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.
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:
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.