[qzw]

I think there are a lot of things that men take for granted that are not equally available to women. To me, the thought of going into the woods for a weekend with no connection to the outside world sounds peaceful and rather wonderful. But to my wife, it would sound downright alarming. I think it's hard to focus on connecting with one's true self while also worrying about one's physical safety. So I'd like to read more female perspectives on actively seeking out solitude (as opposed to just experiencing loneliness).

[sologirlcamper]

This seems like such a strange thing to say. Why does your wife find having no connection to civilisation "downright alarming"? If women are supposed to find outdoor solitude frightening or something, nobody's told me! I'm hoping this doesn't come across as angry, it just feels like a bizarre thing to read.

[qzw]

My wife and I are not particularly outdoorsy, having both grown up in cities/suburbs in the US. So actually both of us probably should be at least somewhat wary of being alone in semi-wilderness. But maybe it's an example of male overconfidence that the suggestion calls up images of Walden for me, but probably Unsolved Mysteries for her. I'm certainly not saying women should be afraid of being alone outdoors, but there is a pretty pervasive cultural perception that lone women are more vulnerable than lone men in many situations. It doesn't help that, for the majority of people, the most famous female "adventurer" they've heard of is Amelia Earhart, whose disappearance overshadowed all her pioneering achievements.

[scythe]

I think it is interesting to ask about cognitive bias w.r.t. attitudes towards certain threats. Consider a bear. Neither a man nor a woman is likely to win a fight with a bear (though the man has a slightly better shot). Both men and women could probably learn to scare off most bears rather easily, and bear mace works the same for everyone. We might consider on this basis that the actual risk from bears is similar regardless of gender. But is it perceived that way? Is the comparative risk assessment accurate? And whose attitude is irrational - men, women, both or neither?

[dijit]

I don't think this is the reason.

I think it might be more to do with a woman coming across some weird men in the woods and being unable to lean on civilisation to keep the men from being psychologically or physically abusive.

The danger isn't nature. That's the same for men and women

(though you might argue a case that women are more susceptible to hypothermia... but I highly doubt anyone thinks about that).

This is going to be controversial but I think the reality is that society caters to women a bit more than men; so the woods and going back to nature, for men, is an escape. But for women (and speaking very generally) it's more a feeling of removing of safety and comfort.

[pessimizer]

> society caters to women a bit more than men

It's more that women constantly negotiate environments to keep the number of friendly men greater than the number of sketchy men, so they don't get raped and murdered.

In the woods, you get what you get. Even worse, both you and the man you run into know that if he rapes and murders you, he'll get away clean. She's got to rely on the stranger not wanting to rape and murder her, even if there are no consequences. I'd say you're safe with about 80% of men with that, but the other 20% would leave you in a shallow grave. With the kind of men or groups of men that wander around in isolated wilderness, I'd bet that you're moving into a 60%/40% expectation.

[pjerem]

Did I read correctly ? You barely estimate murderers and rappers to be 20% of the male population ? What are your sources for those figures ?

[1auralynn]

Somewhat unrelated to your point but something I always found kind of hilarious is the fact that Thoreau had his laundry and food shopping/prep done by some local women while he was living his 'spartan' life in the woods.

[hnzix]

And went into massive debt to fund his sabbatical.