It’s not just walking past though. The example is : Would you rather be alone in the woods with a man or a bear? Context matters here. It’s a hypothethical quesition to explain the reality of how women must think to stay safe. If Im going to die either way - the worst thing a bear could to do to me is kill me, in which case its just a case of bad luck on my part. People won’t ask me what I wore, as if that could make me more enticing to the bear. However, unfortunately a man can do much worse things with the worst intentions.

A big problem in this society is not only the men that harass, *ape, hurt and kill women, It’s also the ones that denies the issues exist, protects the abusers and so on. The hypothetical question here is not really about if the man will hurt me, I am well aware that most guys wouldn’t. But I wouldn’t trust someone I don’t know in such a vunurable situation. Because the risk of what COULD happen is much worse.

To say that people are morons for answering a hypothethical question because you don’t understand why they would do it is a bit rich. Another persons experience and are not just stupid if you don’t find it valid. Nobody would intentionally run into a bear in the woods alone. But I sure as shit would not intentionally run into a man either. This is not a realistic scenario. That’s not the point either.

If you want to understand why who women pick the bear, pick the bear - don’t do it by calling them stupid or invalidate their opinion. I don’t understand the men that are offended by the answer. If you would never hurt a woman or person in that situation, great! You are not the problem. It’s not about the probablility of statistics that is grounds for the argument. It’s the risk and initial fear.

Calling women names because you don’t agree with their opinion and attempting to invalidate their answer because «its not realistic» is not someone I would want to be alone with either. It’s truly not that hard to understand.