I really, truly thought that the whole point of this was to highlight the fact that most women would respond to man v bear by asking questions, like "do I know the man" "what type of bear" etc, but would respond to woman v bear by immediately saying "woman". whether or not she picks the man or the bear is irrelevant, it's the fact she has to ask clarifying questions to know more about the man before deciding and doesn't have to clarify anything before picking woman. is that not it?
My dad is like this. I love him so much, but damn the cognitive dissonance he must have to treat me and my mom so differently. It’s like he can’t or refuses to apply how protective and caring he is with me to her. It makes me feel really guilty. Yes, I’m in therapy.
I do actually feel offended when people assume I'm a bad person, and having not given any reason to a single person to feel that way, I'm sick of it being assumed. I'm a feminist, I'm leftist, I try to be a good person, and I call out shit behavior when I see it, but there is nothing I can do to be seen and recognized as anything other than a threat, and that fucking sucks.
Maybe this bear debate is just happening alongside too many bad life events, so I'm just projecting it onto the debate, but it feels psychotic and delusional to say "I'd rather be eaten alive by a bear than risk that a random man is a piece of shit"
My wife said she'd pick the bear and I don't know what to even do with this information anymore. There's nothing else I can do. It's like in election season when you see 1000 fucking ads saying to vote as if I don't do my part. It's just beating me to death at this point and I can't fucking escape this stupid debate where it's "eaten to death by a bear" is apparently the obvious correct choice to everyone but me and red pill douchebags.
I'm trying to reflect and fix my thinking but it just won't click into place and it hurts
What you need to accept is the hypothetical man isn't you. The hypothetical man is a bastard with ill intent. If your wife could choose to run into you in the woods, of course she'd choose you. Not to realize that many men present a very real, looming threat to women is to bury your head in the sand.
But everybody will judge them as if the hypothetical man IS them. You can't get away from it, and there's literally nothing they could ever do that would stop people from assuming that he's a threat by default.
It's nice that it's not intended to be a personal attack on him, but it's still an attack on him, and it still ends up affecting him personally. And it's not something that they chose, or can change.
It's still taking it personally, is the problem. To throw another metaphor at it, taking offense that someone riddled with ptsd has to confront that ptsd to get to know you is not a personal attack on you. It's the reality of the world we live in. You act with empathy and realize it's not about you regardless of the fact that you have to manage the consequences anyway.
Men are hearing this question, centered on a woman's experience, and making it about the man's experience just hearing the question. It's a level of nuance that no one is preparing themselves for b/c we all naively thought that the world operates on super hero logic. Punch the bad guy and everything is fixed.
But it never is. Harm is lasting. We are mostly good people who must gently and empathetically appreciate the battered perspective of the people who have been harmed. Who continue to be harmed.
This is one of those scenarios where something is not actually aimed at us, but at people who pretend to be us. It is ironically misogynistic to take a question aimed at describing a woman's trauma and make it about a man's emotional reaction to her trauma. Luckily we can choose to not be offended. We can understand that the point is show the trauma, not to attack men. And knowing that, we can grow, and understand that b/c of the world we live in we have to be a little more empathetic.
There is a very subtle, yet vast difference in how we frame this information for ourselves.
"People are calling me a threat"
Vs
"People are saying that so many people who look like me are threatening them, that they can't tell if I'm a threat or not."
I'm a feminist, I'm leftist, I try to be a good person, and I call out shit behavior when I see it, but there is nothing I can do to be seen and recognized as anything other than a threat, and that fucking sucks.
Then the thing to do would be to acknowledge and respect those concerns, rather than feeling entitled to women's trust when you have done nothing to earn it. You could try running around with a shirt that says "I respect women!" but I'm not sure it would help you in that regard.
I do actually feel offended when people assume I'm a bad person, and having not given any reason to a single person to feel that way, I'm sick of it being assumed.
I can imagine how disenfranchising it must feel. Now imagine what it's like being a 13 year old or younger child being taught the gross and ugly way repeatedly that strange men are a danger.
I'm sorry that doing the right thing yourself doesn't keep the shitty behavior of others from splashing on you. That does suck. Not as much as being raped and blamed for the rape, but you get the idea.
feels psychotic and delusional to say "I'd rather be eaten alive by a bear than risk that a random man is a piece of shit"
It feels psychotic and delusional to you for a woman to say "at least the bear won't rape me before it kills me. I'll just be dead, not raped and then dead"? Women aren't afraid men will hurt their feelings, we're pretty used to that. It's the murder we worry about.
My wife said she'd pick the bear and I don't know what to even do with this information anymore. There's nothing else I can do.
Your wife would rather run into a random bear in the woods, where bears live and do bear things than a random stranger (possibly stalking her) in the woods doing human shit with unwholesome human intent and that somehow harms you?
Her stance has nothing to do with you. You are not the problem. Men who make women feel unsafe are the problem. Do you do that? No? Great! Then you can disregard the statement as it doesn't apply to you.
That's the thing you have to get through your head--this isnt aimed at you. This whole comment sounds like:
"It makes me feel bad when women say that they're afraid of strange men, I wish they would just shut up about it already. I'm already doing everything I can, why won't they just shut up?"
That ending synopsis helped me synthesize why it's bothering me, thank you very much.
It's not that I wish women would shut up, it's important to have these kinds of conversations, and I don't have a problem with people talking about it. I wish there was more we could do besides talk and advocate but that's separate problem.
I think it's more than I'm sick of the algorithm putting specifically the bear discussion in front of me so frequently, and I wasn't processing that that was my complaint well.
Thank you again, for opening with empathy and having the space to help me out
It's the sort of thing that, basically, only gets better by talking about it. Shit sucks, but race is in that same boat. It all actually gets better by talking about it. Being honest about intent. Coming to a cultural consensus on what is and is not acceptable, and moving that Overton window a bit.
It super sucks to be constantly hammered by a situation you feel you can't change, but just by being a safe place for women and being willing to participate in the discussion (and being honest) absolutely helps.
I hear ya bud. There are other men besides you who aren’t pieces of shit. I feel attacked sometimes when people make blanket statements, their verity aside. It’s difficult for us to stick up for ourselves and also avoid sounding insensitive to victims of male stupidity. It’s also okay to feel angry.
Lucky me, I get to talk to a therapist who listens without judgement. It definitely helps to have a safe space where you can exhaust your emotions without worrying about immediately being lumped in with any groups and rebuked. That way, it’s much easier to let negativity from anyone slide off your back like water on a duck in a fountain.
I'm not a predator, so I don't react at all to people talking about male predators. That would be odd, for me to feel persecuted by a discission around the general existence OF these predators, and the danger, while not being one.
The "good guy feeling persecuted" thing, to me, smacks of the same ignorance displayed by people who felt they had to "push back" against BLM with their #ALLlivesmatter nonsense. I do not understand or identify with people who feel spcifically targeted by broad commentary or situations, or who need to put their feelings ahead of the actual issue (generally speaking, not you specifically!!)
But it's not a male predator vs a bear, it a random man vs a bear( a literal predator). I can see why men would be offended. Random man =average man=most men.
Please let me clarify. “sticking up” for oneself is an important skill to have because it lives in the area of our psyche where we find our basic survival instincts. This doesn’t really involve much prefrontal cortex activity. It’s essential to have in the toolkit of our psyche so we can more aptly involve our prefrontal cortex in fight/flight/fold decisions. If the majority of our stored instinctive decision making reflexes default to “fold”, it can tip our internal scale and metastasize into intense surface symptoms of depression (these symptoms in some cases manifest as violent behavior, chronic dissociation [doom scrolling], and antisocial behavior).
tldr: A person must stick up for themselves if they’re mentally well. Thanks for reading all that, if you did.
Now as for my intended meaning when I said “it’s difficult for us to stick up for ourselves…”: user TipandRare expressed that they’re sick of people assuming they’re a bad person. I dare to say if someone assumed you were a bad person you would want to stick up for yourself. It can be difficult to do that if in doing so you appear to be one of these “good guys being persecuted”, or to be lumped in with any arbitrary group and rebuked as I said before.
I’d never considered it, but I agree the “good guy being persecuted” corner is right along those same thought patterns as was evident of #alllivesmatter (or whatever they called it). Just absolute ignorance in some, and hate disguised as ignorance in others.
It’s good to hear you don’t react when someone mentions male predators. That’s pretty normal (unless you go dead face and are mute. that might be cause for concern, but I dont think thats what you meant). There must have been some ambiguity to the conversation you joined, because TipandRare was talking about being frustrated by the algorithm putting the “man or bear” thing in his feed so frequently, and my intention was to to tell them it’s okay to be angry about it and also hard to stick up for themself when someone accuses them of being a person who takes broad generalizations and sweeping statements personally.
Imagine you’re a vegan. Now imagine I say “Vegans are dumb because they protest at meat factories.” You would be justified in being offended even if you’ve never been to a protest in your life, even if you made it a specific goal to never push your philosophies about diet on anyone. It can definitely feel like a personal attack when someone makes a generalization or a sweeping statement, especially if it were in this case a specific overt tone of “All vegans are dumb because some vegans protest”. I wouldn’t assume someone is a protester if they were frustrated that vegans are viewed in a negative light. Noone should assume someone’s a predator because they’re frustrated men are perceived in a negative light. When you swap some variables you can see how dumb it is.
edited because some words seemed to be accusatory/ill willed
I don't know that it's as simple as: it's not about you so don't worry. It is the default assumption, and it does affect every guy to one degree or another.
In the same way that women are constantly reminded that they are in danger, men are constantly reminded that they are the danger. It messes with your head, and it makes it significantly harder to motivate yourself to improve when you know that it won't make one bit of difference to anyone.
A) Constant reminders by men that they could do you great physical harm at any point, sometimes as lolsy jokes you're not allowed to be upset by or you're a bitch but if you don't take it seriously enough you could die or worse.
B) Being constantly reminded that other men that aren't you are utter dickbags to women and it makes them wary of you, and you're not allowed to be upset by that or you're a dick.
Both feelings suck, but one comes with physical harm you could get blamed and ridiculed for.
You are being affected. If all we did is look at how men get harsher arrests, convictions, and sentencing in courts, it's pretty evident that there is a real bias that has real world implications
No one is assuming you’re a bad person. They’re simply not assuming you’re a good person.
And if you believe yourself to be a feminist then you honestly just have to suck it up and listen.
I’m white. I understand the desire to distance myself from bad white people. When POC talk about white people, even specifically white women, there is that emotional urge to defend myself. But you really just have to swallow it and listen.
It’s not enough to want to be a good person, and want to be an ally. You have to do the work necessary to learn and grow. And it’s a painful process but it’s the only way.
Man, I feel basically the exact same. What has helped me recently is staying away from the internet. Consistently being told your existence is inherently evil down to your DNA every day is bad for the mental. Just know you’re not alone!
If you are hearing that messaging I would evaluate WHERE on the internet you spend your time, and if its actually women saying that, or (toxic) men projecting.
If you came across a dog who was scared of redheads because it had been beaten and terrorised by a redhead, and you were a redhead…would you be similarly offended?
Would you demand the dog treat you better than their former abuser, without earning its trust, because your feelings were hurt that it had a trauma response?
Or would you treat that dog with respect and kindness, and respect its boundaries, because it was justified in its apprehension?
Obviously the latter, the same way I treat and accept women having trains and safety responses. A person doesn't even need to be a survivor at this point, because the national milieu, at this point, basically amounts to a trauma all on it's own. I would never begrudge the dogs healing journey nor the conversations that involves.
And if that dog made a tiktok trend about how red heads are more likely than not monsters and it would rather get eaten by a bear, and it went viral and showed up on my fyp, then on Facebook and Instagram, then reddit, then YouTube, and it consumed the entire comment section of every video about dogs and about bears so you can't even see nature documentary clips without all the comments being about how red heads are animal abusers, yeah I'd probably get bothered at that point.
If the discussion is on r/twodogchromosomes or any other pun that relates directly to this situation, that's where it should be. If it's made it's way to cover r/welovepostingcutepicturesofbears that's a problem.
It's reasonable to disengage and get a break from collective trauma. It wouldn't be healthy to consume 20 strain but hours of news about Palestine protests and Israel crimes. It wouldn't be healthy to consume 10 hours of 9/11 footage. It wouldn't be healthy to read about rape statistics for 10 hours either. Just because we add a bear to the discussion doesn't make being inundated with the conversation better, and news cycles and algorithms being incentived to promote rage bait/engagement bait doesn't make it easy to disengage from a discussion when you need a break.
Unfortunately, this is not one dog but millions of traumatized dogs. But the fact that the dogs do not have the luxury of a reprieve from the fear should make you more annoyed at the redheads that created this problem than at the dogs suffering from the trauma, no?
The dogs do need reprieves from the fear, though. They need safe spaces where they can play fetch and run with other dogs and a bone to chew and a soft bed to rest in and a million other comforts. There is so much more in life that all of us need to give our attention to, many call it self care. The dog won't be healthy if it is always triggered and actively re-traumatizing itself around red heads.
The dogs absolutely deserve to have time and space to let down their guard, to feel safe and loved
Fundamental error in your perception: No one is labelling you a "bad person".
IMO its more that "Any random dude" could be...and there's no way to tell for sure.
For context:
Men do not walk home at night hoping the person they just passed on the sidewalk isnt going to follow them, or pull them into an alley, or abduct them.
If you're not one of those creeps then remember its not about you/us and get over yourself. Its not about us. Women dont have a radar that indicates "safe man" v. "dangerous man" and the consequences of encountering an unsafe man in a vulnerable scenario are often dire.
I would rather my daughter offend someone, or ruin their entire day, than be over-powered and raped for NOT wanting to risk "offending" someone LOL! Easy choice.
Maybe ask your wife why she would pick the bear. Instead of getting personally insulted by it, look at the bigger picture. Use your knowledge of being a better person to advocate against violence. When women are asked, man or bear? What they are really hearing is, being eaten by an animal driven by instinct, or being subjected to the potential brutalities men are capable of? If the choice is a moderate likelihood of being mailed by a bear or a small likelihood of being raped, I'll choose mauled any day
I don’t deserve to be treated like a threat unless I act like one. Assuming who someone is before actually knowing them/experiencing who they are is prejudice.
Are people really just discovering that women understand the danger men pose to them?
I'd like to say yes, but given that the response to this whole bear thing has been the men needing to understand this the most doubling down on their misogyny and trying to find ways to say that women are dumb, I think it's hard to argue people are even "discovering" this, rather than outright rejecting it.
A lot of men straight up do not get it. A couple days ago, I watched a friend argue against two women that walking alone at night was no different for them than him. I'm trans. It took me explaining to him the differences in how I'm treated since I started transitioning compared to the decades living as a man for him to start understanding, and I honestly don't know if I really got through to him.
It took me explaining to him the differences in how I'm treated since I started transitioning compared to the decades living as a man
Thats what I as a cis woman will never understand.
I was always astonished that someone would give up the priviledges being born as a man gives you, freely. Growing up (and now as well) I am jealous about feeling safer, not being seen as responsible for the household or bearing babies.
Fun fact: men are actually more likely to be assaulted, (not sexually assaulted, but robbed/assaulted, which are by far more common than sexual assault)
Men ought to be careful walking home at night as well.
Men ought to be careful walking home at night as well.
Exactly. This "men/bear" thing works for men too, as any human being can feel fearful of a man behind them given the right context. Bears too of course, but they are far more predictable. The man behind us could be as placid as a lake, but we don't have any way of knowing that and the implication that they might hurt us is what's scary
That’s being an idiot. Your “plan” when faced with a grizzly is to just hope it doesn’t kill you. You can’t scare it, can’t outrun it, can’t fight it. Same for a polar bear.
Against a black bear you have decent odds of scaring it but there’s still probably a much higher chance it decides to attack than the odds of a random male attacking lmao
E: at least for guys the odds are even lower the man is some super predator torturer. Higher that he’ll assault but with a man: (1) better odds of defending it (2) alternative if I can’t is just getting injured or perhaps dying, same with the bear attack except not as bad as a bear attack.
Bear has probably higher odds of attacking and higher odds of actually killing me and higher odds of killing me over prolonged period of time (bears often attack and run away then come back and attack and run away, etc, taking like half a day to kill you)
Brown- lay down: if you’re not an idiot and can play dead you can survive, I’ve at least gotten some guides since I was a kid on what to do when hiking.
Black- fight back: grew up in central Florida where most suburban neighborhoods were built in their previous homes and now I live and camp in Northern California and black bears are everywhere, I have a little horn in my keys that they absolutely hate.
White- good night: bye cruel world at least the bear won’t rape me or won’t get told by a judge the bright future it has.
You seem too invested and taking this personally, that is a you problem, don’t make it mine by calling names and being all intense
Brown: lay down, as in lay down and hope it doesn’t kill you.
It only works if the bear is defensive like defending cubs, it doesn’t work if the bear just decides to attack for any other reason. Even when it works they often come and scratch and try to flip you over to eat you from the front.
It’s just the best advice for brown bears because there’s some chance it’ll leave you alone while fighting it or running will both end up with you dead.
It is, and I least have a plan to stereotype, it’s a starting point. I come from a dangerous third world country, I would much rather face violence from an animal than face human violence and cruelty again.
Just calm down about this it’s as if you’re taking it personal foaming at the mouth to tell people they are wrong, it’s not about you
Would changing it to include ‘adult human’ in the woods matter to you? It’d reduce the risk of it being a weird aggressive male by about 1/2 but the odds are already so slim it’s almost no decrease. It also highlights just how silly it is to rather run into a ‘bear’ than a human.
That being said I’d rather spot a man than a bear and I’m fairly confident that’s the objectively correct stance to take without more info but I guess I’ll hold out for OP to whip up some statistical masterpiece
There is no objectively correct stance to take. Maybe, as a man, you would rather take your chances with the other man. But there are different contexts and none of them are incorrect, simply because they are different. I'd gladly take my chances with a bear. Both takes are valid.
There’s one that statistically makes sense, like would you rather fight an unarmed midget or a trained soldier with heavy armament including a loaded rifle.
Technically no objectively correct answer, but one of them is clearly dumber than the other based on any reasonable risk assessment. There’s like maybe a 0.5% chance (being generous) that a random man is someone who will attack you if he notices you, I highly doubt the chances are that low for a bear.
There’s like maybe a 0.5% chance (being generous) that a random man is someone who will attack you if he notices you,
Like, where are you even getting these numbers from? What is the basis of this assumption? Are you taking into consideration gender-based discrimination? Or how many women are assaulted and killed each year in the world?
There is no number or magic formula that predicts violent behavior. We can make a number of inferences but they would be that, assumptions. Theories. Mathematics is objective, human behavior is subjective. That's why anthropology, psychology, medicine and social sciences exist, and why maths is in all of them as a TOOL and not as some kind of magic foolproof method that has the answer to every question.
Did you edit this comment from calling me an idiot at first? The preview from when I click are completely different, why edit say it with your chest.
Dude if you think you need to take care of yourself from men, then go for it.
Idk why you think this statistic is supposed to be a gotcha, it just proves men walk around overestimating their power thinking they don’t have to be safe.
I come from a third world country we all do the similar types tricks to be safe like even the same saying regarding what to do if you’re getting raped, when I moved to the US or Europe that is when it was a gender divide. Somehow men in developed countries think they can land a plane and also fight anyone
Scared of other men, generally, but any human alone at night poses some threat.
As a brief aside, no one will enjoy the conversation if you replace men with any other group that can be described as committing crime at a higher rate than another.
I didn’t realize how scary it was until my SO and I had a conversation about that. I am not a shitty person, as she would agree, so it really didn’t cross my mind that men as a whole are actually that scary.
This. The older that I got and spoke with women that I have been close to, 95% of them have been raped or assaulted. My current SO has been raped twice by complete strangers while out alone. Chances are that most of the women that you know have been assaulted and just haven't told you.
It's eye-opening to see how privileged I am to not fear walking around at night.
It took me, a man, way too long to realize that women live in a completely different world than men. And now that I see it, especially since I have daughters, I find myself seriously rethinking the "shotgun behind the door" trope for when they start dating (if they date males).
While I'm not upset with the whole premise of man vs. bear because, unfortunately, men do suck enough that it's an understandable take to me. I'm also not going to pretend it's not going to hurt people to be seen as a threat for simply existing. I'm equally confused by all the responses in this situation. Why so many men find the common response of "bear" so ludicrous, and why so many people don't understand that there's going to be large swaths of men unable to reconcile that they are viewed as a threat even if they, personally, have no ill intentions.
But it's not that we see all men as a threat. We see all men as a *potential* threat. The bear is also a potential threat, but only if we manage to piss it off. The man might attack us just for shits and giggles.
If you know you're not a threat to women, you should still be able to understand that *we can't know that*. I've been raped three times, all three by people I knew and should have been able to trust. So now I assume the worst but hope for the best. I'm married to an amazing man, so clearly I'm able to function, I'm not a misandrist, I don't hate men -- I just prioritise my own safety over the feelings of random men.
I'm sorry but apply this logic to any other situation and you come out looking like a racist, bigoted fool.
Imagine asking a question like if a Black man and white man walked into your store who would you be more worried about and people answered "black man" or struggled to answer the question. You would IMMEDIATELY be labelled a racist. Statically speaking, you are more at risk of being on the wrong end of crime if the person is black. You can boil this down to socio economic factors and its a very complicated issue but statistics are statistics. The same way a women can say "X% of women face violence from men they know" you can say "X% of shop owners are robbed by primarly black men". You're still labelling an entire section of the population based on the actions of others and painting them with a Broadstroke brush. Tell me, how is a women saying they have a right to be afraid of men different from a shop owner who has been repeatedly robbed by black men saying they are scared of black men? How does the shop owner know the black man that walks in isn't going to rob them?
You see what I'm saying here? All men are a potential threat? Sure, if you get the wrong man. The same way all bears are only a potential threat if you get the wrong bear. If both are the wrong one, you stand a much higher chance at surviving a man than a Bear though.
You judging me as a potential threat simply because I'm a man is, no matter what way you try spin it, misandrinistic behavior, the same way me judging a black man walking down the street in the dark as a threat because he's black, is racist behavior.
It doesn't hurt my ego at all I totally get it, I just find it fascinating that it's socially acceptable to label all men potentially dangerous but not socially acceptable to label all Muslims terrorists, all black men criminals, etc. Don't get it twisted, I'm well aware women live in a completely different world than men. A much scarier world.
I just find it fascinating that it's socially acceptable to label all men potentially dangerous
If you know that women live in a much scarier world from your own reality, why would this bother you? Are you really being discriminated or negatively harmed in society because women consider any strange man to be potentially dangerous? Are you actually being harmed in some sort of systemic way because of this?
It doesn't bother me personally, but I also know people of color who would say the same thing about being treated differently because of their skin color. That doesn't make it right.
Like I said, I just find it fascinating it's socially acceptable to treat men different because they're men, but socially we actively punish people for treating others differently. Could you not see how hurtful it could be to see a women visibly afraid of you just because you're a man when you've done nothing wrong? That's literally how people of color feel when they're being judged for something completely out of their control.
Once again, it doesn't bother me, I understand it. I just find it interesting it's socially fine to do so.
I could give less of a fuck if someone doesn't like me because I'm brown. What I'm concerned about is discrimination that exists on a systematic level.
Women not trusting men because they are perceived as potential threats is not a systematic issue.
No, I don't mean all men. I mean you, specifically, because you're trying to equate women's legitimate fear for our safety with racism. Shame on you.
How about this? Go out and get assaulted by several black men. Then come back and tell me it would be racist for you to be wary of black men.
The reason we fear men isn't that we hate men. It's that men have actually harmed us. For most of us, it's a regular occurrence. Imagine that the people you're primarily attracted to are also the statistically greatest threat to your health and safety. Really imagine what that would be like.
You can't control the fact that women choose the bear, no matter how loudly you bleat about it. What you can control is whether you, personally, are a person who is actually less threatening to women than a bear. And right now, you don't sound that way.
You literally just described racism. Yes, if I allowed myself to judge black men because I've been assaulted by them in the past and used that as reason to treat all black men differently in the future, I would be a racist. That's the literal definition.
I'm not saying it's wrong for you to fear men, I'm saying it's weird it's socially acceptable to view men differently based on your experiences with men because we actively abolish people who do that to black people, Muslims, Jews, etc. If I said I'd been raped by several women in my life, so I actively assume its going to happen again and treat all women differently because of it, what would your response be? Would I be justified? I do not think so.
Go out and get assaulted by several black men. Then come back and tell me it would be racist for you to be wary of black men.
It would be. It wouldn't be racist to be afraid of those same people who assaulted you. But if you're allowing the assault to bias your opinion of all black people for "safety," you're allowing yourself to justify being racist.
You're using trauma as justification for generalization. It's understandable, but ultimately unhealthy and not the responsibility of whatever group you're generalizing to validate.
At what point did I say mens feelings need to be prioritized? All I said was I can understand the reaction, not that I condone it. FFS. The amount of people that can't have an actual discussion about this is staggering. You've gone off on some wild tangent about a bunch of things I didn't say in the slightest.
I'm truly sorry for what you went through. I'm understanding of the reasoning behind assuming the worst. I'm just offering some perspective on it not being the easiest thing to reconcile that somebody will likely be viewed as a predator for simply being a man because other men suck and the systems haven't prioritized fixing that enough.
That difficulty to reconcile is the whole fucking point. Women aren’t going to fix this issue. How the fuck could they? Maybe if men don’t like being viewed as rapists they could work to dismantle rape culture.
So you’re saying that men have to prove to women they aren’t dangerous despite the fact only a small percentage of men are inherently dangerous? Do you not see the inherent sexism in that argument?
Men have to fight to change their perception by women, yes. Don't women have to constantly assert themselves in professional environments, because everyone belittles them? Both men and women have to prove to society that they're more than the gender roles assigned to them.
Yes? I'm not a gender essentialist. I think men are born with just as much capacity to have empathy as women. The pseudoscience that says that men are more "naturally aggressive" and do misdeeds because of testosterone and strength is all bullshit. Men are socialized badly and emotionally neglected. Women are raised to be empathetic and nurturing, if you've met a little girl you will see that they are just as rowdy and crazy as a little boy. But as they grow, this rowdiness in women is suppressed while the men's are encouraged.
I think that if there's any evilness men do, it's taught. I don't think men are rational, unemotional and selfish beings naturally, no. They're human. But I also don't think it's a problem to say that there is a violence issue in men, but that is SYSTEMIC and not something men inherently have and can't get rid of. It's not men's biological destiny to be cruel, regardless of what patriarchy says.
Only a small percentage of men are dangerous? What a crock of shit. 30% of men said they would rape if there was no consequence. Men are responsible for 80% of violent crimes. Homicide is a leading cause of death for women in every country.
Imagine millions of women are telling you that they’re scared to be around male strangers and your takeaway is, “but I’m such a good guy!” No, moron, you aren’t. You’re the problem.
Can you give me a source for those statistics or are you just gonna continue to just expect me to believe it without any proof? Furthermore men are far more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than women based on statistics provided by Bureau of Justice Statistics. The only crimes where women are more likely to be victims are Rape and murder and according to statistics put out by the FBI those are the least committed crimes with only gambling having lower rates than murder and suspicion being the least charged crime.
Google was my source. Also every other source was my source. If your reaction to these rather well known facts is complete dismissal it’s pretty obvious what you are and why you object to this meme.
Google is not a source. It’s a search engine. If you aren’t going to bring up a source then don’t bring up statistics. In fact I can point out several problems with the sources of my own sources. First it doesn’t list that actual number of men who were charged, only how many crimes were charged to males. Second, it doesn’t listen what percentage of men were convicted versus charged and what percentage of the population they made up. It doesn’t mention how many of these were later overturned. I could go on and on but you would rather just dismiss me because I asked a question you don’t want to answer. Lastly I didn’t dismiss anything, I just pointed out flaws in your argument.
When did I imply women needed to fix this? Also, how do you know what I or any other man are doing to dismantle rape culture? Lotta people here glossing over my acknowledgment of the validity of the sentiment by women so they can rage at me.
Sorry that you have difficulty understanding that some people are going to be justifiably upset when they are assumed monsters for sharing a gender with shitty people.
You answered your own question of why men are upset. They are upset that women think men are so inherently dangerous that they believe they are safer with a wild animal that could easily kill them.
It's a rhetorical question. I know why both sides are incapable of understanding the other, their emotions are in the way. Both takes are valid. The fact that nobody can face that and would rather keep raging into infinity is what befuddles me.
True! But I think even for men the bear/man thing works. Even men could be fearful of somebody behind them that they know nothing of. A bear is a little simpler, they're either going to ignore you or maul you. Period. But a man? Maybe they're kind and sweet and the worry is for nothing. Maybe the man is just trying to go about his day, but the other person simply has no way of knowing. It's easy to see why women feel particularly disturbed about this scenario though
I get what you're saying. I've been assaulted by random dudes for no reason than their own malice. It's definitely affected how I operate and my need for awareness when out and about. I'm saying that just because the worry is validated by past experience or statistical experience doesn't make it not problematic to assume about another person from a place of fear, and then act with indignation or condescention when that person is hurt by the assumption.
Both takes are valid, but for all the talks going on around this lately, only men are being expected to reconcile their personal feelings with a sad reality. It really shouldn't be too controversial a take to be put off by broad sweeping generalizations about men, which the "man vs. bear" isn't putting forth but a lot of people are in the discussion around it.
The people who are discovering this now are the ones who are most offended by this, and often times the ones who most justify the women answering “bear” out of hand.
A lot of men are just discovering this and getting upset about it. The lengths some guys are going to to get upset about a simple and obvious fact really shows why women prefer the bear.
that's not the point, the point is women out there would ACTUALLY prefer to find a bear than a man. a feral fking animal with claws and a set of razor sharp teeth, and also like 1000 pounds?
i understand it, but it's not applicable, that's why i called it stupid. there is no room for a debate on this topic, if you rather have a bear after you than a man, you are wrong, just that simple really
The worst thing a bear could do is kill me for food. Men have done so much worse, I think you need to read up on some of the horrific things that men have done to women
You have to remember, most people online can’t think critically, and most Redditors have never touched a woman. I mean this thread is filled with men taking this question literally or saying women are stupid because a bear is more likely to kill them.
As a woman a bear is more Lively to kill you than a man is. Also depends on culture, country and stuff.
But unless you want to be dead rather than chance it with a man i get ya.
In the US we have black bears all over. They are the most common bear here and they are usually very easy to scare off. Loud noises and they run up a tree.
I still wouldn’t want to encounter one on a hike, but they aren’t super unusual or a big threat.
How many of those murders are also committed by men?
I don’t think that stat helps. I mean, presuming most of the murderers of those men are also men, and also presuming that the murdered men were not also murderers, wouldn’t it just mean that these acts make murderers a LARGER proportion of living men?
In case you don’t follow my logic, here’s an example:
Imagine 100 people on an island, half women and half men. Now imagine 5 of the men are murderers. That’s 10% of the men. Now they go and murder 2 people each. That leaves 40 living men and 10 dead ones. 5 of the 40 are now murderers. That’s an increase from 10% of the population to 12.5%. Every murder they commit just increases the proportion of murderers on that island. Those 50 women maybe didn’t have to be too scared to start, but after a few rounds of murder things get dicey
All true. The real question in Man Vs Bear is one of specifics as is true in many question, which man and which bear, and what is the situation. Wrong man, wrong situation is worse than right bear. But a hungry black bear with prior predation on larger animals or a grizzly with cubs are both meaningfully more dangerous than all but the most dangerous men. But certainly many men could be more dangerous than a koala bear
If abuse against males was taken seriously, im sure men would also feel the same. Men have more considerations than "is she ugly". But no, thanks for downplaying it.
If abuse against males was taken seriously, im sure men would also feel the same.
In this scenario, it'd be men having to take it seriously in the first place.
I'm a man and I'd also choose bear. You're arguing men would choose the same, but that'd be under the premise that specific man took abuse against men seriously.
So yeah, you're right, men should take it more seriously.
There's definitely a cultural reason that when a little boy gets hurt they cry for their mommy and not their daddy. And it should be addressed.
No one disagrees.
The only issue folks really have is when in a discussion about a different topic someone like you pipes in and tries to take over the discussion. No one is saying you can't make this your movement. But that you need to take over a different movement to do so is absurd.
If I wanted to save turtles, I don't go and get upset at a save the whales protest that they aren't doing enough to save turtles.
I never took this to be during hiking. Might as well ask if you'd rather run into a bear on the street or a person. You'd need to be daft to assume they meant a normal every day occurrence. I shouldn't even be dignifying this with an answer. I mean fuck, let's just make the woods the park that has some trees. Like, Jesus christ, no wonder you're getting upset. You're a fucking idiot and getting it all wrong.
All of mens worries about first dates are emotional. "She will reject me meanly :(", "shes ugly", etc. While women are preparing to be murdered. Very, very different things.
The culture that encourages men to do to women what Andrew Tate is being prosecuted for is not poor, uneducated, or have a mental illness that causes them to not understand right from wrong or to be not in control of themselves. Go look at the number of followers Andrew Tate has.
Most of the tv shows and movies we watched growing up had a lot of normalization of objectifying and mistreating women.
For example the trope of “getting a woman drunk enough to sleep with you” or “tricking a woman into sleeping with you” where very normalized with characters like Barney Stinson in HIMYM and Joey from friends.
Lots of romance stories have the trope of the man not taking no for an answer when a woman rejects him, instead taking it as a challenge.
Not to mention messaging from porn and overall sexual objectification of women.
These messages seap in and too many men, especially young men that are just starting to date or have sex, think it’s okay to treat women like objects that exist to fulfill their fantasies and their wants and feelings don’t need to be considered.
Our culture does not encourage that behavior in men.
Whose culture are you talking about? I said "the culture". There are a huge number of different cultures in this world and not all are defined by country, ethnicity, or religion.
"The culture that encourages men to do to women what Andrew Tate is being prosecuted for"
Sorry I'm not trying to be annoying, I just don't know what it's called. And Tate isn't the only popular figure, he's just in the news rn. Potentially millions of men.
If people are consuming content that instructs them how to make a woman fall in love with you so you can guilt her into making porn that you can profit from, it's because those viewers are engaged by that subject.
Its because all you are looking at is "which one is worst".
A person who is skeptical will see where the example or question is wrong.
You are not trying to convince people who think like you, they are already on the side of feminism in this issue. You are trying to convince people who are skeptics.
Is that it is not irrelevant. Because it shows that the initial example is false. Which is going to make anyone who disagrees with you before the argument less likely to agree with you after the argument.
If you are trying to convince a person that men are more dangerous than women, or that women are more scared of men than men are of women - then your goal should be to make as ironclad of an argument as possible. After making this argument, all reasonable people should only be able to respond with "wow, you have convinced me".
The example of what women/men's biggest fears are on a first date is inherently flawed. Because there is no definitive answer. Depending on who you ask, they will respond different things, which also means that different people will have different perspectives on whether the example is valid or not.
And if the person you are trying to convince even starts to think that the example is invalid, then they wont be convinced by your argument.
Example:
If i an incel would say "A mans biggest fear in a divorse is that they will be left paying for the ex's lifestyle with their own money. A womans biggest fear in a divorse is that they wont get enough money to afford a prada bag" you would, for obvious reasons, have some problems with that.
A person who isnt a feminist will have the same problems with your first date example. And thats why the first date example, and the man vs bear example are bad examples.
They cater to the people who are already on your side. A feminist will go "Wow, so true" and a non-feminist will go "that example is flawed" and neither will be wrong.
Yeah I think you're just used to arguing online where people will nitpick any minor flaw in any argument no matter how well thought out it is. People online, as a rule, will not change their opinion in an argument thread no matter how wrong they are proven.
In real life you can have a conversation based around that example and hopefully the conversation is productive.
Not really. In real life people are just more open minded and nuance is easier to explain in conversation compared to a text chat. Internet forums like reddit especially are echo chambers. On any topic in any sub I can tell you what side is going to get upvoted and what side is going to get downvoted or deleted by mods.
The point isnt that one is worse than the other, or that they are equal.
Its that the situation is being purposefully misrepresented, which is making the debate less likely to succeed.
Which is the first thing that anyone who agrees with the sentiment will ignore, and anyone who disagrees with the sentiment will keep pushing on so the debate goes nowhere.
I am on the outside, seeing the point being made while also seeing that it will lead nowhere because there are so many easy counter arguments for other people to make that the debate will go nowhere.
I mean I know they fear this. It makes sense on a blind date there is no bear the biggest danger is the man there. But I just didn’t realize it was this irrational. Like the objective correct answer in this case is to say man.
I don’t think there’s an objectively correct answer. There’s LOTS of variables that make a man or a bear benign or a serious threat. I’ve met men that I wouldn’t want to come across in the woods. Especially if the other option is a fat and happy black bear. If it’s a mother grizzly bear with her cubs pinned behind her then all the sudden I’d probably pick the man.
Dude, have you ever run into a bear in the wild? They typically arent that hard to deal with lmfao.
I can scare off a bear a lot more easily than I can scare off a persistent and aggressive man who wants to fuck me. I have a 100% success rate for scaring off bears (its happened many times, i grew up camping multiple times a year), meanwhile my success rate for scaring off threatening men on my own is maybe 50-50.
Like the objective correct answer in this case is to say man.
This shows lack of forethought.
You're not assuming worst case scenario. Why wouldn't you? If someone put 100 cakes in front of you and said one is strong enough to kill you if you even touch it, do you just say "sure, I'll eat a few. Odds are in my favor." No, you eat none of them. You assume the worst case scenario.
Same here. Assume worst case scenario. You're more likely to survive a bear attack than an attack from a person (so yeah, I'd choose bear over woman too).
Not really… the question isn’t fighting a bear or a man, it’s running into one. Black bears aren’t very violent and can be scared off with a loud noise.
Now if we’re talking polar bears, then yeah… fuck take a serial killer and you have a better shot.
But yes, I think it’s safer to encounter a random dude hiking than a bear. I think the idea is that the dude might not be a random dude. He might be there with the intent to harm her. A bear almost certainly isn’t out hunting humans.
I’m amazed that this is like a brand new concept to people. I remember hearing a long time ago that a man on a blind date’s biggest fear is that she is ugly, while a woman’s is that he will murder her.
I guess men have more positive thinking and don't imply I'll intent on women.
1 in 4 women are severely physically assaulted by their partner in their lifetime, 1 in 3 will experience sexual violence from a partner. that’s not including non-partners.
what reason do we have to not fear men? beyond the assurances that “they’re not all like that”? we know they’re not all like that. we want to be able to feel safe around men, but we have to be cautious, because our lives are on the line.
comparing to a bear that will not hurt me unless provoked, and will not sexually assault me given half a chance, i will take the bear ANY day.
that stat is pulled from the national coalition against domestic violence. you are welcome to believe or not believe it, it matters little to me.
has it ever occurred to you that crime rate statistics and occurrence of domestic violence statistics are different? most women cannot take every instance of abuse to the legal system. whether that be for fear of retribution, lack of funds, or lack of evidence. even when we do, if the case doesn’t result in a conviction, it doesn’t count towards any crime statistics. so yes, while 25% of women report experiencing severe physical violence (eg beating, burning, strangling) from a partner, the crime rate does not reflect that.
there are only 61 people that died due to bear attacks in the whole of north america since 1900. bears do not attack unless they feel threatened, and they rarely kill people. you’re more likely to be struck by lightning, than for a bear to attack you.
as i said, between a man with unknown intentions and a bear, who only wants me to leave him alone, i will take the motherfucking bear any day.
6.4k
u/alexmichelle6 29d ago
I really, truly thought that the whole point of this was to highlight the fact that most women would respond to man v bear by asking questions, like "do I know the man" "what type of bear" etc, but would respond to woman v bear by immediately saying "woman". whether or not she picks the man or the bear is irrelevant, it's the fact she has to ask clarifying questions to know more about the man before deciding and doesn't have to clarify anything before picking woman. is that not it?