• snooggums@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 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@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      6 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

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 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.