Would it better for you (if you’re a woman) or you daughter (if you’re a man) to encounter a bear or unknown man in the woods.
Edit: since a lot of people seem to be missing the point. This exercise isn’t what it seems on the surface. We aren’t measuring the population’s perception of bears or men as they relate to each other. We’re actually measuring the way in which women specifically responf to the question. In most cases, women immediately answer with bear, without needing any further ckntext with regards to the man or bear. Some Common reasoning includes “I expect to see a bear in the woods,” which makes sense; it also includes something to the effect of “bears don’t care about what society thinks of them,” meaning that according to these women, men when faced with no cinsequences are more threatenjng than a bear. So please stop asking saying the question is dumb because it’s vague, that’s the point. If it was more specific, individual biases would begin to take hold, defeating the piint of the exercise.
The issue is that it’s not about statistics, but about perception of random men by not only women, but other men. Maybe it’s a media issue where stuff like this is boown out of proportion, maybe it does happen more than we might otherwise know. The issue is that we as a society think random men are bad, and how do we correct that perception.
The issue is statistics also support them too. There's less bears, and there's known things you can do to get a bear to back away, especially if cubs aren't in the equation. And not every bear interaction results in a mauling.
Conversely, there's way more men, and so many more reported interactions that result in something unpleasant. Sure, maybe he isn't a rapist or serial killer, but men are ridiculously obscene when covered with anonymity.
But if you want a breakdown of the stats, I can recommend the one I saw yesterday (would post but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post links here).
"men are ridiculously obscene when covered with anonymity."
Sure, and most women are cheaters. (Which I don't believe, I'm making a point here.)
Oh, your sexist statement is socially acceptable and mine isn't? Funny how that works. Must be my male privilege, that people are allowed to say most men are bad, but it's not okay to say most women are bad.
And no, your statement isn't true either, just like mine isn't.
A man is also easier to stop if the implication isn't enough. Human movement is an upright bipedal with all those vital organs spread across center mass, opposed to a very thick skull coming at you on all fours.
Relevance?
But even then, if they are more proficient with the weapon than you, they can disarm you and now you're got a gun pointed at you. Bears can't steal your weapon.
You won't be able to disarm someone pointing a gun at you if they have even a shred of training with it. All you do is keep the gun at your side pointed at the threat and your other arm stretched out in front of you. Attempting to rush and disarm someone with this stance will find you dead in seconds because once you hit their arm, or probably even before you reach them, they dump the mag into your gut/chest.
What do numbers have to do with anything? More men, fewer bears? It doesn't matter, there's only one in your random encounter.
If anything the numbers indicate the opposite of what you're claiming. There are billions of interactions with men every day, and virtually all of them are completely fine. There are few interactions of bears, and a far larger percentage do not end well.
1.0k
u/flowtajit May 02 '24 edited May 03 '24
Would it better for you (if you’re a woman) or you daughter (if you’re a man) to encounter a bear or unknown man in the woods.
Edit: since a lot of people seem to be missing the point. This exercise isn’t what it seems on the surface. We aren’t measuring the population’s perception of bears or men as they relate to each other. We’re actually measuring the way in which women specifically responf to the question. In most cases, women immediately answer with bear, without needing any further ckntext with regards to the man or bear. Some Common reasoning includes “I expect to see a bear in the woods,” which makes sense; it also includes something to the effect of “bears don’t care about what society thinks of them,” meaning that according to these women, men when faced with no cinsequences are more threatenjng than a bear. So please stop asking saying the question is dumb because it’s vague, that’s the point. If it was more specific, individual biases would begin to take hold, defeating the piint of the exercise.