Not really, the maths would pan out. 1 in 4 women say they are sexually assaulted across their lifetime. In a room of 100 women and 100 men kept together over 50 years, 25 women are going to be sexually assaulted - and 5 of those men are going to be doing the assaulting. Each of those men is assaulting 5 women across a 50 year period or 1 woman per decade. Now I'm not saying that's exactly how it works - life is more complicated than this... .but it's a reasonable set of mathematics.
A woman/man attacked by a bear would be criticised for not knowing about the bear and how bears react - but your point stands.
The last time I interacted with the Met and their department was via a police station solicitor (a female solicitor) who said verbatim 'if you have a penis, they think you're guilty'. An 'Abuse Unit' would be preferable - because the stats speak for themselves, any unit tackling abuse against children and/or between different genders would be a feminist unit, in that it promotes equality between the sexes. However, it needs to be careful in how it combats its own biases. I watched a single-dad have his daughter removed because there were concerns she was sexually inappropriate, though the same behaviours when written up by the girl's female foster carer were viewed as benign. (She had learning disabilities and a problem with her bum). Once again, HOW we explore these issues impacts on how we collect the evidence, what evidence we collect and what it means for society more widely.
I absolutely think we should be having that discussion and that schools are the places for these sorts of issues to be taught (careful) and that gives me some hope for the next generation. I think online TikTok memes are probably not the best way to foster understanding in subsequent generations and the move of young men towards Andrew Tate would suggest I'm right. No kid ever got more stupid from knowing more.
That said, I'm a liberal. I believe in the right of people to opt out of what the state thinks is best. I don't think you can mandate people to study something which goes against their core beliefs, even if their core beliefs are not the same as mine. I think you can mandate education (as a human right for children) but you cannot mandate the content. I would no more accept mandatory classes about the inferiority of jewish people than I would accept mandatory classes about sex-education. The state must be limited and history gives us plenty of reasons to suggest why that might be the case. That said, the majority of parents should be able to see why sex-education, misogyny education and critically consent education is important. Thought experiments like 'bear in the woods' do not foster that mentality in the population - and that's why I don't like it. It's making it harder to take a reasonable position.
Nobody has to weigh in with me, they can if they want - but they don't have to. I write what I think to be true in as lighthearted and entertaining way as I can - and people can (and do) pick it apart. That's the best I can offer on this one - because I refuse to give the argument any more credence than is strictly necessary, it wasn't designed to be discussed in good faith - and as such, it is simply continuing the divide between male and female members of society.
