pixxelkick

She didn't become a millionaire afaik.

She has a podcast that's slightly popular and was already well off.

Anon might stop feeling so jealous if they perhaps stopped making up random facts, or believing lies on the internet?

But they also know that 99% of rapists are men, and 91% of victims are women, that added to the aforementioned 1 in 6~ women that will have been raped in their lifetime means they are gambling just being alone with a man.

1 in 6 sexually assaulted, not raped, to start. Which is still way too high but don't get it twisted.

Second, these 2 numbers actually have no functional relation to the odds of a random man being a rapist.

If you have 1000 people (500/500 men/women) and 1 of them is a rapist, and a man, you could say "100% of the rapists in this group are men"

Which is true, but what you actually care about is, in that case, only 1/500 of men in that crowd are a rapist.

As for the 1/6 women are assaulted, it's a similiar issue.

If that 1 man proceeds to rape 50 women, you now could say (and be totally correct) that:

• 100% of the crowds rapists are men
• 100% of the victims were women
• 1 in 10 women got raped

But all of that actually is missing the fact that in reality, if one of those women picked a man at random to be alone with, it'd only be a 1 in 500 chance she got the rapist.

Now. These are obviously hyperbole facts to demonstrate the mathematical hole.

Let's find out the actual number then...

David Lisak's research probably gives us the best estimate at around 1 in 16. Which is still quite high, but it is also very far away from numbers like "91%" or "1 in 6"

So now you're looking at a 1 in 16 chance of a randomly selected man being sexually violent.

This suddenly starts to demonstrate how the "I'd choose the bear" statement comes across as sexist.

Because choosing a bear signals a vastly hyperinflated representation of the risk of a man.

This is, indeed, sexist. You're taking the actions of a small minority of men and casting their actions over the average.

That, my friend, is textbook bigotry.

The reality is the vast vast majority of men (~94%) aren't sexually violent and perfectly normal people who would be helpful and good to have around for survival.

If you seriously don't see casting the 6%'s actions as a negative generalization on the other 94% as sexist, then I think you gotta go reflect on that for a bit.

What you are continuing to fail at is that I get the point.

I'm saying that the point is being conveyed atop a sexist mechanism

You might find this wild, but a cry fir help can simultaneously be sexist. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

You are arguing about what is being conveyed on the mechanism.

I am arguing the mechanism being used itself is a shitty one

Things can be more than one thing at the same time, which is tough for some people to understand I guess.

If you continue to keep trying to argue that a sexist post being a "cry for help" somehow nullifies it's sexism, then you will continue to make zero progress here and, more importantly, you'll continue to keep being part of the problem

And how would you react to if a TERF posted the same thing but changed it to a trans woman instead of a man?

Still a woman posting about her fear of being raped.

But now you maybe see how fucking awful ot sounds, right? How it makes you sound super bigoted, perhaps?

All that typing but you wouldn't write it.

Deep down inside you know it's a sexist statement, but you'll twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify it.

It's sexist, get over it and just admit it. It's a shitty thing to say.

Fear is fear, you can't pretend justifying sexism with fear is any better or worse than justifying racism with fear or justifying any other type of bigotry with fear.

If some TERF shithead posted "I'd feel safer alone in the woods with a bear than with a trans woman in the bathroom" or some shit you know how bad that would be.

You have to sit and look in the mirror and confront the fact that you think sexism directed towards men "doesn't count".

It does. And until the general public wraps their heads around what should be a very simple concept, shitheads like Trump are going to keep getting elected by reactionaries

No, I know what it is. Hyperbole when taken too far is just a fancy way to dress up sexism/racism.

The litmus test here is so easy.

Replace "man" with "black man" and repeat the phrase, tell me if it's still something you'd say out loud amongst friends or not.

Suddenly doesn't sound so paletteble does it? Maybe sounds kinda racist?

Literally anytime you wanna try and argue if a phrase maybe is problematic, and you wanna try and argue that because the subject is "men" makes it lt count, just change it to "black men" and double check it didn't suddenly become super fuckin racist sounding.

If it did, it always was sexist.

No.

I get the point, I have always gotten the point.

My point is it's a stupid sounding way to try and make the point, because it doesn't actually translate well.

Instead you just sound like a naive inexperienced idiot and make yourself look bad.

You either come across as so hyperbolic you just sound sexist, or, you sound like a naive idiot.

Let me demonstrate for you.

If soneone told you given the choice of being alone in the woods with a black man or a bear, they'd feel safer with a bear, how does that sound now?

Do you still think that sounds "hyperbolic", or do you maybe now see how fucked up and stupid it makes you sound?

That's how women who genuinely say that shit sound.

It's a stupid hyperbole that just says "I've never actually seen a bear up close"

It makes women sound stupid and naive, any woman who has actually encountered a bear up close will go "fuck no, a bear will fuck you up"

Bears will literally tear your limbs off just cuz, with little effort. You are nothing more than a ragdoll to them. They have thousands of pounds on you, and they can run twice as fast as you.

No person who actually knows wtf a bear us like would ever choose the bear.

The hyperbole instead just sends a message of "women are stupid" which shouldn't be true, I would hope the average woman is smart enough to know that while being alone with a man is risky, a fucking bear is still way way worse.

The scenario is you are lost in the woods and you either have to choose between a wild bear, or a random man.

Many types of bears won't run away, they will actively attack you. Some will run, but many will simply tear you limb from limb just cuz.

They are actually referencing a genuine fear many of them have being alone around men.

It still makes you sound stupid, tbh, when you admit you haven't a clue how much more threatening a fucking bear is.

A man, no matter how scary, isn't going to tear your fucking arms off with one hand lol

It demonstrates a degree of naivety that you truly have never actually seen a bear in person.

It just makes the person sound stupid.

At least pick an animal that is less of an instant threat. Like a cougar.

A bear will literally reduce you to multiple pieces without a second thought, and with barely any effort. It's a bear