I think this is a big part of what's driving the disconnect. You've had to fight men and it's worked out well enough for you so far. I've had to fight men too, and I was never able to prevent them from doing anything they wanted to me. My assumption is if I run into a man in the woods, that he will be able to do whatever he pleases to me, because I will physically be unable to stop him, and nobody else will be around to help.
It’s sad that you’ve found yourself in that situation enough times to use the word “men”, but ignoring the semantics… the “men” you’ve had to fight aren’t men at all. They’re boys trapped in the body of an adult that do not have any self-respect, let alone any respect for others, let alone respect to what they perceive to be an inferior woman.
So, I know it's hard, but imagine your choice is a bear or a man who can easily overpower you. You will not succeed in a fight with either. Pretend you're already injured or sick from drinking bad water or something. Which would you choose?
At this point, though, we’re essentially creating an unconquerable scenario. We’re stepping beyond the black and white discussion of “man vs. bear” and aligning several of the worst possible case variables you could ask for in a situation like that to produce the worst possible outcome. Naturally, I would lose in a scenario like that, as would anyone else cocky enough to think otherwise. That’s part of the point people debating this are making, and why it’s looked at as rage bait like
@Smacktard said and
@The Flame alluded to.
Well, I wouldn't say that. You're kind to say so though.
I’ve known a lot of naive and just plain stupid people who placed themselves in dangerous situations, and you certainly have a level of contemplation and perspective that
could save your life. However, just like me, if someone really wanted you dead… they could find a way to make it happen.
Maybe. But there will always be people who enjoy hurting other people, and they only suppress it due to likely consequences. In the middle of the woods, it doesn't matter much what society thinks.
While this is 100% true and I won’t disagree with your point, it still begs the question of what that scenario would look like, say… a generation or two down the line of men being taught better or realizing that certain behavior is unacceptable. For example, if I’m not mistaken, it was India that I read something about years ago. They had a massive issue with sexual assaults, and then they clamped down on the perpetrators as they became known and convicted, and there has been a gradual reduction in sex crimes in the period of time that article covered. What it’s like now? I couldn’t tell you, I’ve never been there, but I’ve known a few Indian folks and the topic has come up, and apparently it was a much bigger problem there than it is here. My point is… they enacted a measure to attempt to put an end to it, they’re not at 0 by any means, but progress has been made. That’s all I’m suggesting… that as soon as we eliminate the Brock Turners and Bill Cosbys of this world, women will be in a safer place.
If that's the case, then I'll stick with the bear, thanks.
You still use a lighter even though fire can burn, right? You still use electricity even though it’ll only take less than one ampere to stop your heart, right? Risk assessment and risk mitigation never reach absolute zero. There will always be variables that create outliers.
Question though. Does your answer change if it's a mountain lion?
Or any animal for that matter. A few wolves? A hippo?
Absolutely, that’s still a part of assessing risks and mitigating them.
You said men are more dangerous to women than to other men. All I did was point out that more men are killed by men than women. I think the ratio is like 7:3.
I get where you’re coming from with that, but I disagree on the principle that the numbers on the male side include combatants, criminal activity, and occupational hazards that generally favor males.
That's a fair point. If a woman was alone in the woods and saw both a bear and a man, I don't think she would run to the bear for help, though.
Precisely.
I'm inclined to agree with The Flame that this is just another one of these dumb online ragebait things meant to pit women and men against each other. Yes, many men are complete shit, and men are more dangerous than women, but generalizations like this help no one.
Exactly. All it does is leave decent men and already petrified women tossing scenarios back and forth where they continually escalate to the point of being totally one-sided against men while the
real threats are off in the woods looking for their next victim paying ZERO attention to this debate, because they are already doing what they want. Until… someone stops them.
Fellas.
What was the very first sentence I said when I chimed in?
Listen to the women in your life and come on back. You'll have a different perspective. I promise.
To add to this, the women I’ve had read this all see your points, but they’ve all been grounded in life here in America long enough to know that I’m also right about doing something about those men. Just like any other form of crime, my solution isn’t an overnight one. I could be elected emperor of the world right after I post this, enact a law killing all sex offenders, and we’d still have outliers filter through the cracks. That’s unfortunately a very real part about human nature… all it takes is one sexual deviant to take the innocence of a child, or one individual who was sexually assaulted themselves to the point where it became normalized to them. There will always be bad people… what good people choose to do about them ultimately plays a role in how long they carry it on. To use a buzzword… this kind of behavior was normalized. How do you make it to where it’s no longer normalized? The same way you do with anything else. Incrementally.
FWIW I think this fella did that:
…and I’ve continued to through this morning.
Also FWIW my wife chose bear. We disagreed, it's fine. I said statistically I don't think it makes sense to choose a bear. She said at least the element of uncertainty is removed with the bear -- either it kills you or it doesn't. Men can kidnap, torture, rape, etc over long periods of time. I get where she's coming from, I just don't think that's a realistic occurrence for like 99.9999% of men.
That’s the same logic mine applied, but after reading my responses here and asking for elaboration on certain elements, she didn’t take long to see my perspective on it since hers is already pretty clear to me. She respects the amount of danger I’ve been in over the course of my life, and completely understands the rationale behind where I’m coming from… but, she also knows me well enough personally to know where my heart is on the matter.
This is just general advice for men based on what I'm seeing. It becomes a very slippery slope very fast, I've had to see it happen all too often in my previous line of work.
Yup, and in my previous line of work is where I’ve had to protect women from these kind of scenarios. Ain’t nothing like driving through a dark parking lot in the middle of the night looking for a car, hearing the most blood-curdling scream you could imagine, following the source of the sound, and finding a man trying to pin a woman down in between two cars. There also isn’t anything like the sense of gratitude you feel from someone for being at the right place at the right time and having the wherewithal to handle it, and the confusion you feel internally because you didn’t do anything special… you just stopped something bad from happening to someone. Trust and believe, I know where you’re coming from, there are some sick fucks out there.
Yeah that's true, I just heard people say that men wouldn't understand because men harm women more than men harm men, and I don't necessarily think that's true.
Which brings me back to my point about occupational hazards… how many women officers are there compared to men? How many soldiers? Truck drivers? Repo men? I’ve been in far more dangerous situations than most women I know, including those that survived assaults, and any woman I’ve taken out on the road with me over the years to see what the job was like walked away from the experience with a new appreciation for what their man did to put food on the table. Now, there’s a clear distinction between my willful act of going to work and a woman walking through the woods met by a predator, but that isn’t the point here. The point is, overall, the presence and handling of a dangerous situation.
What is true though is that women put up with a lot more shit from men than men do. I can see why women would feel MORE threatened than men in a situation like that, but it's all such a vague question that everyone will interpret it differently.
Exactly. You’re only gonna pop off at a dude so many times before you get met with a “you know what, motherfucker?”, and women don’t get that luxury.
I encounter solo women when hiking all the time. In this case, she's alone in the forest with a stranger. When I picture being alone in the forest with a man, I think of like a hiking trail. I'm not picturing a man leering at me from behind some trees in a forest. If that's the scenario, give me the fuckin bear because that's creepy as shit.
Which is why the context of this conversation has caused so many issues… it’s just not realistic to imagine some predator lying in wait for your evening hike, and if it is… then you need a different hiking spot because that one has clearly been compromised and doesn’t receive any attention from park rangers or whoever would be in charge of ensuring the safety to the visitors.
Now… if we’re just talking about wandering through the unnamed woods on public ground, it begs the question… what are you even doing in the woods to begin with to where this is a scenario that’s a possibility? Why would ANYONE, male or female, place themselves in such a position without weighing the pros and cons of it? I’m not saying that if you’re lost in the woods, go get raped and have fun, but… what the hell was going on in this theoretical woman’s mind where she thought it was okay to wander off into the wilderness? I don’t need to ask that question of the predator, I already know the answer. However, if the person knows there are predators in the woods, or knows of the potential for them to exist, why the hell are they playing with fire? We don’t need people doing stupid shit because they’re naive enough to think they’re safer with a wild animal than a human. We also don’t need people being naive enough to not suspect the potential for danger as well. No, I’m by no means blaming a victim, but… it’s common knowledge that people present themselves as potential victims unknowingly. You’re not gonna walk down the street with a brand new iPhone in your hand if you’ve seen news stories about people running up, knocking the holder out, and taking the phone, are you? Absolutely not. You’re going to make sure you keep your device in your pocket, stay aware of your surroundings, and have a plan of action in case anything goes sideways. The same should be applied across the board… I see a lot of people with, for lack of a better way of putting it, absolutely shitty survival skills and even worse situational awareness. Male and female.