If you are a woman alone in the woods, would you rather come across an unknown man, or a bear? It’s a thought experiment. As a human woman, which represents a greater immanent threat?
Without wading into all the technicalities, could we perhaps agree that if you have to say, “what kind of bear tho’,” that we are already in troubling territory?
That’s not at all what is implied by the thought experiment. It’s not all men, it’s a random man. And it’s not that they are dangerous, it’s about what feels riskier from a woman’s perspective.
That’s why all the fretting over which kind of bear is missing the point. It’s not about arguing with women that they are wrong, it’s about listening to them and understanding that they have no idea whether the man is the sort that would kill them if they say or do or don’t do the right thing — but the odds are sufficient that all men must be treated like a potential threat.
It’s not all men, it’s a random man. And it’s not that they are dangerous, it’s about what feels riskier from a woman’s perspective.
How is that different? It’s still a prejudice based on somebody’s unalterable trait. The entire premise is a deliberate generalization to place men and wild animals into the same category.
Not all men are dangerous just like not all snakes are venomous. Knowing that some are dangerous means that I will be cautious around all of them until I’ve determined if they are the safe kind or not. The price for being wrong and trusting the wrong guy is too high.
What does “picked the bear” mean?
If you are a woman alone in the woods, would you rather come across an unknown man, or a bear? It’s a thought experiment. As a human woman, which represents a greater immanent threat?
The question always struck me as dumb. Because it doesn’t make any attempt to clarify what geographic region this question takes place.
I don’t care what you’re afraid of a man doing, a polar bear is ALWAYS the worse choice.
But not all bears are as aggressive as polar bears. Some bears will run away from you if you chase them. Some bears will end you if you chase them.
Of coarse you can’t determine how dangerous a man is based on region. But you can likely determine which regions have dangerous bears.
Without wading into all the technicalities, could we perhaps agree that if you have to say, “what kind of bear tho’,” that we are already in troubling territory?
It’s ironic we’re dissecting which kind of bear is dangerous, while implicitly accepting the premise that all men are dangerous.
That’s not at all what is implied by the thought experiment. It’s not all men, it’s a random man. And it’s not that they are dangerous, it’s about what feels riskier from a woman’s perspective.
That’s why all the fretting over which kind of bear is missing the point. It’s not about arguing with women that they are wrong, it’s about listening to them and understanding that they have no idea whether the man is the sort that would kill them if they say or do or don’t do the right thing — but the odds are sufficient that all men must be treated like a potential threat.
How is that different? It’s still a prejudice based on somebody’s unalterable trait. The entire premise is a deliberate generalization to place men and wild animals into the same category.
Not all men are dangerous just like not all snakes are venomous. Knowing that some are dangerous means that I will be cautious around all of them until I’ve determined if they are the safe kind or not. The price for being wrong and trusting the wrong guy is too high.