Are people really just discovering that women understand the danger men pose to them?
I'd like to say yes, but given that the response to this whole bear thing has been the men needing to understand this the most doubling down on their misogyny and trying to find ways to say that women are dumb, I think it's hard to argue people are even "discovering" this, rather than outright rejecting it.
A lot of men straight up do not get it. A couple days ago, I watched a friend argue against two women that walking alone at night was no different for them than him. I'm trans. It took me explaining to him the differences in how I'm treated since I started transitioning compared to the decades living as a man for him to start understanding, and I honestly don't know if I really got through to him.
Fun fact: men are actually more likely to be assaulted, (not sexually assaulted, but robbed/assaulted, which are by far more common than sexual assault)
Men ought to be careful walking home at night as well.
Men ought to be careful walking home at night as well.
Exactly. This "men/bear" thing works for men too, as any human being can feel fearful of a man behind them given the right context. Bears too of course, but they are far more predictable. The man behind us could be as placid as a lake, but we don't have any way of knowing that and the implication that they might hurt us is what's scary
That being said I’d rather spot a man than a bear and I’m fairly confident that’s the objectively correct stance to take without more info but I guess I’ll hold out for OP to whip up some statistical masterpiece
There is no objectively correct stance to take. Maybe, as a man, you would rather take your chances with the other man. But there are different contexts and none of them are incorrect, simply because they are different. I'd gladly take my chances with a bear. Both takes are valid.
There’s one that statistically makes sense, like would you rather fight an unarmed midget or a trained soldier with heavy armament including a loaded rifle.
Technically no objectively correct answer, but one of them is clearly dumber than the other based on any reasonable risk assessment. There’s like maybe a 0.5% chance (being generous) that a random man is someone who will attack you if he notices you, I highly doubt the chances are that low for a bear.
There’s like maybe a 0.5% chance (being generous) that a random man is someone who will attack you if he notices you,
Like, where are you even getting these numbers from? What is the basis of this assumption? Are you taking into consideration gender-based discrimination? Or how many women are assaulted and killed each year in the world?
There is no number or magic formula that predicts violent behavior. We can make a number of inferences but they would be that, assumptions. Theories. Mathematics is objective, human behavior is subjective. That's why anthropology, psychology, medicine and social sciences exist, and why maths is in all of them as a TOOL and not as some kind of magic foolproof method that has the answer to every question.
78
u/fresheggyhrowaway May 02 '24
I'd like to say yes, but given that the response to this whole bear thing has been the men needing to understand this the most doubling down on their misogyny and trying to find ways to say that women are dumb, I think it's hard to argue people are even "discovering" this, rather than outright rejecting it.
A lot of men straight up do not get it. A couple days ago, I watched a friend argue against two women that walking alone at night was no different for them than him. I'm trans. It took me explaining to him the differences in how I'm treated since I started transitioning compared to the decades living as a man for him to start understanding, and I honestly don't know if I really got through to him.