• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Even if 99% of men were not abusers, the 1% that are also tend to hide their malice and pretend to be decent until alone and the woman is vulnerable. So as women interact with hundreds or thousands of men over their lifetimes they will come across these abusers or know someone who was abused and that the system blames victims and the fear is not just about percentage chance of a horrible outcome, but that society continues the abuse.

      A bear is a known factor, dangerous but never in a deceptive way and society doesn’t tend to blame victims of animal attacks.

      Also the percentage of abusers is way higher than 1%. Everyone knows multiple rape and abuse victims, but few people know someone who was mauled by a bear. That is the context for this question.

      • NoIWontPickAName
        link
        fedilink
        17 months ago

        That’s just a numbers game, we also have way more interactions with bears, you would have to do a whole breakdown of time/incidents for bears and humans both

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          77 months ago

          The point is not the literal number of incidents or ratio, because personal experience impacts that for most people.

          Someone who has been in a plane crash don’t care how infrequent they are, the personal experience influences how they estimate the risks.