• pixxelkick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    45
    ·
    2 months ago

    Are you saying that theres >42% chance a bear will be on your side in the wilderness then?

    That makes no sense. By all arguments taking “a man” is prolly the far better choice anyways, people are just stupid.

    There’s a 100% chance that “the bear” is a fucking bear

    Theres at least a decent chance “a random man” is an asset to survival and your odds of success go up instead of down…

    There’s no scenario where choosing “the bear” improves your odds of success >_>;

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Unless the bear is starving, rabid or you are between it and its cubs, there is a 99% chance that the bear will just leave you alone, and probably run away.

      I’m guessing that’s not as high a percentage when it comes to men considering statistics involving rape and murder.

      So yeah, I’d say that there are a lot of scenarios where choosing the bear improves your odds of success.

      It’s like people think there are hundreds of thousands of bear maulings ever year or something…

    • MBM@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      You’re changing the hypothetical into something it’s not. “Odds of success” are a weird thing to think about when it’s just a walk in the woods.

      • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        The scenario is you are lost in the woods and you either have to choose between a wild bear, or a random man.

        Many types of bears won’t run away, they will actively attack you. Some will run, but many will simply tear you limb from limb just cuz.

        • MBM@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I haven’t seen a version that says lost in the woods, just alone. Either way though, you can see it as saying they’d take a chance of being mauled over a chance of being raped.

          • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            And how would you react to if a TERF posted the same thing but changed it to a trans woman instead of a man?

            Still a woman posting about her fear of being raped.

            But now you maybe see how fucking awful ot sounds, right? How it makes you sound super bigoted, perhaps?

    • SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      No, I’m definitely not saying that I know the odds of a bear attack, which is why my quote was “most often” and not “>42%”.

      What I am saying is 14.8% of, or roughly 1 out of every 6, women in America has been raped. Worse yet, between the ages of 16-24, they are 3-4 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted. So in general, women have a very real fear of being alone and unguarded around men, many suffering from PTSD from encounters while being left alone with a man.

      Knowing that you have a 1 in 6 (or worse depending on age) chance to be raped in your lifetime is… bad odds. So it’s understandable that being alone with a man actually scares them more than a bear, regardless of the statistical odds of a bear attack (which again, are pretty low anyways).

      And seeing that 56% of men aged 18-29 voted for a convicted sex offender, probable statutory rapist, “grab 'em by the pussy” enthusiast, who pushed back women’s rights, that means over half the men in that demographic don’t think these are “hills to die on”. So now women have a very real fear, and/or have actually been raped, and all these men are voting like their fears and rights don’t matter… yep, I get choosing the bear.

      So yeah, we can argue until we are blue in the face about survival odds, but we would be missing the whole point of the discussion if we did.

      • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s a stupid hyperbole that just says “I’ve never actually seen a bear up close”

        It makes women sound stupid and naive, any woman who has actually encountered a bear up close will go “fuck no, a bear will fuck you up”

        Bears will literally tear your limbs off just cuz, with little effort. You are nothing more than a ragdoll to them. They have thousands of pounds on you, and they can run twice as fast as you.

        No person who actually knows wtf a bear us like would ever choose the bear.

        The hyperbole instead just sends a message of “women are stupid” which shouldn’t be true, I would hope the average woman is smart enough to know that while being alone with a man is risky, a fucking bear is still way way worse.

        • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          It makes women sound stupid

          No. But this your comment makes you sound stupid.

          On top of being stupid, you obviously still don’t understand what hyperbole is.

          • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            No, I know what it is. Hyperbole when taken too far is just a fancy way to dress up sexism/racism.

            The litmus test here is so easy.

            Replace “man” with “black man” and repeat the phrase, tell me if it’s still something you’d say out loud amongst friends or not.

            Suddenly doesn’t sound so paletteble does it? Maybe sounds kinda racist?

            Literally anytime you wanna try and argue if a phrase maybe is problematic, and you wanna try and argue that because the subject is “men” makes it lt count, just change it to “black men” and double check it didn’t suddenly become super fuckin racist sounding.

            If it did, it always was sexist.

            • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Either you are one of the best trolls I ever met, or you forgot to take your pills. Don’t bother to reply to this, you are on my block list now.