The entire “bear” thing is the exact same situation from the other side. The reality is that there is always nuance, while it is more popular / more often that people see the extreme outliers and attribute that to the entire group.
The point of the bear question isn’t blaming men. It’s assessing risk, and the risk of random man in the wilderness is far greater than random bear. Yes. A bear can maul, kill, and eat you, but a bear will never assualt, torture, or throw you in a pit for years on end. The risk of sexual and psychological abuse is worse to women than the threat of being eaten by an animal. It’s not about blame at all.
The entire “bear” thing is the exact same situation from the other side. The reality is that there is always nuance, while it is more popular / more often that people see the extreme outliers and attribute that to the entire group.
The point of the bear question isn’t blaming men. It’s assessing risk, and the risk of random man in the wilderness is far greater than random bear. Yes. A bear can maul, kill, and eat you, but a bear will never assualt, torture, or throw you in a pit for years on end. The risk of sexual and psychological abuse is worse to women than the threat of being eaten by an animal. It’s not about blame at all.
Ugh, not this BS again
I love that they made my point for me.
deleted by creator
Which makes sense. You get only one shot at life. So being more sensitive to negative bias could be an advantage to the individual.