Tap for context
Some woman on the internet said she would feel safer spending a night in the woods with a random bear rather than with a random man
Some woman on the internet said she would feel safer spending a night in the woods with a random bear rather than with a random man
No it’s ridiculous. The chance that a random bear out of the bear population attacks you, is infinitely more likely than a random man out of the male population does the same.
The vast majority of people are decent human beings. While it is statistically supported that men are more likely to be perpetrators of violence against women than vice versa, saying that men are inherently dangerous oversimplifies and generalizes a complex issue. It is important to recognize that most men are not violent; the majority of interactions, even in isolated settings, do not lead to violence. The portrayal of men as inherently dangerous can contribute to fear and stigma that doesn’t necessarily align with the everyday experiences of many people.
Tl;dr Please stop this sexist nonsense. If I would walk around and say women shouldn’t be allowed near the elderly or children because they are statistically more likely to commit child neglect and abuse, both against elderly people and kids, I’d rightfully be called a sexist. Statistically that is just as true as the statement that men are more often the perpetrators in violence against intimate partners (allthough men do get abused as well, about 1 in 10 compared to 1 in 4 for women).
Flat out wrong. And you have to ignore just a mountain of statics and evidence to say this. There was about 60 bear attacks last year, but 1 in 5 women are assaulted by men. It’s easy to dismiss any and every discussion related to sexism as sexist, just as racist dorks say “BLM and CRT is racist against white people”. But it’s such a small narrow shelfish ignorant position.
But I am not going to waste time with you, this thread already has ample sources for those stats and its gone on long enough. You can either listen to women, or continue to whine when they describe their experiences, but I’m done with reading these little outbursts from men who have nothing to contribute but “not all men” while misunderstanding and misrepresentating the question.
I’m happy to listen to their experience. I’m not happy to listen to useless generalizations that do not get us anywhere.
It’s a ridiculous statement to say all men are dangerous and just wait to abuse someone. If you can’t see that right now, I’m sorry.
Has nothing to do with BLM or CRT. I’m not American, no one here really cares about “race” whatever that even means in humans. People are people and should be treated as such.
Generalization do not help anyone moving forward. It gets you dismissed and ignored, which certainly doesn’t help you create the platform women need on some issues.
And to your stats: Please read the whole text. Not 1 in 5 women get assaulted by men a YEAR, 1 in 5 women have that happening to them within their lifetimes. That’s still masively to high, but it’s not what you seem to make it out to be here.
I, unlike you, would be happy to talk about this. Maybe I’d learn something. But you seem far more interested in repeating talking points and be condescending to me.
Unfortunate. But thank you for your time anyway.
Never said that. Wouldn’t say that. Don’t think that.
You’re just putting up a strawman to push over. Absolutely no where in this thread did someone say all men are dangerous, in fact I personally said the contrary many many many times.
Again, I didn’t say 1 in 5 per year, that’s you inferring as another strawman. I knew what the stats were, and if we agree that 20% in their lifetime being the victim of SA is a lot, and that 60 something people attacked by bears comparitivly ISN’T many, then my original point stands. I intentionally did not link to any stats about per year because that number true number is unknown and likely wildly under outed as most events are not reported.
This is an ironic thing to complain of when you condescendly assume I don’t know what my own links are about, but okay. You act like you’re trying to learn and have a reasonable discussion but all you’ve done is dismiss and make bad faith assumptions while dancing around the actual point, that way more women are harmed by men than bears.
Not all men do this, but it’s immposible to tell the ones who do from the ones who don’t. There is good reason why women are wary of unknown men, we have a learned experience that dropping your guard can quickly lead to absolutely horrible outcomes. As I said before, 1 in 5 women have such experince.
So compare this to a bear existing in the woods. Bears already do that, they generally mind their own business and only in rare cases attack humans. Sure there are probally SOME ultra aggressive bears out there, just like ultra aggressive men, but as a population bears are not actively seeking out women to harm. However there IS unknown invisible amount of men who are doing exactly that. Finding women who are alone and vulnerable. The question isn’t “who could do more damage to a woman, a bear or a man?” it’s who would you rather risk being alone with?
Most women pick the bear because statistically, going to lead to better outcomes. If I come across the bear will likely keep fishing/gathering, the ways to run hide or scare it off are obviouse. But coming across a man in the woods is flat out scary, maybe they will help, but if they are a bad person, then my ability to hide, run or escape is VASTLY diminished against someone who is both as intelligent as I, but also probally much faster and stronger.
Not every man would chase us down, but 20% of women have encountered men who WILL take opportunities when presented with them. Being alone in the woods away from defenses, civilization or any amount of assistance? I’ll be completely at his mercy It’s just not comperable situation against a bear.
So if your interested in potentially learning something about a different perspective, than you need to actually do that instead of just going to the knee jerk dissimal “not all men are violent” which was never said in the first place.