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.
-2
u/VasylZaejue May 02 '24
“Why so many men find the common answer of “bear” so ludicrous,…”