That’s not at all what is implied by the thought experiment. It’s not all men, it’s a random man. And it’s not that they are dangerous, it’s about what feels riskier from a woman’s perspective.
That’s why all the fretting over which kind of bear is missing the point. It’s not about arguing with women that they are wrong, it’s about listening to them and understanding that they have no idea whether the man is the sort that would kill them if they say or do or don’t do the right thing — but the odds are sufficient that all men must be treated like a potential threat.
It’s not all men, it’s a random man. And it’s not that they are dangerous, it’s about what feels riskier from a woman’s perspective.
How is that different? It’s still a prejudice based on somebody’s unalterable trait. The entire premise is a deliberate generalization to place men and wild animals into the same category.
Not all men are dangerous just like not all snakes are venomous. Knowing that some are dangerous means that I will be cautious around all of them until I’ve determined if they are the safe kind or not. The price for being wrong and trusting the wrong guy is too high.
Every individual is different and it has nothing to do with gender. My ex-wife was a toxic, manipulative, awful person who left me with decades-long psychological trauma, but I can appreciate that comparing all women with snakes is misogynistic.
If the dangerous men were as easily distinguishable from the not dangerous ones as bear species, then the answer would be different. Because that’s women’s entire point - you often can’t tell until it’s too late
It’s ironic we’re dissecting which kind of bear is dangerous, while implicitly accepting the premise that all men are dangerous.
That’s not at all what is implied by the thought experiment. It’s not all men, it’s a random man. And it’s not that they are dangerous, it’s about what feels riskier from a woman’s perspective.
That’s why all the fretting over which kind of bear is missing the point. It’s not about arguing with women that they are wrong, it’s about listening to them and understanding that they have no idea whether the man is the sort that would kill them if they say or do or don’t do the right thing — but the odds are sufficient that all men must be treated like a potential threat.
How is that different? It’s still a prejudice based on somebody’s unalterable trait. The entire premise is a deliberate generalization to place men and wild animals into the same category.
Not all men are dangerous just like not all snakes are venomous. Knowing that some are dangerous means that I will be cautious around all of them until I’ve determined if they are the safe kind or not. The price for being wrong and trusting the wrong guy is too high.
Every individual is different and it has nothing to do with gender. My ex-wife was a toxic, manipulative, awful person who left me with decades-long psychological trauma, but I can appreciate that comparing all women with snakes is misogynistic.
If the dangerous men were as easily distinguishable from the not dangerous ones as bear species, then the answer would be different. Because that’s women’s entire point - you often can’t tell until it’s too late
Has anybody looked into the possibility that we put down all these dangerous creatures before more people get hurt? Better safe than sorry.