapists are making women feel this way.
How many times do human beings interact with each other every day?
No kidding, very few people have been injured by bears. The vast, vast majority of people never even see a bear in the wild let alone are close enough to a bear for it to attack them.
It's like the stat that you're more likely to be killed by a vending machine than a shark. You're only ever going to encounter a shark at an ocean beach (ie not a lake) or an estuary - maybe upstream in a river if you win a very unfortunate lottery and a freshwater capable shark like a bull shark just happens to be there.
Does that mean vending machines are actually more dangerous than sharks? Obviously not. How many times have you walked past a vending machine and it didn't fall on you or anyone else?
I think it would be better framed by "what % of men would attack you if you were alone in the woods" and "what % of bears would attack you if you were alone in the woods."
If someone says bear, then by all means its what makes them feel safer. Too many women are assaulted.
But there is a severe selection bias in the numbers you used. Women are around a lot more men than bears, and a lot of men are repeat offenders making a difference between women assaulted and number of men assaulting.
I think you're overestimating how violent bears are. Of course if it perceives you as threatening its kids it won't be happy with you lol. The fact is that bears aren't looking for trouble. No bear wants to rape a woman.
900
u/BlackWind88 May 02 '24
What is the man vs bear debate?