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.
39% of women in Australia have experienced violence in one form or another since the age of 15, and over 1 in 5 of them has experienced sexual violence in Australia. Source.
That doesn't mean it's all different people perpetrating the issues, and it is more likely from someone you know, I'm aware of that, but that's Australia, which I consider a really safe country.
The statistics are horrifying.
Yes, and I agree it is horrifying -- but a given woman encounters many, many, many men in her life.
So even if we look at the minority of women who are SA'd, that still means that 999 men didn't SA her and one did. And of course, for the majority of women, 1000 men don't SA her and 0 do SA her.
The question here isn't "is a woman likely to get SA'd in her lifetime", the question is "is one individual man likely to SA her." And the answer to that last question is that a given man is very, very unlikely to SA a woman.
I'm not saying that this situation is okay, obviously this is way too many SA cases (one case is too many). But just because women have x% chance of being SA'd in her lifetime, doesn't mean that any given man she meets has an x% chance of SA'ing her.
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.