• SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      15 days ago

      Nothing is wrong with them, but I get not wanting to gamble with thos odds.

      Especially when, according to the national park service, “when bear encounters do happen, they are most often nonviolent”. So if you had to gamble…

      • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        14 days ago

        Are you saying that theres >42% chance a bear will be on your side in the wilderness then?

        That makes no sense. By all arguments taking “a man” is prolly the far better choice anyways, people are just stupid.

        There’s a 100% chance that “the bear” is a fucking bear

        Theres at least a decent chance “a random man” is an asset to survival and your odds of success go up instead of down…

        There’s no scenario where choosing “the bear” improves your odds of success >_>;

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          14 days ago

          Unless the bear is starving, rabid or you are between it and its cubs, there is a 99% chance that the bear will just leave you alone, and probably run away.

          I’m guessing that’s not as high a percentage when it comes to men considering statistics involving rape and murder.

          So yeah, I’d say that there are a lot of scenarios where choosing the bear improves your odds of success.

          It’s like people think there are hundreds of thousands of bear maulings ever year or something…

        • SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          14 days ago

          No, I’m definitely not saying that I know the odds of a bear attack, which is why my quote was “most often” and not “>42%”.

          What I am saying is 14.8% of, or roughly 1 out of every 6, women in America has been raped. Worse yet, between the ages of 16-24, they are 3-4 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted. So in general, women have a very real fear of being alone and unguarded around men, many suffering from PTSD from encounters while being left alone with a man.

          Knowing that you have a 1 in 6 (or worse depending on age) chance to be raped in your lifetime is… bad odds. So it’s understandable that being alone with a man actually scares them more than a bear, regardless of the statistical odds of a bear attack (which again, are pretty low anyways).

          And seeing that 56% of men aged 18-29 voted for a convicted sex offender, probable statutory rapist, “grab 'em by the pussy” enthusiast, who pushed back women’s rights, that means over half the men in that demographic don’t think these are “hills to die on”. So now women have a very real fear, and/or have actually been raped, and all these men are voting like their fears and rights don’t matter… yep, I get choosing the bear.

          So yeah, we can argue until we are blue in the face about survival odds, but we would be missing the whole point of the discussion if we did.