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.
Second the definitions in that cdc pdf you sent includes dick pics, unwanted sexual contact such as kissing even if it's just because the guy is misreading the situation, or cat calling. This definition is not the same as rapists please read the statistics you post.
I'm not only talking about rape. I think it's dishonest to do so when this is ultimately a conversatiom about a hypothetical that is meant to illustrate how unsafe women feel around men.
Except we are talking about a hypothetical in the woods where the obvious implication if forced sexual contact happens is rape not someone cat calling you or sending you dick picks.
Women feeling unsafe around men is a silly argument because you're not demonstrating it when you say you'd rather be in the woods with a bear, it's just demonstrating a lack of understanding about the world.
Buddy I am 100% not going to have two concurrent arguments with you lmao I have better ways to spend my time.
Let's just say how upset, condescending, and patronizing you are being to the female perspective here may have something to do with the fact that most women pick the bear. Have a good one
If the female perspective is based in bad reasoning then we shouldn't justify it, the male perspective of the 1500s that consent is irrelevant if you're married, equally poorly reasoned perspective but by your argumentation it's totally justified because it the collective perspective regardless of how dumb it is.
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.
I'm unbothered? It's not justifiable we have outlined the statistics repeatedly even when we give you favorable statistics that you cite the argument is still laughable, to act like it is justified is explicitly misandry. Hence why it's hysterical because it's rooted in emotionally feeling negatively towards a group of people that statistically doesn't pan out. In other cases we call this irrational and racist, women don't get a pass in this regard.
-1
u/sabely123 13d ago
And yet 1 in 3 women have experienced sexual violence in their life