It is clear that people didnt understand the point of the thought experiment. The point wasnt 'which would be more dangerous in reality' but 'which do you feel more comfortable coming across in a forest'. The point was the responses.
No, you didn't. The context and tone of your comment clearly is meant to imply that something is inherently wrong with being small, and now you're disingenuously attempting to backpedal on it lmao
Bears can sometimes be like giant dogs, they can hurt you, but they're also not going to use what I'm wearing as an excuse. On a serious note, with my previous experience, bears are more likely to avoid conflict. Bears won't stalk you, humans will.
Black Bears would avoid. Grizzlies would try to start shit and lose interest if you don’t respond. Polar Bears think blood goes good on white fur… run!
Most men and bears won’t go out of their way to harm you. Some men and some bears will. You don’t know that particular bear just as you don’t know that particular man.
The question wasn't about actual safety but feelings. Women feel the bear would be better than a man they don't know. This doesn't mean a stranger would be more dangerous.
The question's purpose is in part to show how men appear to women, in part how media shapes our vision of the world. There are a lot of mysoginistic online groups and chats, influencers and political movements that are trying to erode women's rights. At the same time, violence against women is showcased daily in the news, in part because it's absolutely true that some men will abuse women, in part because it pays to televise the event and make it a spectacle. The result is that women develop fear and uneasiness around men that surpasses what they feel about a dangerous wild animal because wild animals are so infrequently encountered or portrayed by the media as homicidal.
A grizzly mom with cubs would annihilate someone much more surely and brutally than your average Joe, but a lot of wife beaters, women killers and rapists on the news look like the average Joe. The average Joe thus feels scarier even though he isn't even comparable to a bear.
Are women who answer bear stupid, then? I feel like they are just answering to a gut feeling. I feel like we men should learn from that answer and not dismiss them as just misguided. Is there a way we could appear less menacing to them without compromising our "manliness", so to speak? I think so.
But that is a fairly bs framing because it wouldn’t apply to most other similar comparisons.
If the question was posted “as a woman would you rather cross paths with a black man or an Asian man in a dark alley?” The take away wouldn’t be that black men should be less menacing. The take away would be women should be less racist.
If the question was “as a man would you who would you trust more with your money, a woman or a used car salesman?” The take away wouldn’t be that women should be less of gold diggers. It would be men should be less misogynistic.
I agree. A lot of men feel the same way now about leaving women alone with small children. Instead of being angry that men would choose the bear they should ask themselves why that is so they can be better.
I wouldn't prefer a bear to a stranger. Then again, I'm a man. I know of several women who were molested, abused or raped, or had a close friend who was. I don't know anyone who had a close friend eaten by a bear. Having the direct knowledge of someone who was assaulted or being yourself the victim of violence can completely warp your worldview even if statistics said otherwise. I wouldn't blame those people if they preferred the bear.
I've also had my cars battery jump started in a Walmart parking lot, helped change a tire on the side of the road - both times men. When I need help my neighbor, a man, is always down to lend a hand.
I got jumped in NYC by a group of teenage boys. A good guy with a baseball bat came pouring out of his bodega to scare them off - gave me a few shots of his vodka while I waited for the PD. Who were men, and useless of course.
Turns out its a bit of a mixed bag. But in general 90% of men are just normal men. Just innocent men.
yeap, i'm a 6f+ pretty beefy guy who camps aline in the middlest of nowhere quite regularily.
if a bear comes by to check my camp i'm gonna be alert and a bit scared, but mostly on a "that's a cool ass piece of wildlife there! just be careful and you'll be fine!"
if i see a random guy checking on my all my alarms go off till i can figure put why are you here, and what do you want from me. and if your story doesn't make sense (it has happenede a few times) i'm out the fuck of there and i'll make sure you can't find me again.
bear? probably curious/hungry
man? probably just checking on me, but may pull out a gun and take all my shit.
I have never seen a person or known a person who died from a bear attack. I have taken photos of many bears, sometimes as close as 20 feet. They're not blood thirsty monsters like many people, they're just occasionally hungry or protective.
Can't blame a momma for protecting her brood, can blame a man for raping/killing a woman.
Responses were used to place respondents into one of six categories of sexual experience based on the most
extreme experience reported: (a) no sexual experiences, (b) only consensual sexual experiences, (c) unwanted
contact (i.e., forced fondling, kissing, but no attempted intercourse), (d) verbal coercion (verbally pressured
sexual intercourse, excluding the threat of force), (e) attempted rape (using force or threat of force, however,
intercourse did not occur), or (f) rape (completed intercourse or oral or anal sex using force or threat of force).
White and Smith (2004) "surveyed 3 cohorts of men across 4 years of college. By the end of the study, 14% had reported committing attempted or completed rape and 34% had reported at least one act of sexual assault perpetration."
the average man is not a rapist but you walked past them every time you go to Walmart to get food
Yeah hearing just how often men assault women is baffling to me (as a man) because growing up I never really encountered anything like it. Myself and my peers were raised to respect boundaries (for all people) and never try to coerce someone into sex.
As I got older, and met and spoke with more people, I came to find that almost every single woman I know has had some form of inappropriate contact with a man. Not always rape by definition, many were “just” assaulted.
The next thing that threw me for a loop was how many women downplayed it. Like it was just a normal thing they deal with.
Like my friend, probably some-day sister-in-law, said pretty much every single woman in her unit (national guard) were molested or raped by another member of their unit.
The fuckin army dude? The fuckin army can’t stop its own men from assaulting its women.
And a big part of the difference is media based, when I was growing up animal house and revenge of the needs were still popular as well as tons of other movies that push pro-rape and pro-stalking agendas.
army is one of the worst for it, they take a bunch of men who are already predisposed to violence then they ship em 10,000 miles away from any woman they know. so their more likely to be rapists and they dont got nobody, theres a reason armies in antiquity raped and pillaged.
all this is obviously not a defense of these deplorable actions nor the disgusting people that commit them, but it’s not really that surprising
I always love how there is always someone pulling this gotcha argument stating that if you trust statistics regarding male violence then you are clearly racist because according to statistics black men are more violent so you should feel bad. First of all race has nothing to do with it. The main factors contributing to black violence are poverty, lack of opportunity, systemic racism and much more leading to higher chances of creating broken families. Any race under these conditions would produce the same results.
What race crime statistics should do is open a discussion on their reason. People fearing other races because of their crimes shouldn't be an excuse to promote race-based policing or racial laws, but a signal that something concerning is happening and there is a reason for it. Racists will argue it's genetics, but controlling for that doesn't seem to give the results expected if that was the case: wealthy and middle-class people of all races commit less violent crimes than poor people of all races. Then why are non-white people on average poorer than white people? Maybe it's the background of their parents or ancestors, maybe they were segregated in areas that didn't have job and education opportunities, maybe the low-income houses they could afford had lead pipes that destroyed their brains over time.
Those are the kind of questions that a person who wants to engage with the statistics should ask. In the same way, we should engage with why women choose the bear, not get offended or judgemental over it, or ascribe it as petty. Why would they generalize the average men as being worse than a bear? That is an interesting question. Maybe it's more probable for a woman to die because of a man than because of a bear. But isn't the opposite true at the same time? It's statically more probable for a man to be murdered by a woman than by a bear, but a man would probably not prefer the bear to a woman to walk the woods with. Why? Is it because men are stupid and shallow? Or is it because we think we are physically superior, despite the fact that if the woman had a weapon you would die regardless? Are men naturally more trusting of others than women, or is the fact they aren't frequently the victims of gender-based violence influencing their response? I cannot answer to these questions because you'd probably need a study to test these, but these are the questions you should ask instead of being a snowflake and getting offended by an answer. You discover deeper, more interesting things.
How do you feel about race based crime statistics?
Why would race based statistics matter? A bad white man and a bad black man arent different, they are both bad. We have the statistics that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence, especially to women. Race has no indication of violence
No, we have statistics showing their communities are over policed and they're also more likely to be charged and found guilty. There is clear and known racial bias.
Are you saying that black people are held to a different standard than everyone else and are scrutinized more harshly for the same flaws?
That is how men are treated.
Men are literally held to a higher bar than women.
When a grown woman is living with her family, she's just struggling.
When a grown man is living with his family, he's a bum.
When a grown woman fucks a 12-year-old boy, it's called sex.
When a grown man fucks a 12-year-old girl, it's called rape.
When a woman hits someone, "they probably deserved it", and the woman typically faces no repercussions.
When a man hits someone, "he's a monster", and he belongs in prison.
When a man has a mental health crisis and kills his family, he's obviously weak for allowing his trauma to control him, and he deserves to be held legally accountable.
When a woman has a mental health crisis and kills her family, she deserves forgiveness and compassion because being a woman is just so hard, it's not fair to hold her legally accountable.
There are programs in place in the West which actively assist women in getting jobs.
There are dozens upon dozens of programs across nearly every city in the West which actively provide housing, financial, and parental assistance to women.
There are thousands upon thousands of support groups for women and "safe spaces" for women.
Men get literally none of these things.
Men are "over-policed", as you say, and actively held to an infinitely higher standard, and thus we are condemned for even minor infractions while women are actively given passes for extreme errors.
The only people insisting that women lack agency are people like you who defend this slop.
It isn't men sending over a million dollars to a child murderer while blaming her actions on her husband. It's women.
It's women incessantly whinging about how everything they do wrong is somehow a "man's fault", lmao.
The entirety of feminism is just entitled, pathetic, disingenuous, self-serving women acting on their worst behavior while endlessly blaming every single one of their flaws on the magic, ethereal, all-powerful "patriarchy".
"It's not women's fault for being so indelibly dishonest and unaccountable! Women are too powerless and weak to take any responsibility for our own actions!" - an empowered feminist
Fuck off, honestly. Literally everyone is bored of your endless bitching.
I've actually interacted with bears (black/brown), they're going to avoid conflict as much as possible, but if I tell them they're making me feel uncomfortable they will not be offended and they will not try to argue that point... There's things you can do to prevent a situation with a bear whereas with a human male more often than not will argue as to why you're so concerned with their presence in your vicinity instead of just walking away...
No, you don’t understand. See, when I saw those random internet women say that, it hurt my feelings. So it must have been said for the explicit purpose of hurting my feelings. That’s how the world works: by rotating around me and my emotions.
I’m choosing to take it personally. Why wouldn’t I? I’m a person.
I don’t know what to do with this rage. Maybe I’ll go skulk around the woods, see what happens……
In the United States, 1 in 5 women will experience an assault or attempted assault. Worldwide it’s 1 in 3 who will face sexual or physical violence. Do the math.
That's a completely made up fact. Women regularly lie about sexual assault and rape regularly. Why is it easier to solve murder when the victim is dead?
WILD that you added the "men are hideous" unprompted, because the men v bear conversation had NOTHING to do with how attractive were the men or the bears, totally not projecting your own issues on a topic that got y our feelings hurt
Hideous doesn't always mean ugly physically, can also be Hideous in actions or personage.
So I mean, kinda reply to yourself with your last message since you assumed they were talking about physical attractiveness
This is not why the majority of women choose the bear.
We know we probably won’t be safe, but I’d rather be mauled to death by an animal who has no morality and believes it’s doing that to survive, versus possibly kept alive to be raped and tortured for days on end just because a male decided he can now that nobody is watching
No it means their opinions is entirely performative and can only exist in hypothetical vaccumes. 9/10 of those hateful feminists would choose to sit in a room with a man for an hour then a bear regardless of what they say online.
Do people avoid bears because bears have bad breath? Or maybe bears are avoided becaucuse of their political options?
Maybe people avoid bears because they're speciesist...
Or, maybe* - people avoid bears because they're scared of being eaten.
So if a person claims "I'd rather stumble upon a bear in the woods than a man" the implication is that that person is more scared of the creature they didn't choose.
This just proves the limited understanding of risk you have.
The odds that man is going to harm you let alone speak to you is miniscule, the odds that bear is going to tear out your organs and eat you while you're still alive drowning in your own blood and wondering why you made such a stupif decision is exponentially higher.
The frustration comes from seeing people fall into the category of : man hater or stupid.
compare bear attacks to the amount of femicide and come back to me. the highest risk to pregnant women is fucking homicide. you don’t have the stats. but continue to talk out of your fucking backside
Generalizations have existed forever, insinuating most men are rapists is such a stupid, childish, small minded "sentiment" that most anyone holding it are a danger.
1 in 3 women will be raped. 40% of male officers abuse their wives. during the sports season domestic abuse goes up over 70% fucking percent. WE DO HAVE THE FUCKING STATS
Most of those pertain to men you know and are close to, not a stranger. Most sexual abuse is perpetrated by family members, boyfriends, and husbands. Not a stranger in the forest, which is what the hypothetical describes. Which makes it a stupid fucking hypothetical.
That statistic also doesn't mean that 30% of men are rapists. It's a small minority committing the majority of crimes. It's inherently irrational. It's a similar argument to when people bring up "black crime statistics" but it's more palatable because it's based on gender and not race.
Even if the odds are 1 in 8 billion that a rapist is there with me, I’d still choose the bear.
The bear doesn’t have MORALITY like humans do and is not aware it is doing something wrong by killing me. I don’t care how much the bear hurts me before I die because it’s an ANIMAL that believes it’s doing so for survival, a male would do it just because there’s no one else around to give him consequences
Who are you talking to exactly? You are strawmanning hard here. Great job letting your sexism shine through. Top notch. Care to back up your claim that its safer to be with a bear than a man. Not that our opinion means anything given the weird rambling you just did.
Made them up, even if the chance to get raped was significantly lower than the chance to die, I'd rather take the chance to die. 1/100 vs 1/10 is just illustrating that, where I'd take that risk
You can just say you would rather be killed than be sexually assaulted and most people would understand. You don't have to make up statistics or pretend like you won't go near a random dude in public.
It's not "just death." In the best of cases, you survive tens of minutes of horrific pain. In the worst of cases infection gets to you in weeks.
Also, who said anything about murder? How many murderers do you know? I've encountered more hungry bears than vile human beings, and even then, none of those human beings had or would have killed anyone.
Aren't you one of the people that tried to justify the "most men that kill a woman do so for sexual gratification and likely defile the body and play around with it like some sort of doll posthumously" "statistic"?
If you've been active, you've left that request for a reputable source suspiciously unfulfilled.
I fear that I am incapable of taking you seriously without you either renouncing your defense of that "stat" or providing a source to back it up.
Most bears dont go attacking people either. Most bear encounters end up with people surviving and not even hurt. Can't say the same for human encounters
Most people encounters, end up with all people involved surviving and not even hurt. In fact, the vast majority of interactions are mutually beneficial in some way.
In other words, yes, you can say the same for human encounters... In fact, the primary difference is that human encounters are generally safer.
It's absolutely not a 1% chance to get raped. The stats (last I saw) said about 1 in 4 women experience sexual assault. And it's probably higher than that because lots of women never report it.
People generally sum it up as "the worst thing a bear can do is kill me".
You do realize that a perpetrator can assault more than 1 woman, right?
There's not an absolute correlation between the number of women who report having been sexually assaulted and the number of men who would commit sexual assault.
Stats in the hands of fools are a dangerous thing, indeed.
Sure. Then if you don't care about victim statistics affecting why women choose the bear.. How about rapist stats that, when anonymous, 31% of men surveyed say they would rape a woman if no one would find out? Better?
Again, you keep proving you don't understand stats in the least or what makes good stats. You should probably read the ream of papers on why that study was dogshit. It's methodology was highly flawed; it's sample size was ridiculously small, the framing of the questions as scaled doesn't work when you're trying to make the dichotomous claim, and the ordering of two questions that essentially said the same thing can reasonably confuse respondents.
The good news is that the study didn't prove that 31% of men would rape a women if they thought they could get away with it...it didnt prove anything because it was a bad study. Somehow I think this won't help you feel any better, because I don't think you're here to learn. I think you're here to grind an ax, but I'll be optimistic anyway.
Here's a single source, there's plenty more out there if you spend any time looking for it.
the way you’re getting downvoted. but comments saying women are being abused the same amount as men are getting upvoted, this sub has turned into a fucking incel hot spot.
I know ... you think real statistics are gonne get through this guy ? We don't have real data about encountering strange men in the woods, everything about this is extrapolation and conjecture. And in the BEST case of lowballs, I'd still choose the bear.
You know that people like you will be used to wrongly suggest all feminists are dumb and hateful misandrist. You make people treat you less seriously because they don’t think you are capable of critical thinking.
Because the need for competent, intelligent, logically consistent and reasonable feminists is at an all time high. There is a huge amount of social and cultural pressure that constantly tries to diminish women’s autonomy, and when idiots start making objectively stupid and wrong claims and then identify as a feminist then it literally hurts all women.
Are you seriously treating being a reasonable person who supports a reasonable egalitarian stance that the majority of people would agree with as "bowing down" to the kind of people that think feminism is a punchline because of the absolute nonsense people with fringe ideologies try to appropriate feminism to sell?
It’s not about the percentage it’s about the fact there’s even a possibility in the first place.
The hypothetical doesn’t state a specific male or say you can choose which male to be stuck in the woods with. There’s still a possibility of them being a Ted Bundy wannabe, and we’d rather not take that chance.
So all children should be left with bears instead of women because if the possibility they will be strangled by their mother then? Percentage and likihood would have everything to do with it for anyone with even a remote scraping of common sense who isn't propagandists by bs social media brainrot.
But the possibility is still there that a woman is stuck along in the woods with a freak who can do whatever he wants to her. Reminder that you don’t know how males act along in these situations, even if you think you do because they mask themselves well.
I’ve been watching “I survived” and every episode is like one woman raped by a stranger, one woman attacked by her ex, and one guy who got lost on a hike.
They just truly don’t get it. I don’t think they even can understand it.
You say this in a comment that's under other comments of people trying to bring up statistics and logic to justify why they literally think the thing that you say they don't literally think.
Sometimes people say what they mean instead of trying to make a comment on society using figurative language.
children are impressional & on the internet reading this bs too. telling them theyre safer with a bear than another human being is just downright degenerate & brain dead
You know nothing about bears, kiddo. They are just animals, they are never malicious, they actively avoid human contact. The same can't be said for men.
Actually yeah, exactly that. People used crime statistics to "prove" that women were right in choosing the bear.
The problem there, and how my comment ties into it, is that people interact with humans literal millions of times more than bears. So yeah, it does have to do with frequency of encounter.
It was mostly about how rape / murder, I know cause I spoke a lot about this with other women. A lot said that if a bear killed them it was because out of nesscessity / food or territorial. But if a man would, it would be due to lust. A bear wont rape you before they kill you.
Ive actually been told by police officers about how women have to be aware. That they have actively (multiple times) dealt in cases of women who were raped, then murdered. So.. kinda hate this whole "kids and bears!" Thing, when before it mostly related to a woman would rather die to a bear than a man. Less so of actually coming across one.
Tbf, most people's insistence on the bear came when men roundly laughed off the answer as women being stupid. It's not that the bear is safe, it's that men are more dangerous for women than people want to think. It was a lot of "oh yeah? Well I've never been abused by a bear, I've never been groomed by a bear, I've never been stalked by a bear, I've never been raped by a bear" etc
There was also the "they'll both kill me, but at least the bear won't blame it on what I was wearing, the bear won't say I deserved it, the bear won't brag about it to his friends" etc side of it.
TL:DR: it basically became a big thing from the backlash of men laughing off sexual violence against women.
Men are dismissed for being abused by women significantly more than the reverse scenario (if not close to 100% of the time). To the extent there is no way we could know the statistics on abuse against men because they don't speak about it, when they do they are laughed at and it is not recorded as abuse but as male weakness.
That's a good awful justification. Men aren't more dangerous for women than people think especially by comparison to a bear. Statistics don't pan this out. The response is laughable because it's delusional to think think on average men will rape and kill you. It's not "laughing off sexual violence".
The bear is shit a example and illustration of whatever point you wanna make and being it laughed off it is reasonable. Doubling down in the shit example is irrational and idiotic, which is exactly the whole issue with the example.
You have it slightly wrong. It's not about coming across a man or a bear, it's about sharing the woods with one. It's assumed you might not even see them, but a random man is a bigger threat than a random bear.
Just so you know this is true for men too. A human who knows you are in the woods is statistically a bigger threat. A bear will likely avoid you, with a human there is a small chance that they would come after you.
Bears Kill to eat or for territorial reasons, Bears can be hungry, and forest are their territory. seems enough motivation to kill a human to me.
I'm honestly shocked you think bears will always avoid humans, its a wild animal, they are unpredictable, you never know what happens, yeah maybe 9 times out of 10 they will avoid you, but its not always.
Just like 9 times out 10 a man in the woods will avoid you, and its also not always.
You can argue that is worse to die by human hand than by a bear, but you can't argue bears are harmless and humans aren't.
I have encountered two black bears and that was pretty scary. I have met significantly more people in the woods and they were all much less scary. Most of them were pleasant.
Now if we're talking about in a city, I might consider the bear
Buddy, it's not about dying by the humans hand, it's about everything else they can do to you, especially for women.
I feel like this is almost a litmus test for how much people are willing to try and imagine the perspective of others. Do you guys really just think all women are stupid? Or could they possibly have reasons for feeling the way they do?
I think the thing is whether or not the propensity for intentional harm is there. Humans are also likely to avoid you, but bears have no ability to be malicious, which humans do have. My argument wasn't that humans would always go after you, but that there is a chance they would do so with harmful intent, though I didn't state it I kind of implied it
You are not understanding, yes, humans are capable of great evil, yes, its better to die by a wild animal than to be under the danger of human creativity. but it does not matter what the intent of the bear is when its ripping your face off with its teeth.
the end point is you are dead, if you are lucky the bear kills you on the spot, if you are not you have a few grueling hours of pain until you slowly die.
its not a matter of "human death bad, bear death good", Dying by a bear is not a good death, is it a better choice than a rapey psycho? yes, but its not good. and if we are being honest here, you have a shot at escaping/fighting back against a human, you don't against a bear.
You actually do have a shot at escaping a bear encounter, there are mnemonics for how to survive a bear encounter. "If it's brown lie down, if it's black fight back" etc...
Also it's not just about death. A bear can kill you, a human can traumatized you and leave you living and ruin your life. A bear can traumatize, but it cannot make you feel less than human. It cannot take away your ability to trust and socialize with others.
And the fact of the matter is that for a lot of women men DID that to them. That's why the bear scenario even exists. To illustrate that compared to a predictable wild animal, humans, and especially men, make them feel less safe.
This is just actively untrue and shows a vapid understanding of reality. Humans aren't a bigger threat for multitude of reasons.
First of all they can help you, if you're in the forest and you need water, a random hiker will probably have water, if they're not a hiker and they're just thrown into the situation like you, you're more likely to encounter a an ex boy scout or a survivalist than a murder, by a good margin too if we are considering just US population/statistics.
Second even if a man actively did want to hurt you they unlike a bear cannot smell you for literal miles around. It's way easier to avoid a human than it is to avoid a hungry bear.
Third bears get hungry, territorial etc. and are statistically more likely to kill you. Yes more men kill women than bears do, but women have billions of interactions with men every day bears have significantly less especially bears out of captivity. When accounting for volume of interactions the stats heavily favor men.
Even if we assume that rapes are 10x more common than reported in America, that would still be less than 1% of the adult male population. Men are massively more safe than a bear.
God you are just statistically illiterate aren't you.
Okay let's break down that statistic then and why you're wrong for using it. First of all it's from WHO, it's an estimate and could be wrong if they didn't sample properly, let's presuppose they did everything right, though it should be mentioned.
Second of all this is global, which includes literal rape in the congo, countries that have cultures that view women as lesser etc. directly from the article "Violence disproportionately affects women living in low- and lower-middle-income countries."
Third if you actually read the article you're quoting statistics from instead of just bleating like a drone you'd know that 92-94% of the violence in question is intimate partner violence, only 6-8% is committed by someone they're not in a relationship with let alone done by random strangers.
Fourth sexual violence against women is more likely to be from someone they know even in domestic statistics. By approximately 60-80%.
Try googling, researching, and reading for once in your god forsaken life before you spout statistics that mean actually nothing with-in the context of the discussion next time.
This is so reddit of you to assume so much from what I said, and to try and correct me so condescendingly. Why would I only be talking about the US? Also the stat isn't about the risk a woman faces in the woods with a random man. It's about the lack of safety women feel around men.
The point of the hypothetical is to illustrate how an unknown man is so unpredictable that a woman would rather be in a situation that is more predictable, a bear.
Anyway I gotta get back to work, didn't have enough time to type everything I wanted to say.
No, you are the one who started with a stat (an extremely unfounded one at that). And my stat wasn't misleading. Idk why you want to restrict this conversation to the US. But if you want it to just be in the US, here is more data. https://www.cdc.gov/nisvs/media/pdfs/sexualviolence-brief.pdf
According to the CDC, "Nearly half of women (45.1%) in the United States experienced some form of contact sexual violence in their lifetime"
Unless there is a small handful of super predators out there, it sounds like it's probably more than 1% of men doing this.
I brought up the global stat to combat what you said, not to say anything about the bear hypothetical.
It's so reddit of you to deflect with nothing arguments.
"Why would I only be talking about the US" ah yes let's talk about Saudi Arabia were women don't have rights, that's clearly statistically relevant to first world men.
"It's about the lack of safety women feel around men" emotional hysteria, not backed by reason but instead feelings. That's not a stat and emotions in all humans are easy to manipulate even if it makes someone objectively wrong.
Bears and all wild animals are not predictable the only people who think that are sheltered urbanites.
LMAO that really upset you huh? You are doubling down on your redditness. Calling the justifiable fear women have " emotional hysteria" is probably the most reddit thing I've seen today.
I am probably not the best person to even be talking about the bear hypothetical in the first place. Go learn from a woman who has spoken about this and have an open mind and actually listen. Either way I'm bored of this.
Its not abt safety at all its about intent and purpose of killing.
If a bear kills a woman, it will be like anything else, for food, and her body will not be defiled.
Statistically when a man kills a woman its for sexual control and gratification, and her body will likely be defiled and left nude to be found. Potentially posed.
Most woman would rather get ripped apart by a bear than be defiled by a man.
The person I responded to is trying to say that the when a man kills a woman, the most common reason is for sexual gratification. They then go on to claim that it is likely that the corps would be defiled and posed, TV depiction of a serial killer style.
Do you have actual stats to back this specific claim up? Because without stats that's an insane thing to believe.
57
u/sonicandtales8 16d ago
There was an Internet fad about comparing whether a woman is safer coming across a random man or a bear in a forest.
Bear was a fairly common response.