I was thinking of ones that obviously don’t “pass”. And I was thinking of it in the context of trans bathroom rights: one side says that it is dangerous for “men” (any misgendering theirs) to be in bathrooms with women and the other side says it is perfectly safe and harmless. So I’m curious if people who choose bear over man for safety, if encountering an obvious trans person, would choose their identity or their sex assigned at birth to determine if they are more dangerous than a bear. (And the hypothetical isn’t merely about an encounter with an unknown stranger, because it isn’t “would you choose a bear or a strange man, woman, or child”, it is “would you choose a bear or man”.)
Testosterone is amazing stuff, and most trans men “pass” after they’ve been taking it for a while. Just fyi.
E.g. all the human/‘fuzzy cow’ interactions in Yellowstone Park.
I’ve heard it stated before that baboons are very proud of showing off their stripy asses to all and sundry, good to know that’s a true fact.
I ran across this: “If it’s black, holler back; if it’s brown, lie down; if it’s white, say good night.” As a general rule it’s probably good enough for most people’s bear encounters.
Men have always been the biggest danger to women, throughout history. Look at the simple fact that the #1 cause of death to pregnant and recently postpartum women is being murdered by their partners to get an idea of how bad it is–few animals make a habit of killing gravid females, especially ones they mated with.
No, really the only thing that’s changing is that women are kicking back against the social programming to “keep sweet” and “don’t rock the boat” and “don’t make him mad” and “give the benefit of the doubt even with his hands locked around your throat” and, true to their social programming men are having big mad about this.
Oh no! Anyway…
I’ve read similar advice. Grizzlies are aggressively territorial, and if you play dead, and it decides you’re not a threat after all, it may move on. A slim chance, but better than the zero chance of just hoping for the best or trying to outrun.
Black bears are almost always inclined to run off, so a determined and aggressive bear may be starving. Your slim chance there is to fool it into thinking you’re more dangerous than you actually are. You may weigh about the same (as opposed to 800 lbs less than a grizzly), so who knows? How does the bear know you don’t have sharp fangs and dense muscle.
Polar bears? You’re a goner.
A biologist commented that non-polar bears are heavily omnivorous and like most omni- and herbivorous critters they find the taste of critters that eat a lot of meat unpleasant so they’re unlikely to kill you for food because you taste gross. Polar bears exist almost exclusively by eating other predators so they don’t give a flying fuck about your flavor. Makes sense!
I couldn’t care less about what happened to women centuries ago, least of all about your paranoid, self-pitying bs. And bringing up debunked statistic is not helping your case.
Yup.
https://np.reddit.com/r/women/comments/1cij7lj/question_for_ladies/l29pha7/?context=3
https://np.reddit.com/r/rant/comments/18dmx0g/im_starting_to_hate_men/
And it doesn’t sound like they want to get better…
https://np.reddit.com/r/women/comments/1c2p5qb/how_do_i_get_out_of_my_i_hate_men_phase/
https://np.reddit.com/r/offmychest/comments/usvhf9/i_hate_men/
https://np.reddit.com/r/butchlesbians/comments/1adqnsu/god_i_hate_men/
https://np.reddit.com/r/offmychest/comments/tj8eni/im_starting_to_hate_men/
https://np.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/comments/ilccc7/why_do_you_hate_men/
https://np.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/171pzkx/not_all_men/
https://np.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/v5t8fq/castrate_all_men/
https://np.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1bclcvm/not_all_men_but_always_a_man_why_does_this/
https://np.reddit.com/r/FeminismUncensored/comments/16js6pi/kill_all_men/
https://np.reddit.com/r/AITAH/comments/1cg4c7n/aitah_for_getting_it_elsewhere_since_my_wife/l1vn48p/
https://np.reddit.com/r/AITAH/comments/1cg4c7n/aitah_for_getting_it_elsewhere_since_my_wife/l1vndkc/
This thread is a flag generator. Several outstanding currently. I’m closing it until the Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share Moderators get a chance to review them all and maybe some additional posts.
Moderating:
A personal insult. Knock it off.
Also a personal insult. Knock it off.
To all: I have not been following this thread and am uncertain about what is causing all the disharmony. But I have no trouble seeing that comments are getting personal and unnecessarily provocative. Make your discussion respectful, or warnings will be issued and this thread will be closed permanently.
Thanks, I guess? The links with previews are asking me if I’m over 18, and I’m not clicking on those right now. I’m guessing that you’re backing up your claim that “people claim . . . outrageous things, like claiming they had been sexually harassed 500-2000 times since the age of 13”–and without the word “outrageous,” I’ll stipulate that you’ve cited that claim, although a good cite would be actual text of what people said, not a bajillion links. But it’s more the second part of your claim–that it’s “hundred times less likely than being struck by lightning”–that I find to be remarkable.
There are a horrific number of cases in which someone is the victim of ongoing sexual harassment or abuse by someone who has power over them, and sometimes that ongoing abuse happens on a daily basis. The idea that this is “hundreds of times less likely than being struck by lightning” is absurd at first glance.
Here’s a possible source for some of the stats:
Lightning strike - Wikipedia.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2012, over the twenty years to 2012 the United States averaged 51 annual lightning strike fatalities, making it the second-most frequent cause of weather-related death after floods.[14][15] In the US, as of 1999, between 9 and 10% of those struck died,[16] with an annual average of 25 deaths in the 2010s decade (16 in 2017).[17][18]
If 25 people die on average, and that’s between 9 and 10% of people struck, that means about 250 people are struck annually in the United States. At a bare minimum of “hundreds of times less likely,” a maximum of two people in the United States would meet the threshold of being abused “500-2000 times” each year.
I think this is wildly inaccurate. While I’m having trouble finding numbers, if you looked only at victims of child prostitution, you’d almost certainly find hundreds or thousands of such victims in the United States meeting that threshold each year–and those victims would be a fraction of the total victims of chronic sexual abuse. And the victims of chronic sexual abuse would themselves be a small fraction of the number of women and girls who experience daily sexual harassment.
I think you have your percentages reversed. Chronic sexual harassment is horrifically common.
You don’t know what the word means. Dogwhistles are to be heard by people who are already there.
Absolute bullshit.
On Reddit, you can indeed find people claiming outrageous things. But some women and girls, in some locations, get sexually harrassed every damn day on the street on the way to school or their jobs or the grocery store. Some get harassed every damn day in school or at their jobs. Not remotely implausible to rack up a few thousand incidents over a period of multiple years.
Women living in different situations may not have endured as many instances. Doesn’t mean the higher claims are false.
And I can’t imagine why you would genuinely be confounded by women saying that the harassment started at the age around which puberty usually causes secondary sex characteristics to be obvious.
More than that I can’t say in this forum.
Some of us are waiting for the Pit.
You are welcome to leave at anytime. Fake bravado is quite common with fourth-wave feminists, that is why they use dogwhistles.
Dogwhistles are used both to address those already radicalize, as well as to slowly radicalize those who are on the fence, by maintaining plausible deniability while you lead them down that path. It is not either or. First you think “maybe it’s OK for some women to hate men”, then you think “maybe mote men than I previously realized are bad”, then you start getting mad over things from decades or centuries ago (because you hear about it all the time), that no women or men around today have experienced and which can not be changed anyway, then you start thinking “maybe most men are bad”, then you think “it’s alright to think that because it’s not as bad as rape, which is mainly committed by men” (basically admitting it’s bad, but you can’t let go and you rationalize it that it’s not that bad because men are worse), etc.
And I’m not questioning why those who commit sexual harassment or assault often target teenagers. I’m just pointing out that people who make over the top, unbelievable (and ultimately, unprovable and anecdotal) personal testimonies about that, which are always used to justify their biases/hatred and generalize men, operate on the same pattern when they make up their claims.
Plenty of people use both techniques. That doesn’t make them the same technique.
Attempting to re-define words so as to make them useless for their original purpose is also a technique.
And more than one of us has already explained that what you claim to find “unbelievable” is in fact quite common.