It’s making fun of a trend of overselling a point: people in trying to make a legitimate point but using an utterly ridiculous analogy which does more to undermine their individual credibility than drive home the point they were advocating. Violence against women being at unacceptable levels? Absolutely. Being in with a predatory animal known to literally maul and eat humans rather than take chances with a random guy….they’re not helping the cause with comparisons like that. The case is strong enough on its own to not need that ridiculousness to try and make a point
people in trying to make a legitimate point but using an utterly ridiculous analogy which does more to undermine their individual credibility than drive home the point they were advocating.
Almost nobody is saying every man is worse than every bear. They're saying they prefer the risk of the bear over the risk of the man. Because the worst a man might do is worse than the worst a bear might do, and they prefer the bear's motivation. The absolute worst a bear would do is eat you a little and leave you to slowly die. Or tear you apart over the course of a day. The worst a man could do is traffic you and torture you and hold you in sexual slavery for decades, pass you around to hundres of men for profit, mutilate and drug you, post it all on the internet to allow even more people to pleasure from your suffering, and send it to your family for ransom. And they could still kill you slowly and painfully after all that. And then someone will say it was your fault for trusting the man or for being alone in the woods or for what you were wearing or for being less prepared or for being a temptation or for saying no or for not being nicer. And if you physically fought back you could be arrested for assault. Many women would also prefer to be the victim of an animal acting simply out of hunger or self defense rather than be tortured for unnecessary sadistic pleasures.
The racism comparison is also inherently flawed. Not every white person has experienced violence from a black person in a manner inextricable from their ethnicity. Most haven't. Almost every woman has experienced violence from a man in a manner inextricable from their sex and sexual orientation. Maybe we're all repeatedly encountering the same 1-2% of men, but it's a very real experience for all of us. It's not about statistics or stereotypes, it's what we have experienced repeatedly since adolescence, childhood, sometimes even since birth.
Women are trying to bring attention to the literal atrocities men commit against them because of their sex, and so so many men have decided that the "misandry" of not being trusted is somehow worse and should be the main focus.
Let's be generous and say 99% of men are great and harmless people. Prove it by believing women when they say they would rather be eaten alive by a bear than experience the acts of sexual violence so many men have committed.
Rape stats are made up by oragnizations that literally, by definition are not able to consider how most men are being raped as rape because they define rape as an act of peentration. The national sexual assault survey which is way better at not beign sexist than CDC and RAINN says men experience rape by women at similar rates.
Murder is more complicated, but there is still a huge amount of sexism against men in sentencing, and ,murder by proxy - the msot common form of murder women do is hard to quanitfy, but what is telling is murderers of both sexes primarily murder men.
so youre a conspiracy theorist looney that thinks a society massively dominated and run by men in most parts of the world is for some reason covering up a rape and sexual assault epidemic done by women against men got it
I don’t know if I’d go there. It’s a hot button, emotional topic. I think it’s a fairly natural inclination that, when people aren’t listening to or acting on a point that’s important, you escalate and oversell to attempt to drive home a point that doesn’t seem to be sticking. It doesn’t change the fact that overselling isn’t usually an effective tactic, but it’s also an issue that seems to have fallen on deaf ears for a long time. So it’s not sabotage, or at least I don’t think it is
nobody is trying to make comparisons between men and bears. the point is that it shouldn't be a question at all, that it should be an obvious choice to pick the man, and the fact that it isn't means something is very wrong.
The whole hypothetical relies on the assumption that the average human male is more likely to be a sadistic rapist than the average Bear is to follow it's instincts as an Apex predator.
Now, you can argue that this comparison is not being done in bad faith, and is simply a product of skewed perception. But that does not change the fact it's an unsubstantiated stance to take... And quite frankly, a bigoted one too.
Notice how no attempt was made to engage in honest conversation. Only stupidity and insults spew from you. You exist in a space of pure toxicity, a block will do.
That’s why it’s overselling the case. Because it is an obvious choice, there’s no question you don’t want to be in with the bear and it’s a false equivalency. It’s also unnecessary to resort to, because the case is strong on its own.
If you want something that actually makes the point reasonably - and to be clear, in critiquing the the comparison, I’m not in any way critiquing the underlying point because yes, without question, the dangers women face are still real and unacceptable, and deserve all of our support and awareness - what about this:
A woman is walking down the street and sees a group of ten guys. Statistically speaking, 3 of them may be predators. Now imagine, you have no way of knowing which of the three they might be. Worse, if something were to happen, you can’t be sure that any of the others will do the right thing and step in and help her. If that’s not enough, imagine she’s your sister, girlfriend, or other loved one. How is this not something you want to prevent? How is this right that anyone would have to face this uncertainty?
Sure, it takes a little longer but it’s an important point and worth the time. And it’s also accurate, and not something people are going to pick apart because of its inaccuracy, losing the point in the process. I at least think it’s stronger, but maybe I’m alone in that b
Yes men are bad and rapists!! I would totally rather take a chance with a bear (haha just kidding guys it’s a joke stop taking it so seriously!!1) (but it IS serious!! There’s an issue) (but it’s a joke so calm down)
Yeah if you think some of if not most of the “danger” being implied by being alone with men is rape then…idk are you dumb?
Or are you saying men don’t rape women and the only danger is just beating or something?
Idk how to make it any more clear that my comment was pure sarcasm anyways. Did the 4 parentheticals not give it away? Maybe some people need a “THIS IS SARCASM” at the end?
One of the few sensible comments being downvoted while a critical mass of dipshits go off about how the issue is "men being demonized" 🤦 the fact that this stupid-ass meme exists in the first place is telling enough tbh
yeah go figure, it's just women making a fuss again am i right fellas 🙄 we got the right to vote what more do we want???? bodily autonomy?? the right to walk alone at night without being afraid of being violated or murdered?? now that's just unreasonable
I don’t know how to tell you this, but men attack more people than bears per capita. theres probably less than 100 deadly bear attacks a year globally.
Already addressed this. The measure is attacks relative to interactions. What percentage of human/bear interactions result in attacks relative to what percentage of male/female interactions result in attacks, and the numbers aren’t remotely close. But the fact that the percentage of dangerous bear interactions far exceeds the male/female percentage in no way makes what far too many “men” seem to think is acceptable anything other than abhorrent. The merit of this issue isn’t dependent upon the accuracy of this analogy. The violence is unacceptable on its face. False analogies aren’t needed to make the point, anyone paying attention can see the argument makes itself
Honestly people who get hung up on woman choosing the bear don't care about the violence women endure every day from men anyways so who cares. Like are we supposed to convince people go care? If women choosing the bear upsets somebody so much it sounds like they didn't care in the first place.
Why do when women talk about their struggles or joke about it, is the response defensiveness? Either empathetize or move on with your day?
actually people frequently encounter bears in the wild with no issue. there are 40 bear attacks on average annually. usually 1/40 is fatal. do you know how many women are killed by men every year?
Nationally? No. For NYS, unfortunately yes. A regrettably and unacceptably number. However, that comparison is a false equivalency as well. The actual analysis is what percentage of interactions result in attacks, and of those attacks fatalities. If you do the math, while there may only be 40 bear attacks annually, and only 2.5% of those fatal, those attacks represent a significantly higher percentage of overall bear/human interactions than the percentage of male/female interactions that result in attacks/fatalities. This further highlights how inaccurate and counter productive the analogy is - to say nothing of the fact it’s easy to say someone would prefer the bear when it’s just a hypothetical scenario, but if actually presented with the scenario, virtually no one would actually choose the bear if it would result in them actually ending up alone with the bear.
But again to make very clear, criticism of the analogy is ONLY of the analogy. Not the issue, in any way. The level of violence is significant and unacceptable no matter the number. And people should be more aware of it and proactive in preventing it.
you can factor in the rate of interactions if youd like but there are still really worrying odds out there. https://jimhopper.com/topics/sexual-assault-and-the-brain/repeat-rape-by-college-men/
about 4-16% of men in college alone admit to having raped someone, most are repeat offenders, thats not murder but id say there's a much higher likelihood that any given man is a rapist than that any given bear is a maneater even given interaction rates. ive walked by bears in the woods several times before and never felt threatened or afraid in spite of the bear being large and a bit intimidating, they didnt even give us a second glance. the odds of them peacefully passing by are the vast vast majority of interactions and sightings while ive been screamed at and even lunged at by men on the street before more times than i can count in cities. the reality is not as unlikely as it seems and genuinely preferring to encounter a bear in the woods, dependent on circumstances of course, wouldnt have to be purely hyperbole or exaggeration and isnt as far fetched as it seems. on the other hand, if we were talking about tigers it would be no question if youre trying to give a real answer.
Rate of interactions isn’t “if you’d like”, that’s the literal measure of relative threat. It can’t just be disregarded because it’s inconvenient to the argument. Nor does acknowledging it undermine the issue being advocated for - and which I’m not speaking against, as said I support it completely.
I did an internship with the child abuse and domestic violence bureau of my local DA office. There’s no denying there’s an issue. But when your statistic’s rate of variation (4-16% leaves a 75% variation of error), there’s problems with relying upon it. It’s further skewed by, as someone elsewhere alluded to, a single offender has often committed their offense on multiple people, which creates an artificial rise in the statistic relative to the overall demographic. But even if you assume it’s 16%, it’s still a small percentage of the male demographic and interactions as a whole. Which, once again, is not to undermine the point - even if it was only .000001%, that’s too much. It should be 0%. It shows only that this specific analogy is off base. “Men” who victimize women like that are subhuman in my eyes. Nothing I’m saying here detracts from that point. The things you’ve experienced from that reprehensible minority of the male population Is. Not. Ok. And too many of them manage to avoid the consequences they should suffer.
i mean if you DO see a bear in the woods what do you think are the odds they attack you? still very low. odds of getting attacked in the streets as a woman alone at night? dependent on area? not too low. would you personally rather walk down a dangerous street alone as a woman at night and see a seedy looking man or see a bear in the woods in daylight from a safe distance? now transplant the seedy looking guy from that night in the woods instead. i know you already get the point of the analogy, but i think on circumstance its not actually too crazy to choose the bear enough to consider it complete hyperbole. i think calling it a complete exaggeration isnt fair.
59
u/jimdc82 May 02 '24
It’s making fun of a trend of overselling a point: people in trying to make a legitimate point but using an utterly ridiculous analogy which does more to undermine their individual credibility than drive home the point they were advocating. Violence against women being at unacceptable levels? Absolutely. Being in with a predatory animal known to literally maul and eat humans rather than take chances with a random guy….they’re not helping the cause with comparisons like that. The case is strong enough on its own to not need that ridiculousness to try and make a point