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.
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.