The point is that even if not every man is dangerous, women have to treat every man as if he is, because any man could be. Find me a woman who leaves her drinks unattended at bars and I’ll show you a woman who knows what it feels like to get roofied. For women, prejudice against unknown men is not problematic, it’s pragmatic.
The thing is, the bear encounter can only go one of two ways: either nothing happens because you manage to avoid or subdue it, or you end up being torn into pieces.
With men, there’s a third option, and while perhaps it is indeed a fact that the odds are not very much in her favor, choosing the bear means to be willing to miss every chance at a better outcome for a chance to simply stay alive, thus ensuring she’ll basically continue to suffer fear and loneliness indefinitely (until the bear eventually gets her one day).
The amount of analyzing you’re doing about the situation means you are missing the point entirely.
The fact that it’s even a question, that you are trying to solve with probabilities, is the problem. The fact that there are people who legitimately think “bear” might be the correct answer, or are even willing to consider it, shows how fucked up (certain) men treat women.
For suggesting that there’s a non-zero probability that a man might actually not try to take advantage of her but perhaps even try to protect her instead?
I hate to say this, but men are just scarier than wild animals.
With wild animals they will either flee or attack. Men are capable of deception and cruelty for the sake of pleasure, and sadists can get disgustingly creative. Even if there is a chance the man is safe to be around, the potential danger he poses just overall outweighs that of the bear, hence why a woman would choose the bear.
Yeah, I get that. And I’m not taking it personally either because I’ve seen my fair share of that.
But let’s be honest, women have at least the same capacity for deception and cruelty as men do, if not more because of their lower capacity for physical violence. A man should be at least as concerned about that as a woman is when it comes to choosing whom to spend their time with.
The original hypothetical doesn’t discuss anything beyond a “would you prefer” scenario, and women responding to it are simply stating they’d prefer to encounter a bear in the woods rather than a strange man.
Naturally both genders are capable of duplicity and cruelty, but it’s just not part of the original discussion, and so people aren’t discussing it.
Well, they SHOULD be. After all, what’s the point of discussing a hypothetical scenario except to find out what lessons can be learned from it? If people aren’t curious enough to ask these sorts of questions, they will learn nothing about each other, and we’ll all end up spending the night with a bear in the woods.
Honestly I think the current situation probably needs more unpacking before moving onto other points. It’s understandable that many men are indignant that women are saying they’d rather run into a bear, but it brings to the forefront that - for women - random strange men are considered less safe to be around than a large wild animal.
The reasoning can generally be boiled down to the possibility of premeditated violence. The majority of men don’t pose a threat, but those that do pose so much of a threat that women are given pause about men as a whole.
I realise not everyone is good at reading between the lines, but just FYI there is a lot more going on in this imaginary scenario than the straight facts.
Number 1 is that the people answering the questions were unlikely to have met an dangerous bear in the recent past. There is no daily exposure to “bear maul culture” or stories about “my cool coworker the bear who mauled me at the work party.”
The threat from bears is so totally hypothetical, almost fantastical, to most people in their daily lives.
Unironically yes. The problem is that “might” right there. It isn’t an insult against you personally when women say they don’t trust random men. It’s not about the bear.
I get that. What I’m saying is that saying something like this in public also isn’t very likely to improve the situation, because it has a subtext of “it doesn’t matter how good of a man you are, you will never be good enough for me, because I’m going to chose the bear every single time.”
That’s not exactly going to encourage anyone to work on improving themselves, is it.
it has a subtext of “it doesn’t matter how good of a man you are, you will never be good enough for me, because I’m going to chose the bear every single time.”
No. I know plenty of women who would choose me over the bear. It isn’t a choice between a man of their choice and a bear, it’s between a man they don’t know and a bear. That a woman who doesn’t know me would pick the bear doesn’t bother me.
1 and 6 women are victims of rape or attempted rape.
Rather than understand the fear that a human woman is trying to express through this thought experiment, the real fear they have to live with literally any time a random dude tries to interact with them, you’d rather bitch that women are initially defensive around you.
Your complaint is small, petty, misses the point, selfish and otherwise makes you the man in the meme.
Yeah, I get that. But as usual when it comes to discussing women’s issues, it leaves out a very important part, namely, the role women play when it comes to eliciting this sort of behavior in men.
When a man is useful, they’ll exploit him. When a man is neutral, they’ll ignore him. When he is dangerous, they will court him.
In a way, this is like saying “I’d pick the bear instead of the man because if he’s dangerous, I’ll run away instead of trying to sleep with him”.
But as usual when it comes to discussing women’s issues, it leaves out a very important part, namely, the role women play when it comes to eliciting this sort of behavior in men.
Haha yeah, it’s the stupid women’s fault that they need to be afraid of men drugging or raping them. Holy victim blaming, Batman!
When a man is useful, they’ll exploit him. When a man is neutral, they’ll ignore him. When he is dangerous, they will court him.
Lol, I’m sorry, but did you just make a sweeping negative statement about women while trying to argue that sweeping negative statements are sexist?
Haha yeah, it’s the stupid women’s fault that they need to be afraid of men drugging or raping them. Holy victim blaming, Batman!
I mean, do women ever consider that when they make sweeping generalizations like that about men in public, that there’s probably a large number of innocent young men and boys out there that end up hearing them too, and then end up feeling somehow responsible, even though it wasn’t their fault?
How do you think a statement like this lands with young men who are still trying to find their way in this world, when a woman publicly says “I’d choose the bear over you every time”, and a million women on social media applaud and nod in agreement, and not a single one dares to speak up against that?
Talk about victim blaming…
Lol, I’m sorry, but did you just make a sweeping negative statement about women while trying to argue that sweeping negative statements are sexist?
Consider it an instructive example of what men are generally holding back from the discussion. If you don’t like how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot, maybe shouldn’t be defending it when women make sweeping negative statements about men.
Why should only women be allowed to say such things, but when men do it, they have to do so in private amongst their buddies for fear of being called a misogynist and being cast out from “polite” society? What does this say about who really holds any power in society or who is the more violent sex?
But as usual when it comes to discussing women’s issues, it leaves out a very important part, namely, the role women play when it comes to eliciting this sort of behavior in men.
You can change the argument all you want, but let’s not forget you actually said this. Literal victim blaming.
As far as the other half goes, I never said I don’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot. Men have it rough in life too, I know, I’m one of them. That’s why the only thing I mentioned was the hypocrisy of your statement.
Then you DON’T get it. That’s the whole point. We’re trying to help you get it.
Nobody needs to listen to “What about the men?”, because we’ve all been hearing that for thousands of years. That point has been made and understood, and it’s the WRONG POINT TO MAKE.
Let’s switch topics, tell us about how taxing billionaires makes them sad. It’ll go over just as well as the other points you’ve been making.
I see your point, but the premise backed by that last sentence is fundamentally flawed in my eyes because prejudice leads to division. If you assume there is a high chance that any man you meet is a rapist, then you’ll avoid men and eventually have so little interaction with men that you begin to believe they all de facto equate to this mental image of a monster. And that is the problem.
I’m going to follow this up later, maybe not today, with my interpretation of rape statistics for anyone willing to discuss, because now I’m curious how that would contribute to this discussion. Here’s what I have so far, anyone is free to contribute to the discussion:
According to RAINN:
~18% US females experience sexual assault
~3% US males experience sexual assault
What I’m looking for specifically here, in addition to other context, is what percentage of each anatomical sex demographic is responsible for perpetrating. It is perhaps a given that it will be disproportionately male, but I need numbers to illustrate my perspective. Also need to account for domestic abuse and whatever else can be used as an argument for why either sex is dangerous to the other, open to any serious suggestions, will ignore any insincere discussion at this point.
If you assume there is a high chance that any man you meet is a rapist, then you’ll avoid men and eventually have so little interaction with men that you begin to believe they all de facto equate to this mental image of a monster.
No. Do you know any women? This is pure, unadulterated conjecture. How is it that like 4/5 women choose the bear, but also like 4/5 women have boyfriends? Your idea of how women think is simply incorrect.
The chance of any given man being a rapist doesn’t have to be that high to justify taking precautions. I’m going to assume you’re an American, and because I assume you’re American, I’m going to assume you drive a car. You wear a seatbelt every time you drive your car, even though you only have like a 4% chance of getting in an accident every year. It doesn’t mean you assume all cars are gonna crash, and it doesn’t make you afraid of cars. Of course this doesn’t fit in well with the bear question, but I hope it clarifies why women treating every man as if they might be a predator doesn’t mean they necessarily become terrified of men.
The point is that even if not every man is dangerous, women have to treat every man as if he is, because any man could be. Find me a woman who leaves her drinks unattended at bars and I’ll show you a woman who knows what it feels like to get roofied. For women, prejudice against unknown men is not problematic, it’s pragmatic.
The thing is, the bear encounter can only go one of two ways: either nothing happens because you manage to avoid or subdue it, or you end up being torn into pieces.
With men, there’s a third option, and while perhaps it is indeed a fact that the odds are not very much in her favor, choosing the bear means to be willing to miss every chance at a better outcome for a chance to simply stay alive, thus ensuring she’ll basically continue to suffer fear and loneliness indefinitely (until the bear eventually gets her one day).
The amount of analyzing you’re doing about the situation means you are missing the point entirely.
The fact that it’s even a question, that you are trying to solve with probabilities, is the problem. The fact that there are people who legitimately think “bear” might be the correct answer, or are even willing to consider it, shows how fucked up (certain) men treat women.
Mannnnn you’re in the meme, bro
For suggesting that there’s a non-zero probability that a man might actually not try to take advantage of her but perhaps even try to protect her instead?
Okay.
I hate to say this, but men are just scarier than wild animals.
With wild animals they will either flee or attack. Men are capable of deception and cruelty for the sake of pleasure, and sadists can get disgustingly creative. Even if there is a chance the man is safe to be around, the potential danger he poses just overall outweighs that of the bear, hence why a woman would choose the bear.
Yeah, I get that. And I’m not taking it personally either because I’ve seen my fair share of that.
But let’s be honest, women have at least the same capacity for deception and cruelty as men do, if not more because of their lower capacity for physical violence. A man should be at least as concerned about that as a woman is when it comes to choosing whom to spend their time with.
The original hypothetical doesn’t discuss anything beyond a “would you prefer” scenario, and women responding to it are simply stating they’d prefer to encounter a bear in the woods rather than a strange man.
Naturally both genders are capable of duplicity and cruelty, but it’s just not part of the original discussion, and so people aren’t discussing it.
Well, they SHOULD be. After all, what’s the point of discussing a hypothetical scenario except to find out what lessons can be learned from it? If people aren’t curious enough to ask these sorts of questions, they will learn nothing about each other, and we’ll all end up spending the night with a bear in the woods.
Honestly I think the current situation probably needs more unpacking before moving onto other points. It’s understandable that many men are indignant that women are saying they’d rather run into a bear, but it brings to the forefront that - for women - random strange men are considered less safe to be around than a large wild animal.
The reasoning can generally be boiled down to the possibility of premeditated violence. The majority of men don’t pose a threat, but those that do pose so much of a threat that women are given pause about men as a whole.
I realise not everyone is good at reading between the lines, but just FYI there is a lot more going on in this imaginary scenario than the straight facts.
Number 1 is that the people answering the questions were unlikely to have met an dangerous bear in the recent past. There is no daily exposure to “bear maul culture” or stories about “my cool coworker the bear who mauled me at the work party.”
The threat from bears is so totally hypothetical, almost fantastical, to most people in their daily lives.
Anyway, that’s number 1.
Unironically yes. The problem is that “might” right there. It isn’t an insult against you personally when women say they don’t trust random men. It’s not about the bear.
I get that. What I’m saying is that saying something like this in public also isn’t very likely to improve the situation, because it has a subtext of “it doesn’t matter how good of a man you are, you will never be good enough for me, because I’m going to chose the bear every single time.”
That’s not exactly going to encourage anyone to work on improving themselves, is it.
No. I know plenty of women who would choose me over the bear. It isn’t a choice between a man of their choice and a bear, it’s between a man they don’t know and a bear. That a woman who doesn’t know me would pick the bear doesn’t bother me.
1 and 6 women are victims of rape or attempted rape.
Rather than understand the fear that a human woman is trying to express through this thought experiment, the real fear they have to live with literally any time a random dude tries to interact with them, you’d rather bitch that women are initially defensive around you.
Your complaint is small, petty, misses the point, selfish and otherwise makes you the man in the meme.
Realistically, everyone knows that the man offers three options. He could be useful, neutral, or dangerous.
What these women are saying is that they would give up the chance of him being useful or neutral, just to have a 0% chance of him being dangerous.
Would you put every penny you own on a single number on a roulette wheel?
And don’t bother with statistics. They KNOW the statistics and still rightfully feel that way.
The question isn’t “strange man in the woods vs no strange man in the woods”. That’s an obvious choice.
Yeah, I get that. But as usual when it comes to discussing women’s issues, it leaves out a very important part, namely, the role women play when it comes to eliciting this sort of behavior in men.
When a man is useful, they’ll exploit him. When a man is neutral, they’ll ignore him. When he is dangerous, they will court him.
In a way, this is like saying “I’d pick the bear instead of the man because if he’s dangerous, I’ll run away instead of trying to sleep with him”.
The hell. So for you women are an Alien specie here to get you.
Haha yeah, it’s the stupid women’s fault that they need to be afraid of men drugging or raping them. Holy victim blaming, Batman!
Lol, I’m sorry, but did you just make a sweeping negative statement about women while trying to argue that sweeping negative statements are sexist?
I mean, do women ever consider that when they make sweeping generalizations like that about men in public, that there’s probably a large number of innocent young men and boys out there that end up hearing them too, and then end up feeling somehow responsible, even though it wasn’t their fault?
How do you think a statement like this lands with young men who are still trying to find their way in this world, when a woman publicly says “I’d choose the bear over you every time”, and a million women on social media applaud and nod in agreement, and not a single one dares to speak up against that?
Talk about victim blaming…
Consider it an instructive example of what men are generally holding back from the discussion. If you don’t like how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot, maybe shouldn’t be defending it when women make sweeping negative statements about men.
Why should only women be allowed to say such things, but when men do it, they have to do so in private amongst their buddies for fear of being called a misogynist and being cast out from “polite” society? What does this say about who really holds any power in society or who is the more violent sex?
Jesus. I thought you were just missing the point. You are definitely the reason they pick bears. Fucking disgusting.
You can change the argument all you want, but let’s not forget you actually said this. Literal victim blaming.
As far as the other half goes, I never said I don’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot. Men have it rough in life too, I know, I’m one of them. That’s why the only thing I mentioned was the hypocrisy of your statement.
You sound like the kind of guy that women have to be real careful with saying no to
Then you DON’T get it. That’s the whole point. We’re trying to help you get it.
Nobody needs to listen to “What about the men?”, because we’ve all been hearing that for thousands of years. That point has been made and understood, and it’s the WRONG POINT TO MAKE.
Let’s switch topics, tell us about how taxing billionaires makes them sad. It’ll go over just as well as the other points you’ve been making.
I see your point, but the premise backed by that last sentence is fundamentally flawed in my eyes because prejudice leads to division. If you assume there is a high chance that any man you meet is a rapist, then you’ll avoid men and eventually have so little interaction with men that you begin to believe they all de facto equate to this mental image of a monster. And that is the problem.
I’m going to follow this up later, maybe not today, with my interpretation of rape statistics for anyone willing to discuss, because now I’m curious how that would contribute to this discussion. Here’s what I have so far, anyone is free to contribute to the discussion:
What I’m looking for specifically here, in addition to other context, is what percentage of each anatomical sex demographic is responsible for perpetrating. It is perhaps a given that it will be disproportionately male, but I need numbers to illustrate my perspective. Also need to account for domestic abuse and whatever else can be used as an argument for why either sex is dangerous to the other, open to any serious suggestions, will ignore any insincere discussion at this point.
No. Do you know any women? This is pure, unadulterated conjecture. How is it that like 4/5 women choose the bear, but also like 4/5 women have boyfriends? Your idea of how women think is simply incorrect.
The chance of any given man being a rapist doesn’t have to be that high to justify taking precautions. I’m going to assume you’re an American, and because I assume you’re American, I’m going to assume you drive a car. You wear a seatbelt every time you drive your car, even though you only have like a 4% chance of getting in an accident every year. It doesn’t mean you assume all cars are gonna crash, and it doesn’t make you afraid of cars. Of course this doesn’t fit in well with the bear question, but I hope it clarifies why women treating every man as if they might be a predator doesn’t mean they necessarily become terrified of men.