There's been a Twitter thing over the past couple of weeks regarding the relative danger of bears versus men. While it is an amusing diversion, it's also an example of cherry picking statistics to advance a narrative.
First, it ignores the fact that there are less than 1,000,000 bears in the US as opposed to 165,280,000 men in the US.
Second, it ignores the fact that bear attacks are incredibly rare, while interactions with men are not.
Third, it sets up a false equivalency. The reality is that men and women have millions/billions of interactions every day in which absolutely nothing happens.
The reality is that in any one on one encounter between a man and a bear, it's likely that your risk of danger is higher with the bear. Further, the reality is that according to crime statistics, we know that the vast majority of crimes are committed by the same group of recidivists. This little game is an excellent example of drawing a flawed conclusion because most of the variables are not controlled for.
I'll take this a step further.
Age, we know that a disproportionate percentage of crimes are committed by younger people.
Race/ethnicity, we know that certain races commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
Economic status, we know that there are some correlations between crime and economic status.
Data, we probably have better data on bear attacks than we do on crime. Per Pew research, we see that in 2022 only 41.5% of violent crimes were reported. The short answer is that there is a degree of guesswork that is happening in this discussion. Is that unknown enough to skew the discussion, who knows.
So what can we learn from all of this?
Well, we can learn that for some reason someone thought it would be amusing to stir up controversy between men and women by trying to cherry pick some data to establish a false equivalency. Why, who knows.
24 comments:
We also know that something like 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted in their lives and something like 99.9% are sexually harassed by men.
Dan
Dan,
Again, excellent job of reinforcing my point. Without regard to the accuracy of the 25% statistic, the reality is that the pool of males who are rapists or potential rapists is smaller than the total number of men in the US. So, what you seem to be doing is to imply that it is reasonable for one particular woman to fear rape from one particular man, while ignoring the fact that there are millions/billions of M/F interactions that happen daily with no negative outcome.
Excellent job trying to stir up controversy and fear. Very Christlike of you.
According to the quick research I just did, I see numbers that indicate that .o4% of men are convicted of sexual assault. But let's assume, for the sake of your argument, that the number is 10% of US men. That literally means that women have nothing to fear from 90% of men. Put that way, it's a bit less intimidating.
But the goal here is to drive women to fear men, not to focus on the reality.
This doesn't even get into racial/ethnic data, increasing numbers of male rape victims, and increasing number of same sex rape victims.
It's a simplistic metric designed to provoke a response, that doesn't control for any other variables.
I'd be willing to bet that it isn't that hard to use the complete data set to construct a profile of a "typical" rapist that would allow women to be able to more accurately determine who they should be wary of. I'd also be willing to bet that you'd object to doing so because you wouldn't like who it highlighted.
"the goal here is to drive women to fear men, not to focus on the reality."
Excellent job of trying to stir up controversy and fear. Very Christ-like of you.
Since you completely missed the point, the goal is to o lend support to women who've lived in literal fear of oppression and assault and harassment by men for centuries, to side with the oppressed and NOT to stir up fear. That you miss the point that for men to say clearly, I get it and I am an ally IS a way of lending support to women is part of the problem. Men choosing to take offense instead of being an ally is part of the problem.
You're missing the point entirely AND lending more reasons for women to be concerned about men.
WHO takes offense at such a rational point?
Men are living down to expectations.
Dan
"Since you completely missed the point, the goal is to o lend support to women who've lived in literal fear of oppression and assault and harassment by men for centuries, to side with the oppressed and NOT to stir up fear."
Based on what I saw, stirring up fear was exactly what happened. But, if you think that using misleading, uncontrolled, cherry picked data to paint a false picture than more power to you. Based on your claim to know what the "point" was I can only conclude that you were the originator or were heavily involved in this scheme. If so, well done, if not then you really don't know for sure what the "point" was.
"That you miss the point that for men to say clearly, I get it and I am an ally IS a way of lending support to women is part of the problem. Men choosing to take offense instead of being an ally is part of the problem."
If you say so, when you whitemansplain and tell other men what they should do and think. If, as you claim with no proof, that is "the point" then the effort failed spectacularly as the majority of what I saw was simply women attacking men. But, if exaggerating the risk by failing to control for variables is you jam, then you go for it.
"You're missing the point entirely AND lending more reasons for women to be concerned about men."
Yes, because accuracy is such a horrible trait to strive for. I do appreciate how you once again make my point, and reinforce that the goal is for women to "be concerned about men". In what other realm do you advocate being "concerned" about the vast majority of a group based on the actions of a tiny minority. We know you do this with gun violence, so what other areas of life is the vast majority to blame or responsible for the actions of a tiny minority?
"WHO takes offense at such a rational point?"
Well, you clearly do.
"Men are living down to expectations."
What a bizarre notion, that defending the vast majority of men who do absolutely nothing untoward to women from being held responsible for the actions of a tiny minority.
I'm pleased that you have now, in two contexts, normalized using the actions of a tiny minority of a group to rationalize fear/concern from the vast majority of the people in that group. I now have the freedom to use your tactic against you.
FYI, in Europe what demographic group commits far and away the most sexual assaults over the past 5 years?
"WHO takes offense at such a rational point?"
This is a good/interesting question. Of course, it's based on the underlying assumption that the average woman in the US should be scared or/concerned about every individual man she encounters because less than 10% of men have sexually assaulted women. So is it really rational to live in fear of the one man that a woman is interacting with, because of the actions of other men? Is it really rational to fear an entire group of people because of the actions of a tiny minority?
Is it rational for a biologically female prison to fear/be concerned about her cell mate who is a biological make/"trans" woman? We have enough reports of "trans" women (biological males) raping biological females in women's prisons to know that it happens. Why wouldn't it be a concern or a fear?
It sounds like the bigger issue is what is a "rational" fear or concern.
FYI, it's easy to avoid rape as well. Just don't get too close to men.
"Men are living down to expectations."
In no one is this more true than with modern progressive feminist girly men like Dan. He defends a barbaric procedure which harms women physically and emotionally. He defend mentally disordered men who think or pretend to be women who then go on to do actual harm to women in a variety of ways. He denigrates those who would dare encourage women to dress modestly so as not to inflame the passions of sick rapists. He denigrates those who would dare encourage women to acknowledge evil in the world and effective proven ways to avoid falling prey to it.
And this is just one issue where the modern progressive feminist girly men like Dan fail to meet positive expectations to which all men should aspire.
FYI, it's easy to avoid rape as well. Just don't get too close to men
Wow. At once, condescending and sexist/misogynistic AND pointing to the "man" problem.
that defending the vast majority of men who do absolutely nothing untoward to women from being held responsible for the actions of a tiny minority.
Once again, you're entirely missing the point.
The reality is that huge numbers of women - most women - are plagued by sexual harassment and sexual assault.
The reality is that these women are often not believed (especially if they are poor or marginalized).
The reality is that large numbers of sexual assault go unreported... in part BECAUSE women aren't believed.
Given the real world data - 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 women being sexually assaulted by men... that 90-97% of women (ie, nearly ALL women) experience sexual harassment by men - given that real world data, we have a serious problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault against women in our world. Women know this. They want men to be aware of it and as concerned as they are.
Into that real world context comes this silly little meme about "bears vs men..." and it's only meant to raise awareness that women fear men and with good reason. AND that reason is NOT because most men are going to rape or assault them, just to be clear... instead, it's because of the real lived experiences of women being made to feel unsafe by the behavior of men.
And into that real world, we find now that many, many men with apparently fragile egos or something to defend, perhaps, are responding to this meme NOT be agreeing: YES! Women should be safer... INSTEAD, they respond by downplaying the threat of men vs the threat of bears. Missing the point altogether.
From CNN:
IT'S NOT ACTUALLY ABOUT THE BEAR!
In one TikTok video, viewed more than 16.7 million times, an interviewer asks eight women on the street whether they’d rather be stuck in a forest with a man or a bear. Seven out of the eight answer, with very little hesitation, the latter.
There are innumerable variants of this video, with the question asked among groups of friends, to family members and partners and strangers on the street. When asked why they would pick the bear, women all give some iteration of the same answer: With a bear, they know what the dangers are. They know, at least in theory, how to survive the encounter.
The comments on the previously mentioned video make that painfully clear:
“You know what to expect from a bear.”
“Absolutely a bear humans are capable of so so much worse.”
“Bear, because If I got attacked by a bear people would believe me.”
A LOT OF (MALE) CRITICS ARE MISSING THE POINT
People rankled by the number of women choosing to take their chances with a bear have called the question “misandrist” and said it’s an excuse to freely hate on men. Others, missing the point entirely, have taken the opportunity to mock and belittle women in response.
One X post shows a cartoon of a woman telling a bear she’s glad to be stuck with it “instead of a man teehee.” In the second panel, the bear has violently mauled her.
“Help me understand the math,” a top response reads. “Women said they feel safer with a bear than a man. So in response you as a man decided to create imagery of them being violently dissected to prove that you’re not violent and are safe to be around?”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/06/us/man-bear-safety-tiktok-question-cec/index.html
Race/ethnicity, we know that certain races commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
What's the point of throwing this idea in here? Are you suggesting that women are safer around white guys??
"Wow. At once, condescending and sexist/misogynistic AND pointing to the "man" problem."
Not at all. Just pointing out that your facile comment about avoiding bears can be applied to men as well.
"Once again, you're entirely missing the point."
Not at all. I'm pointing out the reality that the actual number of men who rape is very tiny, and that it's ridiculous to presume that one random guy is as much of a threat as another.
"The reality is that huge numbers of women - most women - are plagued by sexual harassment and sexual assault."
You say this without providing proof. From what I've seen that 25% rape number may or may not be accurate, and your other "99%" number is so vague as to be useless. Based on multiple sexual harassment trainings "sexual harassment" can be one single comment that is misinterpreted. So, perhaps starting with better data would help.
"The reality is that these women are often not believed (especially if they are poor or marginalized)."
I guess ignoring the high profile instances (Duke lacrosse) instances where the women are believed without actual proof is now necessary. The very notion that a woman should be believed, in the absence of evidence, solely because she is a woman (which is weird because "trans" women are men), or that a man should be presumed more likely to be guilty solely because he is a man goes against the very bedrock of our legal system. The reality is that an accusation (true or not) can ruin an innocent man's life under your standard. But hey, the Narrative always wins.
"The reality is that large numbers of sexual assault go unreported... in part BECAUSE women aren't believed."
Well, I don't believe you when you make these unsupported claims, so...
"Given the real world data - 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 women being sexually assaulted by men... that 90-97% of women (ie, nearly ALL women) experience sexual harassment by men - given that real world data, we have a serious problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault against women in our world. Women know this. They want men to be aware of it and as concerned as they are."
Ohhhhhhhhh, Dan has repeated himself, that's how we know that his pronouncements absolutely must be believed.
"Into that real world context comes this silly little meme about "bears vs men..." and it's only meant to raise awareness that women fear men and with good reason. AND that reason is NOT because most men are going to rape or assault them, just to be clear... instead, it's because of the real lived experiences of women being made to feel unsafe by the behavior of men."
Look, the whitemansplaining about what other people think reaches new heights, well done Dan.
"And into that real world, we find now that many, many men with apparently fragile egos or something to defend, perhaps, are responding to this meme NOT be agreeing: YES! Women should be safer... INSTEAD, they respond by downplaying the threat of men vs the threat of bears. Missing the point altogether."
Yes, women should be safer. Yes women should (if they choose) be able to arm themselves. Yes, those found guilty of rape should be imprisoned, hell they should be charged. Yes, women should be able to avail themselves of training. Yet, none of this suggests holding the 90+% of men who've never done anything responsible or encouraging women to fear men.
It's interesting how Dan magically decided that Tik Tok video's have some inherent credibility, while Twitter videos do not.
Because I'm sure that CNN vetted every single interaction on the Tik Tok video.
It's interesting that we're seeing European officials not being allowed to simply report official government statistics about rape/sexual assault, and Dan is obsessed with ignoring the statistical reality that 90+% of men aren't rapists. This is much like the media reported "slaughter of unarmed black men" Narrative from 2020. We had people who believed that thousands of "unarmed black men" were killed by the police yearly, when the actual number was less than 25. Similar thing here. the reason men are getting bothered by this is that they realize that they are not a rapist, and that they would protect a random woman in the woods, and that this hypothetical woman has nothing to fear from them. Yet women keep saying that they are afraid of men who won't harm them.
"What's the point of throwing this idea in here? Are you suggesting that women are safer around white guys?? "
Not unless the data leads to that conclusion. For example, in Europe, the data clearly shows that one demographic group poses a vastly higher risk to women, than others do.
I'm also suggesting that if we substituted any other protected class in the place of "man/men" in this example, you'd be deranged.
Strangely enough, the notion that there are methodological problems with this whole conversation is just ignored. The notion that we're drawing all of these conclusions based on Tik Tok videos and Twitter posts without regard for possible selection bias, or endorsing these sweeping conclusions based entirely on sex without regard to an apples/apples comparison of the actual potential for risk. Hell, the fact that the "believe all women" standard is inconsistently applied by those who advocate it, doesn't seem to bother many people committed to the Narrative.
Based on Dan's unsupported claims, it might be reasonable to conclude that a certain % of women have been fed a false narrative about the actual risk and have chosen to believe it without checking it out. It could be suggested that we should provide women the tools to properly asses risk, instead of blaming men who pose zero risk.
I can't help but note that this is all about not being able to contest the narrative, instead of actual data analysis.
The idea that any would discount a claim of a woman being attacked by a bear ignores the greater likelihood that it would be because the woman is dead from being attacked by a bear. If a bear gets it into it's instinctive mind that the woman is a threat, it's pretty much a done deal. She ain't getting away. If she had any idea about getting away successfully, that would require being closer to protection than would enable the bear to get to her before she could enjoy the protection of whatever was available to her. Thus, because of the proximity, she was not in danger in the first place.
Any woman who thinks she'd be safer near a bear than the average man upon whom she might encounter is a moron, even if the man upon whom she encounters would seek to assault her. She can fight off a man with a far greater likelihood of success than she ever could with even an adolescent bear, even if not well trained for the possibility.
Picking the bear in the scenario above is indeed just crapping on men. It's a stupid response to suppose she'd be better off threatened by a bear than by a man. Indeed, the possibility of an average bear (You just thought of Yogi, right now, didn't you?) being LESS of a threat to her survival than an encounter with an average male.
The only proper answer for a thinking female would be "I would not put myself in a position to be threatened by either a bear or a man." Such a thinking female doesn't often find herself alone confronting a man not known to her.
As you say, Craig...Dan's concern is for the narrative. It's up to each individual to have some semblance of self-awareness, of one's limitations, an acceptance of how fallen this world is and act accordingly. It would be wonderful if anyone could walk anywhere, day or night, and never be in any danger of confronting scumbags. But that's a fantasy and it's worse for women because they're the weaker sex and more easily victimized by those too scummy to try to victimize men. Dan believes it's misogynistic patriarchy for any man of compassion and concern to encourage women to behave in a manner that reduces their odds of being victimized by a scumbag. He thinks the key is to raise sons who don't rape...because he's a moron. I wonder how many rapists Dan thinks were raised to believe raping women was OK.
Dan's fraudulent nature exposes itself yet again. He's posturing again, not giving a shit about the welfare of women but instead pretending he does. Dan's response to those who crap on these memes is because as a modern progressive feminist girly man, he doesn't know stupid when he sees it. I'd like to see the choice being made to only conservative women and see how it plays out. I'd wager they'd not choose the bear. They're not that stupid.
Art,
I agree that there is a bit of disinformation or ignorance at play here. Women have been "taught" that there are things they can do to avoid a bear attack, if they encounter a bear, that will be effective. Unfortunately, because I suspect a leftward tilt to this narrative, women aren't being told (or accepting) that there are things they can do against any attacker. As you note, and as I also noted, situational awareness and avoiding certain encounters can go a long way toward safety. As Dan noted, it's possible to avoid bear encounters, yet he kind of freaked out when I suggested that the same advice applied to men (women, "trans"es as well).
I still think the biggest problem with this narrative is methodology and selection bias, which skew the results in support of the narrative. This is a powerful narrative and one that many are committed to. It ignores reality in some ways, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone pushing it. One of those realities that is denied is that the vast number of sons, DO NOT RAPE. It's just that simple. Less than 10% (significantly less, apparently) of men rape or sexually assault women. That those less than 10% of men are coddled by the left wing of the legal system seems irrelevant to the narrative.
Dan's sudden fondness for Twitter and Tik Tok as reliable sources of information is strange.
Good Lord. You all are why women answer Bear to this question. The misogyny, the condescension towards women and their allies, the arrogance, the presumption, the ignorance.
I repeat, from one of the stories:
IT'S NOT ACTUALLY ABOUT THE BEAR!
A LOT OF (MALE) CRITICS ARE MISSING THE POINT
"Good Lord. You all are why women answer Bear to this question. The misogyny, the condescension towards women and their allies, the arrogance, the presumption, the ignorance."
The amount of made up, unsupported, false, ignorant bullshit contained in that one sentence is quite impressive.
"IT'S NOT ACTUALLY ABOUT THE BEAR! A LOT OF (MALE) CRITICS ARE MISSING THE POINT."
Which is exactly the point I've been making. But prioritizing the commitment to a narrative over reading what I write seems to be putting you at a disadvantage. Among other things, I'm pointing out that it's about the narrative more than anything else. When people take an unscientific, "poll" rife with biases and choose to draw sweeping conclusions from that poor information, it's likely to be a bad conclusion.
It's kind of shocking that you can somehow twist my saying that I think that women should have an honest/unbiased assessment of the actual risk inherent in both situations, and have the means to deal with either situation, as somehow anti women, or any of the other buzzwords you spewed.
Art,
I do suspect that Dan is probably arrogant enough to temp fate by trying to hug a real bear.
Once again, Dan is far more concerned with posturing as a caring individual than being one. If I advise my intoxicated brother against lipping off to some rough-looking dude in a bar, am I "condescending" in doing so, or concerned for his safety? The rank stupidity required to posture as Dan does is astonishing.
I just saw a video about a guy on a street polling young women about which they'd prefer to marry: a doctor making over $100K per year, or a drug dealer making $1mil in far less time? These young women, most of whom were dressed in a provocative manner, picked the drug dealer...with one or two inviting them to come and f**k them. I don't think these young women are indicative of all women by any means. But many women are attracted to dangerous men whether they're rich or not. I suppose that if each of these women were asked the bear/man question, they'd pick the bear as well, because they've put themselves in positions to be abused enough to believe that such is just the way men are.
But I maintain that the women who answered in favor of the bear are either incredibly stupid (and the young women in the video I mentioned above clearly appeared to be that), ignorant of just how dangerous it is to be within a bear's ability to run them down, or they're simply feminists lying in order to disparage men.
I mentioned earlier how someone tried to rob my daughter and her response. Years ago, one of my sisters was walking home from a bar late at night after a weekly spat with her two closest friends (routinely, one of them would be pissed at the other two and seek to leave wherever they were to get away from them). She was drunk, and some guy pulled over, got out of the care and immediately tried to sexually assault her. Somehow, my sister managed to drop him with a kick to the groin and ran the rest of the way home in stark terror. Her friends had driven to our house in the meantime and were with me when Sis got home totally traumatized, crying uncontrollably, and wouldn't let me near her.
Aside from my sister, I can only think of one female who I know with certainty was actually raped (again, my sister wasn't raped, but only was intended to be), and that chick I had met only twice before (the roommate of a girl I briefly dated). Without suggesting there couldn't have been more, throughout my entire life, with all the women and girls I've known, I haven't even heard of another case related by someone else. So I hesitate to buy the stats Dan tries to present without citation. This is not to say they're wrong, but they are judging by my experience.
continuing...
My widowed mother was a waitress since shortly after the old man passed away when I was nine. She spoke of the treatment of the waitresses at her place of employment. There was an overall manager, and three lesser managers who oversaw the actual banquet operations. Affairs were not uncommon, but here, the point is that it made a difference to the women which of the four were getting "fresh" with them. One guy tried to be a player, and most of the women rejected him outright and found him as creepy as Joe Biden. One in particular was especially charming. He could say things for which the other guy would never be given a pass. That was about fifty years ago when only true assault was recognized by most as worthy of prosecution and scorn. But it illustrates a fact Dan likely hasn't the intellect to consider, which is that women determine what constitutes harassment. The same expressions could be regarded as harassment, flirting or even complementary depending upon who the woman is and how she regards the man expressing the words. Feminists, including feminist girly men like Dan, have chosen to impose a stricter definition that actual, strong conservative women dismiss as the crapola it is.
Finally, I've actually witnessed, back in my high school days, a girl allowing a couple of dudes to paw her...not just "allowing", but inviting that behavior. How many such girls and women would turn that into a sexual assault if she later felt guilty over it and embarrassed that anyone might learn of her own behavior? How many of these women answer the polling data which resulted in Dan's stats? Dan's of that corrupt kind who demands that government or Christians or "misogynistic patriarchy" stay out of the personal and private lives of women who intend to murder the developing person in her womb. Somehow Dan demands that boys be taught not to rape. It's OK for Dan to encourage that, but any beneficial encouragement by those like us toward women is somehow a bad thing. Double-Standard Dan strikes again.
I do think that we are seeing something in young women today that would lead to this kind of decision making process. There is plenty of evidence that women prefer certain types of men when they are young, and presume that they'll be able to find the more stable/marriageable type pf man after years of sowing wild oats. This is a result of 2nd/3rd wave feminism telling women what they should value in their lives. If I was a young woman, with a low value degree, lots of debt, an unsatisfying job, and a high body count of men who aren't marriage material, I might opt for the bear as well. How often do we see an article in which a 40+ year old woman bemoans the fact that she spent her teens/20s/30s racking up a massive body count and now can't fins any "good" men who are interested in her. Or how she dedicated everything to her job, education, or traveling, and is now unable to attract a man.
WK regularly reports on these topics, as he's single.
I see multiple problems with this unscientific "poll" and how it's being spun. I've mentioned methodological and bias issues. You bring up an interesting point in questioning if the women in question are basing their answer on the men they've "dated" and found wanting, without questioning their role in choosing those men to "date".
The whole think is kind of stupid, especially the men who realize that they're getting tarred with something that they would never engage in, and who want to defend the 90+% of men who are not rapists.
This, like so much, is performative for Dan and is more about establishing some sort of moral superiority over those he finds to be lesser than him.
I do agree that Dan is minimizing the weaponization of charges of sexual assault against innocent men, and pretending like it's not something that is a concern. As well as the historic inconsistency of how those on the left treat a woman who accuses one of theirs of sexual assault. Look at how Clinton, Kennedy, Biden, Ellison, and Franken got passes for their sexual assaults.
Post a Comment