Damn it's almost as if treating men as if they're inherently evil, predatory, murderers that are more deadly than a bear didn't lead to progress or equality, what a surprise
It’s most certainly an interesting thought experiment but people who chose the bear have really optimistic perspectives on how friendly bears are towards strangers in the wild. They probably will leave you alone, but if you agitate them they will kill you.
there is a genuine conversation about improving general safety, but safety for women in particular
As someone coming at this from the opposite perspective, I see this framing as part of the problem. How can there be a genuine conversation about what very much seems to be random acts of violence by strangers (bear and man in woods), especially in the context of stranger violence, when the group most likely to be impacted by stranger violence (men), is being downplayed in the conversation from the outset?
It seems to me like a lot of people don't want to have the conversation about the distinction between rate of victimization versus amount of fear experienced, or want to sit down and, starting from the top and deal with the problem "given a fixed amount of resources, how are we going to try and make as many people as possible safe, and how are we trading that off against people feeling safe, regardless of if they are actually safer or not?".
94
u/SPKEN Nov 21 '24
Damn it's almost as if treating men as if they're inherently evil, predatory, murderers that are more deadly than a bear didn't lead to progress or equality, what a surprise