The thing is, I've seen statements like this before. Except when I heard it, it was being used to justify ignoring women's experiences and feelings in regard to things like sexual harassment and feeling unsafe, since that's "just a feeling" as well. It wasn't okay then, and it's not okay the other way around. The truth is that feelings do matter, on both sides. Everyone should feel safe and welcome in their surroundings. And how much so that is, is reflected in how those people feel.
The outcome of men feeling being respected and women feeling safe are not mutually exclusive. The sad part is that someone who is reading this here is far more likely to be an ally than a foe, yet the people who need to hear the intended message the most will most likely never hear it nor be bothered by it. There's a stick being wedged here that is only meant to divide, and oh my god is it working.
The original post about bears has completely lost all meaning and any semblance of discussion is lost because the metaphor is inflammatory by design - sometimes that's a good thing, to highlight through absurdity. But metaphors are fragile - if it's very likely to be misunderstood or offensive, the message is lost in emotion. Personally I think this metaphor is just highly ineffective at getting the message across, as it has driven people who would stand by the original message to the other side due to the many uncharitable interpretations it presents. And among the crowd of reasonable people are those who confirm those interpretations and muddy the water to make women seem like misandrists, and men like sexual assault deniers. This meme is simply terrible and perhaps we can move on to a better version of it that actually gets the message across well, instead of getting people at each other's throat.
But nobody is purposefully "wedging a stick" between allies and enemies. No secret society is plotting to prevent you from sending any message of safety. The metaphor is not designed, or created for a specific purpose. You have to realise how crazy and for real dangerous this way of agumenting is.
You aim for a good purpose, then use basically the debate version of biological weapons of mass destruction to make your point.
Just for any small argument about a small thing between sexes, like always it's fun for people to discuss, and some get mad, but
For you to use the narrative of psy ops, learned no doubt subconsciously, to speak like there is a secret cabal that want you to be fearful, we must unite against some kind of expression just because they are coming for you.. No
If anyone takes it too far it's talk like that, and you unironically talk about how reasonable people are hard to come by
Just because noone sets out to do a thing on purpose, individually, as a group, organically, conspiratorially, whatever, doesn't mean that the resulting system of action does not act with a particular purpose in the wider system.
Life, for example, has the purpose of hastening the heat death of the universe: We reduce entropy locally and to do that increase the rate of entropy increase in the wider universe. It's what we do. It's our purpose, as far as the universe is concerned, whether we like it or not, whether we intend to or not, whether we are aware of it or not, whether we try to or not.
These kinds of memes (bear, worm, what have you) have a particular impact. That impact is their purpose. If you don't like the impact I suggest advocating against the practice instead of saying "but nobody meant to". Have some Goethe.
Purpose implies intent more than outcome. I agree with your overall stance but think something like "result" would be more effective. Calling it the "purpose" makes a similar accusation to anyone who wants to have this debate to what it itself is making about men in general, which will just increase the divide. I don't think you're deliberately trying to do that, but I think it could end up being the result.
Your overall point does capture how this whole thing has made me feel. Even as someone who didn't get offended, understands what women who would "prefer the bear" are actually saying and doesn't think I'm owed any attention from anyone that doesn't want to give it to me, the only thing this meme makes me want to do is disengage even more. And a younger version of me would have really resented being made to feel like my mere presence was offensive or scary.
It's a system thinking heuristic. The reason "purpose" is used instead of result is a) "the result of a system is what it does" doesn't actually make sense, as systems aren't events in time but, well, systems which have non-negligible timespans -- it sounds something like "what is the result of a dishwasher" -- I dunno, what is it doing? Is it standing there? Short-circuiting and on fire? Washing dishes? All that is part of what "a dishwasher" is, does, and therefore, its purpose in the grand scheme of things. And b) precisely to stop people trying to find purpose in motives, intentions, etc, to go with a materialistic instead of idealist interpretation of things. To quote Beer: "There is no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it constantly fails to do." The purpose of prisons is to rehabilitate? Well maybe in some countries, in other countries no matter what the stated intent is their purpose is to be a place where people can get degrees in how to do crime.
No it's not and that's a terrible way to view the world.
Are you the same idiot who argued with me before because he thought he'd found the Word of God in this random philosophical exercise?
Edit: nope, different moron. I wonder why this silly thing is making the idiot rounds lately? It's like when a 19 year old has their first philosophy 101 class and thinks they've gained supreme knowledge of how the world works.
It's systems thinking and if you think it's terrible then because it's terribly good at getting rid of excuses. "Oh but you see the intent of the prison system is to reduce crime, never mind it doing the opposite, move along, nothing to see because intent is all that matters".
Yes, it's a thought exercise, not a tautology. And it's not a great thought exercise either, because people of low intellect apparently assume it's a tautology because of how it's worded.
I disagree. Clearly the meme is highly effective. It brought a topic that ought to be in the light back into the light. Considering the frequency of SA, this should be something that people are considering how to handle on a regular basis, but that's not what you see if you watch the news, listen to the city council, or talk with the school board.
Your opening paragraph sounds similar to the expression "All lives matter." It didn't sound like you wrote that ironically.
And the final paragraph is classic heckler's veto. Two sides disagree, and rather than talk about the serious issue, you make a comment about how people should all try to get along better by speaking in less aggressive terms. But the underlying problem is not about aggressive speech. It's about aggressive action. So maybe we can focus on that.
It was highly contagious, that is, it spread widely. But so was the whole "would you still love me if I were a worm" thing and it was "effective" for the same reason: Gals thought "Oh I want a 'yes' to that answer that'd be so emotionally satisfying" and guys thought "WTF why would I want a worm if there's something more behind it why can't my SO speak plain English": It spread by exploiting the emotional kick gals get out of tripping over guys for having a particular default interpretation. No, it is not a "wrong" interpretation to think of the question as "rather with a bear or a man like me". If you don't want men to interpret the question like that then pose it differently. Simple as that. But then it wouldn't be as inflammatory and with that not as contagious.
Each and every time one of these things comes around one of two things happens for the average guy: We a) fall right into a trap and then get accused of being insensitive or b) we recognise the trap, lift our hands, walk back slowly, then faster, then even faster, until making a go at the 10km parcour world record. Because yes that kind of shit is a giant red flag.
It's like those people who are proud of being "brutally honest" but in reality what they care about is not the truth, but the brutality, just from the other side of the gender distribution.
Honestly I am so goddamn tired of this shit, everytime something like the bear question comes up it blatantly tilted in one side or the others favor and dissent is crushed in both sets of spaces and no one learns anything.
You're right, feelings do matter, and this post did not dispute that. It's just that safety matters more.
It saddens me that the default interpretation of this is accusatory and requiring of defense. Not to personally blame you, this is very common and clearly a systemic reaction, but I don't know enough psychology/politics/sociology to understand why, just enough to know it's bad.
But it doesn't say you personally are unsafe, it says that the odds that a man chosen at random is unsafe is high enough that women - understandably - fear being left alone with a random stranger to a level at least comparable with being left alone with a bear.
An enormous number of men fail to understand just how common and how terrifying it is for women to be harassed, assaulted and raped by men. And that is exactly what the bear/man hyperbole is pointing out.
And the reason people with takes like yours get chewed out for it is because you could do some reflection and consider
what is this systemic issue, what behaviours might make women around me scared, what can we as a society do to change this, and what can I do to avoid women around me fearing I may be unsafe?
But instead, they take it as a personal attack, and so respond
why am I being attacked for someone else's behaviour?
Edit: here's another example in a similar format to demonstrate how the meme is being misinterpreted, note how your first response wouldn't be "why are you accusing all priests?!"
"Who would you rather babysit your child, a bear or a Catholic priest?"
I clearly said: it's not targeted at you specifically, but at that fact that women are disproportionately more likely to be harassed or assaulted, and when that happens, the aggressor is almost exclusively men.
They're not scared of you because you're personally scary, they're scared of you because there's an ingrained culture of sexual harassment of women by men. So when you say "that's a nice dress" to a woman you don't know, she's not thinking "aww cute", she's thinking "is this guy being nice, or will they threaten me if I turn them down?"
Seriously, ask literally any woman you know if they've ever been sexually harassed, and the answer is almost guaranteed to be yes.
I would 100% pick a Catholic priest
Yes, I know that, that's how hyperbole works. My point is that such a statement shouldn't be interpreted as "every priest is a child molester" but as "there's a concerningly high rate of them, and they're probably not a good option for childcare."
You are accusing everyone
When did I say "all men are <whatever you're saying I'm accusing all men of>?" Stop making this about you, and actually try to understand why interactions with men can be terrifying for women.
If you are not targeting all men, stop talking about men as one generalized body.
Sorry, when you say “I’d rather encounter a bear than a man” it sure as hell sound like you are saying all men are dangerous. If that isn’t what you are saying, you are saying it poorly.
Best take in this thread by a long shot. I'd like to add that there's nothing wrong with a little thought experiment to illicit a point. But the internet has become such an inhospitable place to any kind of discussion requiring nuance and patience.
I believe the reason the sign is highlighting women (all women) as opposed to specifically transgender women or people in general is that so few people are transgender,, that's the Canadian 2022 census because it actually included questions on gender, resulting in 0.33% of the population stating they identify with a gender other than that they were assigned at birth. Whereas women usually make up just over half the population, and have usually been made to feel unsafe by men (for example, 97% of women report being catcalled), without touching the rest of the violence against women, almost all of which is perpetrated by men.
If I'm off the mark I would love to hear your thoughts.
I think they're trying to argue that transgender women aren't real women and that respecting them and allowing them to use spaces that align with their gender identity is endangering women.
That's how their comment reads to me, the way they dismissed the meme gives off those vibes.
Maybe a divide for you, my SO says she'd pick the bear if it wasn't me. And I don't blame her.
Instead of arguing the merits of this debate, maybe its worth analyzing your own merits. Men (individually but amongst their peers) should be ashamed that women typically seem to want to pick a bear over themselves, instead of falling further into the rut that pushes everyone - not just women - away from their social circles and friend.
Someone tells you they'd rather be getting mauled by a bear? Take the hint. The divide exists within your head, make friends, be kind, and you'll find happiness
Edited for individuals to contextualize on their peers instead of generically
Men should be ashamed that women typically seem to want to pick a bear over themselves
Shame is an individual thing. Men, plural, is a whole bunch of people. Why should I be ashamed for the actions of people that aren't me?
...and just to be clear here: I'm not even arguing that we shouldn't battle this one out between the genders. But collective punishment is against the Geneva convention and I really don't like to stay quiet when people commit war crimes.
Ah well there's that pesky language thing, I do mean individually, if I intended carrying the burden of sins of all my fathers I would be weighed down to hell.
Edit: Actually, I don't mean individually, if you have a friend that you tolerate some of their more misogynistic views, try to actually be the better influence, Ive failed some former friends in that regard, and they will fall deeper into that pit.
Edit edit: some nice upstanding men here, you wouldnt hold your friend accountable to SA?
What a gotcha, im sure you never got to know someone well enough their true colors start to show? Because from my experience, they know to hide their true intentions because it tends to push people away. And thats when you cut them out. Whats so complicated?
They want confirmation, acknowledgement, so the second a tastefully edgy joke is cracked their true colours are going to come flying because they'll say something that's just offensive, not actually funny.
You had bad experiences with people of the other gender.
You think now that every man is exactly the same, and if they don't, they're just evil manipulators who want to hide their true evil nature.
You're complaining about people who generalize with the other gender because of their past experiences (aka. sexists).
You 100% agree with the post, so you support neglecting people's feelings as long as they're from the other gender.
So... Are you a sexist incel? Why should men respect your feelings or validate your past experiences then? Stop trying to solve sexism with more sexism, it doesn't work like that. And please don't disrespect me or assume shit from my personal life amymore, it's just lame.
Wait sorry I just read your comment, who the fuck said war crimes? You should be ashamed of your peers if they're misogynistic, whats a war crime there lmfao
Lmfao, being socially ashamed of the peers you choose to associate with === being a German during the nuremburg trials?? You know what was probably 110% worse? Being Jewish in Nazi occupied territory.
Get a goddamn grip on reality. If I had said ship all men tp Australia sure, my apologizes my original phrasing didn't appease you enough. Professional victimhood at its finest.
Im sorry you got rejected one too many times, hope you can figure it out.
Me. I said war crimes. Collective punishment is a war crime. You cannot hold people to account on the basis of group membership.
If you want to make a sensible statement, try "You should be ashamed if you don't distance yourself from misogynists". In that case you say someone should be ashamed for their own actions (or inaction), not for something some amorphous group did. Also changing the general "men" to "your peers" is peak goalpost moving.
I dont know what you think my goal is, clearly you're better at phrasing, so if we go with "You should be ashamed if you don't distance yourself from misogynists", where is our disagreement?
You think I shouldnt be ashamed of the friends I once had? Because I certainly am. You should be ashamed of people who break social contract, because that is explicitly what that would entail.
You think I shouldnt be ashamed of the friends I once had? Because I certainly am.
Given that you said "once had" not "still have", no I don't think you should be ashamed. Having broken with them, having learned, what blame is there that could be laid on you?
Because I was once naïve to who they are now, and perhaps being younger at the time I could have, maybe, been a more potent guiding voice to a couple guys in specific, and only later did I learn what they had committed when I was still associated. And if that shame is a way I can guarantee my merrits, then I can live with it.
Is that shame necessary to guarantee your merits, though?
If you can still learn from it, then it still has a purpose. If everything is learned, then it doesn't, and it is only hindering you. That call will be up to you, your understanding of the circumstances, and your conscience, but one thing is for sure: It makes no sense to worry about things that are outside of your control, and your past is very much among the things not in your control. So don't fret about letting it be nothing to you.
Yeah they just wanted to throw random shit out - like women picking the bear is a war crime because it punishes all men. I think they want women to choose to take the risk of potentially gambling their life away AND be raped / kidnapped, they shouldn't just be able to risk a life threatening mauling because that would punish all men.....
jfc the gymnastics these fucks will go in order to deny that rape and kidnap are genuinely things men do, and have historically done to the point where women literally have to carry the stress of self defense 24/7 and even worse, their most frequent assailants are known.
SO FUCK YEAH BRING ON THE BEAR, they probably don't know them personally so that'll up the odds that the bear will just ignore them. And even if the bear kills them brutally, it's not going to rape them, so they got that going. But it's a war crime to pick the bear jfc
like women picking the bear is a war crime because it punishes all men.
Not what I said. Demanding that I feel ashamed because there's men who do shitty things is the collective punishment, the war crime.
Have you ever considered that there's humans who do shitty things? Why aren't you ashamed of that? Why are you shirking responsibility? Are you secretly in league with them? Why are you not experiencing crippling guilt, knowing that Hitler and Pol Pot exist and are of your group, as I just randomly assigned it? Why aren't you flagellating yourself yet?
Yes, the statement is hyperbolic -- obviously. But you should be able to see how the general pattern, not just its extreme, is toxic.
where did I do that? seriously, point out where I told you to feel ashamed.
You didn't, someone else did and that's where I brought up the whole collective punishment being a war crime thing. Simply wanted to set the record straight on what it was a reference to.
So what’s the root of your guilt mate?
Well, two decades ago I did engage in gang-tickling of gals. Nope I'm not sorry, they're not traumatised, also I got a date out of it but I can definitely see how some people would like to tie a noose from that one.
Would you choose the bear, the guy with downcast eyes boiling with repressed rage, or the one pushing you into the swimming pool while you test the temperature?
Never got good at stealing scrunchies, I'll have to pass on that one. And don't tell me only guys do that kind of thing I once had to fish my home keys out of panties.
Would you choose the bear, the guy with downcast eyes boiling with repressed rage, or the one pushing you into the swimming pool while you test the temperature?
Im proud my SO would rather pick me, and I can likely speak on her behalf that she would choose the bear over you, whoever you are, and no offense intended.
Thats the person you should be to who you choose, as soon as you're trying to convince a woman that you're a better pick, you're fighting a loosing battle.
Anyone engaging on any side of the debate are fools. Any topic antagonizing half the population will somehow stir up some noise.
It's like saying all women are bad at sport because they don't train hard enough. It's ignorant and serves only the purpose of creating a divide in the population.
Downvoted not because it isn't true, but because they aren't automatically mutually exclusive and because it is an unnecessary jab at half of the human species. Why are we paying attention to divisive bullshit instead of focusing on things that actually have the potential to help?
Purely personal speculation here, I haven't done any hard reading on the subject:
I suspect we need a two-pronged approach. There's two issues here. The first one, and by far and away the most important one to address, is the simple fact that women are being assaulted a lot. I don't think that fact is in question among rational people. The way we've been attempting to fix this so far is to tell men to not rape women. It should be pretty obvious that tactic has a very limited potential to help. Anyone willing to listen to women saying to not rape them, isn't generally interested in raping women in the first place. We need different methods to reach people who either aren't interested in listening, or who don't think what they're doing is "bad". This will require a lot of work and research, but the first step is acknowledging that the current efforts are not helping.
The second issue is the amplification of toxic mindsets among women. Like I said, this is absolutely not as big a problem, but it is a problem, and it's one we haven't been allowed to talk about for fear of being labeled misogynistic. Women say "not all men" as if it's a joke, but it's actually a REALLY IMPORTANT TRUE STATEMENT. Men wanting to not be discriminated against should not be the butt of a joke. Sexism is not okay, even in response to sexism. We need to clamp down on that and make it clear that such language is not acceptable.
The phrase "women's safety is more important than men's feelings" is just as disingenuous as calling the anti-abortion movement the "pro-life" movement. Because it's not about women's safety, everyone here agrees that women's safety is important. This whole discussion is about women's perception of safety: women's feelings.
When you say "women's safety is more important than men's feelings"
What you mean is "women's feelings is more important than men's feelings"
We need different methods to reach people who either aren't interested in listening, or who don't think what they're doing is "bad". This will require a lot of work and research, but the first step is acknowledging that the current efforts are not helping.
Because the solution to women getting assaulted is to make men think about their actions. The post wasn't anymore divisive than the average black twitter meme. It was a simple tongue in cheek piece about how women have the impossible task of figuring out if a man is going to be their life partner or their rapist & murderer.
I’ve never once even thought about hurting a woman?
then you'd know it's not about you. I don't think women want to potentially be mauled to death by the bear, it's simply preferable to the horrible shit men do to women with astonishing regularity. kidnapped and raped to death, or kidnapped and raped for decades.
do you need links, to show how unfortunately regular this kind of thing is? because they'll turn your fucking stomach. just because you're ignorant about how often it happens doesn't mean you should take it personally when women make a logical choice. they're safer with the bear. You've never thought about hurting a woman, that's great, but it doesn't do shit for the women who have had this shit done to them by men for the history of the species.
It’s absolutely divisive. Stop.
oooOoh poor boy, it hurts your feelings huh? get over yourself.
there's some real delusional entitlement going on here. one for all the supposedly 'good guys' who feel blamed for rapists - I don't rape women but would never begrudge their need to defend themselves. telling women they need to take literal risks for the sake of 'not hurting the good guys' feelings' seems kinda fucking gross.
I don't get why any man would jump to defend the chuds, unless they feel pointed out as a chud.
It absolutely is. You are saying no man, myself included, is safe. That no matter what good we might do individually, we will always be viewed as monsters. Can you not see why men find that hurtful?
It absolutely is. You are saying no man, myself included, is safe. That no matter what good we might do individually, we will always be viewed as monsters. Can you not see why men find that hurtful?
look mate if you want to self identify as a rapist / creep, be my guest. if you want to identify that way and then wonder why people find it creepy, well, I don't have the crayons.
If you think women assume all men are rapists, you're wrong. if you think women assume some men are rapist creeps, that would be EXTREMELY RATIONAL. Now, compare those two categories with the number of times a woman has had to worry about being raped by a bear.
Come on, you can do it. Count on your toes if you need to. There we go: it's none.
I’m not self identifying as anything. You are saying woman should be more scared of me or any other man. And bears may not rape, but they do other damage.
The historical record is also replete with horrible shit men have done to other men. Doesn't mean I will cower in fear if I meet a random man, nor would I rather encounter a dangerous wild animal.
Imo this doesn't impact the men who would do such a thing in the slightest. You're just making the ones who have empathy feel bad, those who would rape are just getting their egos stoked by this fad: "Look at me, I'm more dangerous than a bear! That means I'm badass"
The problem is a large portion of rape is not done by serial rapists who rapes every chance they get, it's done by average dudes once or twice when an opportunity arrives. Most rape cases involve someone known to the victim.
Rape culture (as awkward and taboo of a phrase as it as) is a real thing that this bear analogy is pointing to. You may not have anything to examine in yourself that is the result of that culture but a metric fuck-ton of men do have internalized rape cultural aspects that need to be examined and extracted. The fact that so many women picked the bear is a testament to how pervasive that culture is, at least in their eyes.
The point isn't to stoke the egos of the serial rapists with no empathy, it's to use empathy to make the "average-Joe" rapist examine his internal biases before they turn into an actual rape.
In reality, it's not attacking half the human species. It's actually attacking people who perpetrate SA, and other people who cheerlead for them. One problem is that many men react just the way you reacted. Instead of saying "let's solve this problem", you say "quit being so divisive". Unfortunately, those are your values.
"I realized men are evil, masculinity is toxic, these are statements of truth and the only ones who deny this shit are cis men themselves." - CheesyCheese1 This thread
☝️ Top comment when i got here. This issue brings out as many misandrists as it does misogynists.
Even my gf who wasn't aware of this meme picked the bear vs a random man when i asked her, so obviously there is a problem. But in reality i don't give a shit if some rando woman would prefer a bear over me in the woods, whatever makes her feel safer i guess. I do care about being tarred with the rape brush though, and this topic is being used to attack all men rather than just the problem ones.
This topic keeps coming up because people keep talking past each other. There is a real, measured, evidence backed problem. The victims are saying “I feel this way, and it causes me to behave this way” and those who are neither victims nor perpetrators are upset about the way they are choosing to express that in a general sense. Now this meme itself is not more helpful than the bear, it didn’t give any new information. But it’s a good expression of that general frustration when no one listens. At least on Lemmy, there is a certain defensive response rather than an understanding empathetic one on this topic. This meme in particular seems harsh, but it’s driven by decades of talking about this, or not being able to talk about this, because the response is always so negative. Everything from “why did you dress that way” to “you should have know before you married them” to “not only women” (yes but that’s the topic at hand so). I would hope that some can come to understand this sentiment. I hope that this community improves.
they genuinely don't understand; they think: ah, but the bear is a much more fearsome predator than I am, the woman would choose me any day!
Nah man, the bear's never, ever, ever going to rape the woman. Woman will roll the dice with their lives, but no one wants to be kidnapped and raped to death - an actual fear women in this day and age have - and the bear will never ever 100% will not rape a woman.
clear cut logic to me, I don't fault women one bit.
I see it as simply the combination of: "the devil that you know is better than the devil that you don't", and "there are fates worse than death".
To be plain: the worst the bear can do is kill you and eat you (hopefully in that order). That's what we all know. We 100% know that and I don't think anyone is going to argue that point.
But a complete fucking stranger? They could be Hannibal for all you know. Keeping you alive by cutting off your appendages and feeding them to you.
The main culprit of this is toxic men who will send unsolicited dick pictures to unsuspecting women as an opening line, then put them on blast for not responding positively to being assaulted by penis pictures they didn't ask for.
The kind of guy that wouldn't see anything wrong with saying "you should smile more, you're so pretty when you smile".
The fact is, being a woman on the internet, you can, quite easily, get bombarded by complete strangers with all kinds of fucked up shit that sexualizes you and reduces you to an object only worthy of living if you can pleasure a man.
With the mountain of fucked up shit random dudes do to women online, I do not understand why anyone would ever be surprised that they would pick a wild fucking animal over the likely outcome of being stuck in the woods with any of the kinds of creepy fucking guys that troll around the internet, showing their dick to everyone with tits.
I'm a guy, I'm not surprised by any of this, and I don't blame anyone for saying "bear", it's honestly, a safer bet.
The part you aren't getting is obvious, it's not misandry. The gymnastics you're going through to deny basic logic is impressive though. Thanks for the links, they were pointless. Trust me, if you want to compare lists, mine are longer.
And in the overwhelming majority of these cases, the perpetrators are men, AND NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE WAS A BEAR.
Edit: and cute strawman, no one's implying ALL MEN, just the creeps. Which you might identify with but doesn't cover the entire gender. Women making the logical choice - pick from a population that def has rapist creeps or a population that isn't known for kidnapping and raping women, gee whiz batman...
You have no understanding of statistics. How many more men does the typical woman encounter a day than bears? I’m willing to bet women encounter dozens or even hundreds of men, but pretty well zero bears. The RATE of bear attack per encounter is much higher than the rate per encounter with men.
Your argument makes no sense. Sorry, anyone who thinks they are safer with a random large wild carnivore that has sharp teeth and claws than a random human male is foolish.
And, yes, you are implying that all men are rapists. After all, the statement isn’t that you merely don’t FEEL safe, but that you are not safe, period in the presence of a man. Therefore it is implied the man will 100% harm you.
Oh don't get it twisted sparky, I'm a guy. I understand why women feel threatened because I've seen men be fucking creeps my entire life.
The bear will never rape the women. Get it through your dense fucking nugget. Goddamn it's been repeated over and over again.
Let me imply this: your defensiveness over this is hilarious. If you're not a creep predating on women, you wouldn't feel upset about this at all, it's simple math: the bear will never rape the women, keep it in a box, kidnap it, force it to bear children, etc, etc., etc, so no matter what statistics you want to pull out, it's NOTHING COMPARED TO THE HISTORICAL RECORD ALONE.
You sure don’t seem to get that. You think rape is the only tragedy that can befall a woman.
No, it's simply the one we were talking about at the moment. That and how women seem to prefer death by bear than trusting many men, and how guys like you are making that logic seem pretty fucking sound every response lol.
You realize men rape other men too right?
So you know, I'd actually pick the bear myself. Because THERE'S STILL NO HISTORY OF BEARS RAPING PEOPLE - MEN OR WOMEN.
I've been through this. People rarely encounter bears. They encounter men all the time. Of course there is more violence from men, but I would argue more surprise encounters with bears end badly than encounters with men. And rape is hardly the only violence that can befall a woman.
But why bother? All of us men are disgusting rapists, apparently. Guess I should be like Shrek and retire to my swamp if everyone will just be afraid of me. Too bad I don't actually have one.
or you could be the kind of guy that didn't question women based on their decisions, but based upon the dystopia we live in mate.
you think this is about you. If you're not a rapist piece of trash, then you're mistaken. But the world is full of people who put women in fear of their safety, it's real, and your derision of it is sad.
Just because women can be rapists, and indeed, there are women who are rapists, does not and should not have any bearing on the point.
This is the same as yelling "all lives matter" into a crowd of BLM protestors. Yeah, no shit. Just because one thing is true doesn't mean that the inverse is impossible.
but but whataboutism at it's finest. great job mate. fantastic work, on behalf of all men, I'd like to ask: FUCKING STOP. Stop trying to stick up for our side because it's not helping.
There are no sides here. The fact that you think their are sides tips your bias. Every human is capable of horrible things regardless of age, race, or sex. The bear thing is so dumb and clickbait.
Well, if you lived in India, you would have had a point about walking down the street rape. However, walking down the street rape in the United States does not occur as much as you think it does.
No. But India has the worst gang rape of women walking on the street than anywhere else.https://apnews.com/article/india-sexual-violence-rape-b9016c82074c08583080db846d64055b
I'm saying all people have a rape problem. Just the link you gave where a couple raped a girl. I'm also saying America has a low walking down the street rape problem compared to India, South Africa, and Botswana.
I spend zero time worrying about being raped, I'm a cis gender white male.
But you see, there's this thing called empathy - and when women tell me they're worried, I genuinely believe them, because history shows their fears are well founded.
There is a higher chance of being mauled by a pitbull than being violently sexually assaulted on the streets of America yet there is a large portion of people that say it's not the breed, it's how they were raised.
Why aren't men talked about with similar empathy? Why don't we acknowledge there are more women pedophiles recieve lighter sentences and sometimes aren't convicted at all? Do you have empathy for these children?
I know you're happy to herring the argument in any direction to get a concession. I have empathy for lots of people, but it doesn't reduce the calculus: a woman might be harmed or killed by a bear, but the bear will never kidnap her and keep her in a cage, much less rape her.
A Red Herring argument is one that changes the subject, distracting the audience from the real issue to focus on something else where the speaker feels more comfortable and confident.
Your argument is tenuous and rambling, I'm going to block you now.
I'm pretty sure we were talking about walking down the street safety and sexual violence. Both if which are well within the boundaries of an argument. You can't just say "herring" and "rambling" and claim to make a great point.
I really struggle to empathize with the mindset required to come into a post (both the original bear post and this one) about women being sexually assaulted and going "BuT wHaT aBoUt MeN's FeELiNgS!?!?111!!???"
You people need to crawl out of your own assholes.
I'm just going to say it. Any arguments of "what about..." Are effectively pointless banter.
It's not adding anything to the discussion, and bluntly it's actively trying to distract people from the point, and change the discussion into something different.
yea but like at the same time annoying a bunch of butthurt lonely guys really isnt solving the problem and rather pushes them towards the manosphere which is where the problems start to grow
This post, and most of the other bear ones, are in normie forums full of people not familiar with feminist discourse. The reason for that? It's funny, cathartic, shocking, and a little inflammatory. And that's fine, it's meant to be. It gives it reach and allows people to learn and others to teach. The problem is that when men do find this to be shocking and inflammatory, they need to channel that emotion somewhere, and antagonistic/angry internet discourse is not the correct way respond to that.
There was a popular post the other day of "If you don't understand why women pick the bear, you are the bear", that directly antagonises the exact people who need to hear about why women choose the bear, and those people don't need to be antagonised, they need a little empathy and non-confrontational discussion to get there.
When I talked to them calmly, and acknowledged the way they feel, validated their emotions, then explained the topic to them, every single one I talked to accepted the core point and came out better for it. Take that angry energy, educate, and direct that energy in the right direction.
It's not that men's feelings should trump women's safety. It's that you need to think about why people are disagreeing so you can effectively talk to them
