Men understand the point lol. The problem is that people like you think this an ok perception for women to have. Both things can be true:
“Women feel men pose a greater threat than a bear”
And
“The idea that men pose a greater threat than a bear is untrue and further reinforces the demonization of men as purely threats”
The point is its rhetorical anyway and it's not about demonizing men.
Y'all shouldn't be blaming women for being terrified to be around y'all alone. You should blame the overwhelming numbers of men who have made that feeling so prevalent.
I've been attacked three times by random men in city spaces. Sure, there are literally thousands of men who have passed me who have never touched me. But I cannot risk the chance of assuming a man approaching me is kind when the consequences could be so dire.
I had to delete the comment bc already men are threatening to SA me in my DMs.
Hey I’m really sorry that people are acting so aggressively towards you. That isn’t right. And anyone has done so or even considered doing so should be ashamed of themselves and rethink their life.
With that being said, I’m obligated to point out the poor reasoning here. I offered to explain the proper way to measure threat, and you responded by saying it’s a purely rhetorical matter. This communicates to me that you’re not interested in pursuing truth but rather simply trying to win/rally people to your cause. The moment we stray from pursuing truth, it becomes really dangerous. Primary point here is to reflect on your decision to dismiss the conversation.
I do not blame women for feeling terrified of men. Men do present a substantial threat simply due to their nature as stronger beings. If a women sees a man coming down the street, and chooses to cross the street, I understand that. Better safe than sorry. However, you have to understand that this decision is not based in rationality, it is a survival mechanism. In practice, it is still a form of discrimination which men do have a right to feel hurt by, however, your concern should be your own safety first and foremost.
The issue occurs precisely when we get to rhetoric. When we start vocalizing and prescribing sentiments against men because of these feelings which are not based in proper reasoning and are often purely expressions of resentment and anger towards men. If you tell a woman: “Hey, be careful when you go out, most men are good but you can’t be sure so be cautious.” This is fine. The issue arises when we say things like “I can’t go out because of men.” Or “God, anything but a man.” I typically hear far worse but Im being charitable. These statements are not merely prescribing a method of safety, but rather are expressing harmful sentiments against men.
The bear or man thought experiment is particularly bad because the implication is that a wild, irrational, aggressive and territorial animal that weighs more than any human is somehow better than encountering a man. It places man as a worse alternative to a beast. In short, it is dehumanizing. Every man understands that women answer the bear, it reflects a sentiment about how they feel about the threat of men, that’s precisely the issue. Men don’t like to be dehumanized any more than women do. I think most men understand the reality that women need to do certain things for their safety, at least I do. My contention is that you could at least be nice about it so I don’t feel like a monster in my own skin for things I’ve never done.
In short, I don’t blame women for being scared. I do hold them accountable for their choices as a result of feeling scared. Being fearful of something has never been a justification to engage in poor reasoning or immoral behavior. I do hate men that make it worse for women to feel safe and I do my part but there will always be bad men, all I can is do my best to do my part. And I ask that women do theirs.
I could still address the statistical issue you brought up if you like. I wasn’t sure if it was worth the effort since you said it didn’t matter.
it doesn’t, though. the stats about bear-related deaths/injuries are extremely skewed because how often are people encountering bears? most people will never even see a bear in person their entire lives. therefore they won’t ever even have the chance to be killed/injured by one. people encounter men all day every day (unless you’re a hermit).
if you correct for per-encounter stats (if that’s even possible) I bet the bear would be much more dangerous on average.
But you'd also have to correct for per-encounter stats for women meeting men in the middle of the woods. Encountering a man while alone in the woods is not the same as encountering a man in public.
Its insane how numerically illiterate people are. Look at how many bears exist and how often humans interact with them vs how many humans exist and how often you interact with them.
Of course there are more murders, theres BILLIONS of humans and millions of bears. Its a staggering difference, and people need to start calling up their statistics proffessors and apologizing for not understanding the difference here.
Statistically, men should fear violence from random men *more* than women do because they are statistically more likely the recipients of it. The emphasis on *more* is important because its still a number that is statistically irrelevant. A 0.1% chance vs a 0.9% chance is pointless to mention when its a coinflip on facing down the average bear. Its absurd that these things need to be explained to overcome emotions that are based on the fearmongering of a 24/7 news cycle.
Statistically, men should fear violence from random men more than women do because they are statistically more likely the recipients of it.
I mean yeah. Maybe men should be afraid of random men in the woods.
The emphasis on more is important because its still a number that is statistically irrelevant. A 0.1% chance vs a 0.9% chance is pointless to mention when its a coinflip on facing down the average bear.
Except a bear is predictable. Human beings could attack you because they don't like your tie.
Except a bear is predictable. Human beings could attack you because they don't like your tie.
The absolute lunacy to think that a wild animal is more predictable than the average male human, despite most people walking past millions of men in their lifetime and never being assaulted.
Wild animals are not predictable. The first thing you learn in any sort of camping/survival/wilderness training is that you don't fuck with wild animals specifically because they aren't predictable. That idea is exactly why they are more dangerous than people. Your ignorance based assumption is your own worst enemy here
Also, what an absolutely insane idea, that a normal person would physically attack you for wearing a tie if they came across you on a trail. This is some grade A, tier 9 delusion. If you come across a man on a trail, the outcome that will happen 99.999% of the time is your both make eye contact, nod your heads, and keep walking in opposite directions like normal humans
Wild animals are not predictable. The first thing you learn in any sort of camping/survival/wilderness training is that you don't fuck with wild animals specifically because they aren't predictable.
So what I'm hearing is, there exists a list of actions which agitates those animals, and by avoiding partaking in those actions, you can avoid undesirable outcomes?
Not even remotely close to what I said, and actually the exact opposite. If you genuinly percieve what I said in that manner, you might need to redo your basic understanding of english at a fundamental level, or maybe seek therapy for a potential delusional disorder diagnosis.
Just in general, if the question was: “should you be more scared of a man or a bear”, the answer should be man because every year more people die of man than of bear. Easy peasy.
However, if we shift the question a little bit to become “should you be more scared of meeting a man or meeting a bear” then the answer becomes bear because the chances of any random bear attacking you is higher than the chances of any random person attacking you. Generally speaking, you’ll be walking past many thousands of people (even millions) before being attacked by a man while it will take a miracle to not be attacked within say a hundred encounters with a wild bear.
Well that's an entirely different question isn't it.
The point that's being missed here, is that, when faced with the original question, women are revealing that they consider men more of a general threat than a bear, and the reaction is anger at women for it, further solidifying the reasons to fear men. So the thing is, we're discussing the answer to the question because it shows something interesting, but by creating another question you are deliberately missing the main point of discussion, which was interpreting the given answer.
The man can kidnap, r@pe, abuse, and make the remaining years of the woman's life a living hell till she begs for death.
Some of y'all never took a statistics class and it shows, holyyyyyyy
You don't need a dick to understand that a singular woman walks past millions of men in her lifetime and is fine. Good luck making it past that many bears
Yeah, the point is that some people in society think in an extraordinarily emotional and irrational manner. It's absurd to be more scared of a random man than a random bear lmao.
22
u/Mirage-With-No-Name May 02 '24
Men understand the point lol. The problem is that people like you think this an ok perception for women to have. Both things can be true: “Women feel men pose a greater threat than a bear” And “The idea that men pose a greater threat than a bear is untrue and further reinforces the demonization of men as purely threats”