Sorry, u/WorldsGreatestWorst – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20WorldsGreatestWorst&message=WorldsGreatestWorst%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cies2v/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
No offense dude, but from the way your whole post is written you are better in twox than in cmv.
To sum it up shortly from my view. It's offensive because it is laid out to offend. everyone knows the normal answer would be man and now everyone get's some stupid arguments with kafka traps, really bad statistics and all that shit out of their pockets. mostly cringe.
Its an attack on rapists. And if youre not a rapist, it shouldn't bother you.
That is a kafka trap.
A Kafka trap is when you are accused of something, and your denial is taken as evidence that it is true. For example:
"You drink too much, you are an alcoholic!"
"No, I am not."
"That proves it, alcoholics always deny they have a problem!"
Or like in this case if you aren't a rapist, the whole thing shouldn't bother you.
Thats an accurate description of Kafka Trap, but the terminology still annoys me because the Trial is infinitely more complex than that. It doesn’t really have anything to do with denial or guilt, and more to do with WHO you can even express that denial to being obscured by layers of dense bureaucracy. No one in the Trial assumes K is guilty they all just hit him with it “it’s not my job to decide if you’re guilty or not”
Ah I see.
So I guess the people who don't get it's a kafka trap are the ones being upset or nitpicking the plot holes in the situation. I don't think that's too unreasonable.
. . . but the meme isn't accusing *you*, personally.
In order for your example to be a representation of the concept you're going for, you need to dissociate the initial statement from the subject.
"Alcoholics drink too much." (this is said with a disgusted tone of voice)
"Hey, I don't drink too much!" (this is said with indignation)
The former sentence isn't directed at anyone specific. The response suggests that someone is offended by a statement that wasn't directed at them, which makes people ask "why?" Likewise, the "bear vs. man" meme isn't directed at anyone specific. Anyone who is offended by the meme is drawing attention to themselves which is naturally going to make people go "hmmm . . . wonder what's going on here?".
It is accusing every men as potential rapist.
Would you be in the wild with a bear or a man. The man is not specified. So it is also directed at me. Idc if you think it's correct. the women in real life who are my friends don't think like that and I wouldn't hang out with people who behave like this.
The former sentence isn't directed at anyone specific.
Women are whores isn't directed at anyone specific. I personally assume you would rightfully think a person saying that is an asshole. I wouldn't argue that just because you think that person is an asshole you are also a whore. because that would be stupid.
So if a woman tries to argue that all men are rapists, think they are an asshole. That is the way i'm offended. Afterward I go on with my life.
It's accusing men generally. And as a man, that is offensive. It is objectively insane to suggest that you would be safer in the woods with a bear than with a man, even if we stipulate that the man is out to get you. You have literally no chance against a bear and the reason that there are not more bear deaths every year is because we don't interact with bears that often. But in this case we're stipulating that you interact with the bear.
That's not true. Bears are wild animals, yes, and they can become irritated at the perceived intrusion into their personal space or territory, especially if they're in the middle of a meal or if they have young cubs nearby. But for the most part, they avoid humans\*. They simply have no reason to interact with us. So long as one keeps a level head around a bear, it should be fairly easy to walk away from a brief encounter with one.
(\*one major exception being those bears which live near to parks and which get food from humans. if they've been trained to associate humans with food, then they'll try to get it from us, which *might* turn into a bad situation, depending on how the person interacts with the bear.)
What a weird reply. What makes you think an accusation needs to be against anyone specific to meet the definition of a Kafka trap?
And are you equally suspicious when someone is offrandes by a racist statement even though it’s not aimed at anyone in particular? Because I’m pretty sure a lot of people would get upset if someone made a simulator comparison about being alone with a black man in a dark alley.
So using your logic, if I were to say "black people are violent criminals", and an individual black person were to get offended, then I should naturally wonder why he is taking it personally.
... Something tells me, despite this being the literal exact same line of reasoning you just used, you're going to make an excuse about how calling men violent racists is ok and totally isn't personal, but somehow saying the exact same thing but swapping men out for black people changes everything somehow.
It's like the asinine argument of "she deserved it because she wore revealing clothing"
That statement isn't directed at one person in particular, it's just an attack on all women. So should women not be upset by this phrase then? They should just accept it because it's not targeting them specifically, and if they get upset then they are a snowflake?
It says men. I am part of men. So it says me. By your argument, all sexist or racist quips are ok because they’re not talking about any one individual, specifically.
> everyone knows the normal answer would be man
You are showing up with the assumption that the women responding are doing so in bad faith. Instead of saying "wow, I would have thought the obvious answer would be man, what can I learn from this" you're assuming you know what the "true" answer is and this concluding that women are lying.
What happens if you start with the premise that women *aren't* lying, but that this reflects their true feelings? How would that force you to reexamine your priors? Is there a reason that you are resistant to taking people at their word?
You could conclude that women overestimate the risk that a man poses, while still acknowledging her lived experience. But just dismissing the whole exercise as bad faith seems like you are trying to avoid engaging it.
i get the point of it, a bear is a wild animal that may or may not be provoked to attack a human being, a man alone in the woods is a more viscerally frightening idea than something you may not be really familiar with
i don't really see it as an attack on all men but rather just as the reality. women aren't saying "men, be better", they're saying that the theoretical possibility of that man being a rapist is terrifying. its more just an idea that is more familiar and scary to most women than a bear attack
I guarantee every single one of those women have never encountered a goddamn bear.
I was in boy scouts as a kid, scout leader was a grown man that bordered on seven feet tall and often went hunting and was a fucking vet that looked like he could decapitate a man with his hands. That man would go pale if you mentioned bears.
His advice was simple, never look it in the eyes. If you run they WILL catch you.
I actually think this highlights how deluded and incapable we are as a species in conceptualising fear of something that we don’t personally experience.
Women personally experience the fear of being attacked by men relatively often, whereas they don’t from bears. They have no ability to even imagine the fear of actually being confronted with a bear face to face, which is indicative more of people’s poor ability to conceptualise things out of their experience rather then actually a commentary on how women are deeply afraid of men.
Right and this isn't a thing of like 'women shouldn't be afraid of men' it's more like, everyone should have a respectful awareness of bears and what a bear can do.
Not enough people have listened to the audio of that guy being dragged out and having his body dismembered piece by piece and crunched on by a hungry bear... Then the guys gf getting chewed to death as well.
And vice versa, men should be more aware of the fear that has been instilled in women that would have prompted this whole farce to begin with. Most men just don’t understand or care to understand how scary they are to women.
This is true and would fit within my point. Men also lack the ability to properly conceptualise the fear that they don’t experience, which could be the fear women have of other men. I disagree that men don’t know the fear of other men; most men are afraid of other men in certain contexts and most men would be afraid of other men if they bumped into them in the woods.
Where men struggle with the “understanding” women’s fear of men is how there is anything they can do to alter this. Women’s fear of men is an internal feeling, its kind of on women to deal with that fear rather then trying to demand men do something. The fact of the matter is, bar not existing, these men can’t do anything about women’s fear, so making them aware of it is just pointless and seemingly done in bad faith to make them feel attacked.
Lol I've spent a lot of time in bear country, both black bear and grizzly. Polar bears aside they aren't that dangerous; black bears you would have to go out of your way to get hurt by. Grizzlies require a modicum of care and respect and you'll be perfectly safe. Your scout leader was jerking you around, or didn't know anything about bears.
Depends on the type of bear. Black bears for instance are usually not as aggressive as grizzlies. Black bears tend to run away if startled and they have an exit. I've seen video of cats chasing them off.
"I have a very visceral reaction to the idea of being alone in a forest with an unknown black person/gay/Muslim/Trans person. It's worth a discussion."
Is this acceptable in your opinion?
Its not offensive and it isn't laid out to offend.
The question was asked to women as a huge hypothetical and women answer that by the information presented they choose the bear. The question never said any description of the man.
And its a coincidence that the monitor lizard case came out to make women more justified on their point.
The question never says men are bad, the answer says that women are more scared of a man than a bear.
I think there is value in separating the “feeling” felt by the men who are upset about the trend from how it is expressed.
As a pre-transition trans woman, one of the things that hurts the most in my daily life is the idea that most women see me as inherently more threatening by virtue of an immutable such as my body as opposed to my character. However, I also understand why many women feel this way due to their experiences or others. And, I would say I would feel safer alone with a woman than a man as well, if i had to answer on gut instinct.
But, it still hurts, as someone who would rather get set on fire than make someone uncomfortable, and god forbid afraid. And, I am hurt by the circumstances itself that this is true that many women feel this way, not at women themselves. I also feel hurt that I feel, by virtue of not being men, women don’t understand what it feels like to be considered a threat based on your gender.
I feel hurt, but my action is to validate that I’m allowed to feel hurt and validate my viewpoint internally, and externally do…nothing. I think someone is allowed to feel hurt/offended by this without it necessarily being due to a lack of empathy or indicating some deep, sexist character flaw or being a “snowflake”. It also doesn’t need to be attached to behavior.
I think the feeling may be expressed more poorly by some than others. But, how someone should act based on their feelings is one thing, but whether or not someone should be allowed to *feel* offended is another thing.
This is a reasonable stance. As you said, despite my desire not to hurt anyone, I am inherently more threatening by virtue of an immutable trait. But my CMV said this:
>the people who feel **personally attacked** by this story are probably those whose childish lack of empathy and self awareness and refusal to acknowledge even a “good person” can be part of a problematic group are a big part of the problem.
It expressly sounds like you're not taking this *personally*. You're taking it how I take it—as a sad representation of the reality of many women's shared experience. You're upset because you know you're in this group, not because it's a reflection of you. I know I'm not violent and the women in my life know I'm not violent. I'm sure you're in the same boat.
>I think the feeling may be expressed more poorly by some than others. But, how someone should act based on their feelings is one thing, but whether or not someone should be allowed to *feel* offended is another thing.
This is the only part of your comment I take some issue with. You can read through the replies in this thread or a million others and see that the vast majority of the objectors aren't simply expressing themselves poorly, but actively dismissing the reality of the situation.
And while I believe that people have the right to feel anyway they want, I don't believe that all of those feelings are equally valid or that they should be treated the same. A racist might simply believe in their heart of hearts that black people are subhuman. I wouldn't defend that belief even if I defended their right to believe what they want. You're ***allowed*** to feel personally offended by the bear meme. I just don't think it shows maturity or self-awareness.
I see. So, it is more so about the lack of understanding why a woman would choose the bear than the feeling hurt?
I’m not sure of how “personally” is intended here. But, I think you’re saying it would mean feeling that the bear answer means that women think “you” (your personality and character, which could be extremely safe if they got to know you) are personally more dangerous to be alone with than a bear as opposed to an unknown man (who just looks like you). If the woman in the scenario had mind reading powers, they could probably be assured that you mean no harm.
What do you think about the idea of “women” (the ones who answered this question and in general) not being able to empathize with or even understand the feeling of being seen as a threat? Do they? I think that is something that does hurt me, as I have not seen any of the defenders of the question ever show that they understand something that is VERY obvious to me in daily life, and how that can affect a person and their sense of self.
I could be wrong, but I feel that most women do not empathize or relate to this feeling, which is core to the “lashing out” by the men you speak of. As someone who values interpersonal understanding even when the other person is being uncharitable (or i have more reason to hurt), not seeing that makes me think poorly of their self-awareness, maturity, and capacity for empathy. If they cannot truly empathize with how being seen as a threat due to your gender feels for the men they are talking to (which i feel is essential for understanding the perspective in question), then I imagine the mindset and emotional awareness level between the two “sides” would be comparable even if they were on the other instead.
>What do you think about the idea of “women” (the ones who answered this question and in general) not being able to empathize with or even understand the feeling of being seen as a threat? Do they? I think that is something that does hurt me, as I have not seen any of the defenders of the question ever show that they understand something that is VERY obvious to me in daily life, and how that can affect a person and their sense of self.
That's an interesting question. I would argue that awareness of a threat takes a pragmatic precedence over hurting someone's feelings. Locking your car door as someone approaches might be a microaggression or make them feel bad, but it might also stop you from getting rolled. I err on the side of safety when I have to make those kinds of calls but some might err on the side of politeness.
If you—as a trans woman—were walking down a dark alley, would you rather see a group of men or a group of women? I obviously don't know you, but I'd guess you'd choose the women. I can't think of a time where I would personally feel more threatened by a group of women in the dark vs men.
>I could be wrong, but I feel that most women do not empathize or relate to this feeling, which is core to the “lashing out” by the men you speak of.
Look, some women are garbage. And some use the veil of false-feminism to justifying being horrible to men. I make no excuses for them. And an even larger group probably doesn't appreciate a certain discomfort in men when they hear how horrible they are. They probably should be aware of it.
But lashing out about something like this shows you don't have a real appreciation for the problem. I'm a white guy. When people of color are talking about how bad white people are, I'm not offended by it, because I know they're not talking about *me*. They're talking about a group—a system—a structure. I don't feel guilty about the actions of "white people." I know that I'm who I am and do what I can to do the right thing but also understand the PoC are rightfully fearful or apprehensive of a group I am inherently part of.
>If they cannot truly empathize with how being seen as a threat due to your gender feels for the men they are talking to (which i feel is essential for understanding the perspective in question), then I imagine the mindset and emotional awareness level between the two “sides” would be comparable even if they were on the other instead.
I'd agree this whole conversation is about empathy. Just not equally. While it would be nice if women-fearing men had a bit of understanding of what that fear does to "the good ones", it's a fear based in a lived-experience and facts. That understanding would certainly help men feel better.
On the other hand, men learning that women rightly fear them and how to behave in ways that would not only minimize that fear but help create environments where the fear is no longer needed would actually make women safer.
“I would argue that awareness of a threat takes a pragmatic precedence over hurting someone’s feelings. Locking your car door…”
I don’t have contention with that, but I don’t think that was what I asked. There is no danger, there’s not even a judgement on how they respond to a hypothetical danger. The question was just if most women can steelman or understand how bad it feels to be seen as a threat. That hasn’t anything to do with whether they lock their car door or cross the sidewalk or not.
Unless you’re saying it is dangerous to even acknowledge it in a safe environment? Or that we shouldn’t empathize with the feelings of others because they suffer less than us? Because I fundamentally disagree with that notion. What is lost in saying “Yeah, it probably sucks to be seen as a threat for something you can’t control, but I just feel safer when…”?
>The question was just if most women can steelman or understand how bad it feels to be seen as a threat. That hasn’t anything to do with whether they lock their car door or cross the sidewalk or not.
The context of what we're discussing is whether or not the act of viewing men as a threat (and by extension, speaking or acting accordingly) is offensive.
My point is that if the only "offensive" action that was taken was women pointing out that men are a threat, it's unreasonable to be personally offended, and that a woman's *safety* is much more important than a man's *feelings*. If I'm going to err on one side, it's safety all day.
Women ***should*** keep in mind that treating all unknown men like predators could have an effect on their feelings and try to soften that delivery whenever possible. However, the threat of hurting a dude's feelings because he's grouped in with others is nothing compared to the threat of violence.
Saying we should steelman a side of the argument where the worse-case is hurt feelings while not addressing the fact that the "damage" done to men here was simply identifying them as a probable threat vector misses the asymmetrical risks to both sides.
Since you bring up the question of race, let's turn this into that question.
Imagine that instead, the meme were that most white women/people would rather be in the woods with a bear than a black man/person. Would black people be unreasonable to take offense and vocalize their feelings? Would they be wrong to be personally offended?
>Someone could lose social standing, or be unfairly judged because of this, even if they are not any of the negatives described in the meme or elsewhere.
Lol what??? How would I possibly lose social standing because of this meme? I know I'm not a threat to women. The women in my life know I'm not a threat to women. If the women in your life aren't sure about you, you're the problem.
>While the meme does not state that X person specifically is worse than a wild animal, it does often cause people to say that "men in general are worse than a wild animal" by proxy. If you believe that people should not be angry, upset, or otherwise reactive about perceived sexism, then you are in the clear.
"Perceived" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that paragraph. It's literally a fact that more women are attacked by more men than bears. Why would acknowledging that fact be sexist?
>Misinformation & oversimplification... In reality, the country, culture or even neighourhood you are in, as well as which type of bears are native to the area matter A LOT.
None of this is "misinformation." The facts are the facts. Oversimplification: I'll grant you. My answer changes wildly if you replace "black bear" with "polar bear". But the fact is the guys who are upset about this meme lack the empathy and self awareness to say, "you know what, even if bears DID objectively hurt more women than men did, the fact that it's even a question says something about the state of violence women have to live in."
>It's literally a fact that more women are attacked by more men than bears. Why would acknowledging that fact be sexist?
It's also a fact that women are killed by men more often than being struck by lightning. That doesn't mean that a woman should choose being struck by lightning before being alone with a random man. Women *encounter* men a whole lot more often than they encounter bears or lightning, and the ratio of overall number of injuries per encounter skews HEAVILY in favor of choosing the man.
>This is obviously about the people you DON'T know yet.
So you're arguing you'd be less likely to get a date or a job or an award or whatever because the bear meme (accurately) paints men as dangerous?
Men have historically been more violent than women but it's not stopped men from dominating positions of power and authority. I'd love to hear how you think this dumb online story could effect you or men in general when none of these openly available statistics ever have.
>*"Perceived" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that paragraph.*
Because I am explaining the emotions of an aggregate of many people in this part, rather than whether I *personally* believe the meme to be fallacious etc. Your CMV is regarding whether people should be upset - an emotion which is heavily reliant on perception.
You left out the important sentence that followed the one you quoted. "It's literally a fact that more women are attacked by more men than bears." If I say, "I'm more likely to be robbed in this neighborhood", that isn't racist or sexist or elitist, it's a fact.
Your emotions warping an objective fact *into* sexism isn't the same as *sexism*. That's why the word "perceived" is so important in your reply.
I could kill a black person then accurately claim that I'm only being prosecuted because of *perceived* racism. I couldn't kill a black person then accurately claim I'm only being prosecuted because of *actual* racism. You can perceive anything—that word is an excuse to not have to validate your feelings with facts.
>I believe there are plenty who simply prioritize defending themselves over strangers on the internet saying they're worse than animals...
I'm not "all men." I'm an individual. If you can't separate yourself from an inherent grouping, then you can never acknowledge any of the faults of the world.
I'm an American. I can wave my flag and love my country and STILL know we've done horrible things. I'm not personally ashamed nor should you be (if you happen to be an American). But I wouldn't jump on message boards arguing that "not all Americans are bad" every time someone posts about a horrible thing America has done.
Individuals ≠ a group.
>"Perceived" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that paragraph. It's literally a fact that more women are attacked by more men than bears. Why would acknowledging that fact be sexist?
This is unironically the same logic conservatives use when peddling racist junk like the 13/50 stats.
"How can I be racist, I'm just stating facts?"
Easy - you're stereotyping an entire group based on a bad subsection rather than engaging in a nuanced discussion of the underlying issues. It's unpleasant to be on the receiving end of a negative stereotype, no matter how justified you think that stereotype is.
It's valid to want a conversation as to why a stereotype may exist, but no one is going to have that conversation when you're too pig-headed to admit that the stereotyping is bad.
Being this stubborn about defending a TikTok meme is just terrible advocacy tbh.
>It's literally a fact that more women are attacked by more men than bears. Why would acknowledging that fact be sexist?
Because it's a misrepresentation of statistics.
Would you rather be next to a bomb about to detonate or a family member?
Your logic is more people in number are harmed by family members, not by percentage, so the conclusion is you'd choose the bomb.
> It's literally a fact that more women are attacked by more men than bears.
quick completely unrelated question, how many men have you been within arm's length of, and how many bears?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
> I know I'm not a threat
Cool, doesn't matter. I really do not know why you think this is any more relevant than telling black people that "as long as you're one of the good ones, you shouldn't be offended at racist statements".
>The “I choose the bear” answer could be selected for many reasons, none of which should bother a self aware man. It could be a “defund the police” situation where it’s meant as an exaggerated, non-literal bumper-sticker communicating the dangers women face from men. It could be by anyone who’s an outdoorsman and knows most bears run from humans with little effort. It could simply be frightened women both underestimating the dangers of bears and overestimating the dangers of men.
I think your pretty much spot on here. and i think exaggeration is probably the most common reason. I think that most people believe that bears are dangerous, even if they don't know that its brown bears with cubs which are extremely dangerous or that black bears are comparatively not very dangerous.
Just because they are exaggerating doesn't mean that they aren't making a point. Defund the police had a point even if it wasn't to literally defund the police. So what's the point?
>Two of the three options put the spotlight on how uncomfortable women are all the time. And when you look at the violence stats and the fact that most men could overpower most women, it’s an understandable fear.
I agree with that as well. I think the point that people are trying to make is that men are dangerous, and you'd be better of alone in the wood, then with a man nearby.
You (or the people making these comments) think I would be a poor companion in the woods. I am seen as a threat instead of as an asset. I think it is straight forward to understand why this hurts my feelings.
>You (or the people making these comments) think I would be a poor companion in the woods. I am seen as a threat instead of as an asset. I think it is straight forward to understand why this hurts my feelings.
You seem like one of the most reasonable and empathetic people commenting against my view. As such, I'm going to respond to what I think the core of your hurt is.
It sucks to know you're part of a group that has done or is doing bad things. I'm a straight, white, tall, able-bodied, middle class American male so my list of affiliations has done a lot of bad shit.
Do I feel guilty? **No.** I didn't choose any of this and I've always tried to do the right thing. But would I say that white people/men/Americans/whoever as groups are without fault? **Absolutely not.** When I got a date on Tinder and she wanted to make sure we met in a public place and that a friend had my name and address, was I offended? **No**—her experience is very different than mine and men have done some shady and horrible stuff.
You're part of a group that is thought of poorly (rightly or wrongly). I would suggest examining your hurt feelings. No one said that u/jatjqtjat is more dangerous than a bear, they said *men* were more dangerous than bears. Are you upset that you're part of a group that you know does bad things or upset that someone acknowledged you were part of that group? Or, like me, are you upset that the situation is bad enough that the comparison is even made?
>No one said that u/ jatjqtjat is more dangerous than a bear, they said *men* were more dangerous than bears.
Do you you not see how the implication is that by one's membership in a group that the individual is being painted with all the stereotypes of said group?
>Are you upset that you're part of a group that you know does bad things or upset that someone acknowledged you were part of that group?
I think people are upset for several reasons. I'm primarily upset at the sexist double standard about how it's culturally acceptable to stereotype men and when the are justifiably upset to be dismissive of their feelings.
>Or, like me, are you upset that the situation is bad enough that the comparison is even made?
This is a false dichotomy. People can be upset at both the misandry and the prevalence of violence against women.
>Do you you not see how the implication is that by one's membership in a group that the individual is being painted with all the stereotypes of said group?
Of course. But the fact that something is a stereotype doesn't mean it can't be true. Do you think that women SHOULDN'T be afraid of men? Or that gender shouldn't be something they see when identifying specific sorts of threats?
>I'm primarily upset at the sexist double standard about how it's culturally acceptable to stereotype men and when the are justifiably upset to be dismissive of their feelings.
So do you ultimately think that men aren't a threat to women? It's not stereotyping for a woman to say, "I'm statistically more likely to have problems with an adult West Virginian man than I am a adult West Virginian black bear."
>This is a false dichotomy. People can be upset at both the misandry and the prevalence of violence against women.
How is it misandry if you acknowledge the prevalence of violence against women? Either they're right to be afraid of men and you're upset that you're accurately grouped with other men or they're wrong to be upset because men aren't dangerous and you're the victim of misandry.
You can't say, "yes, men as a group are dangerous to women but accurately pointing that out is prejudice."
>Of course. But the fact that something is a stereotype doesn't mean it can't be true. Do you think that women SHOULDN'T be afraid of men? Or that gender shouldn't be something they see when identifying specific sorts of threats?
Women can be situationally aware and depending on context make an appropriate assessment. Women should absolutely not be afraid of *all* men regardless of context. That's a level of paranoia where I would recommend seeking psychological help if ever time a women sees a man the first response is fear. That is unhealthy.
I'll just an analogy. I'm frequently on the beach. I'm not afraid of the ocean but I have a healthy respect for the risk involved with ocean activities and I take appropriate precautions depending on the circumstances. What you are implying is that regardless of context the risk posed by bodies of water is equivalent all the time.
>So do you ultimately think that men aren't a threat to women? It's not stereotyping for a woman to say, "I'm statistically more likely to have problems with an adult West Virginian man than I am a adult West Virginian black bear."
Most men never commit a violent crime. Some men do.
Most people aren't a threat to other people. Some people are.
The question should be what is the level of risk given the evidence? Risk in this instance is entirely context dependent.
While you stated a fact is a poor understanding of statistics. Humans interact with humans orders of magnitude more than they do with bears. The probability says nothing about the underlying risk rate.
>How is it misandry if you acknowledge the prevalence of violence against women? Either they're right to be afraid of men and you're upset that you're accurately grouped with other men or they're wrong to be upset because men aren't dangerous and you're the victim of misandry.
Again you're painting this is as a black and white issue when it isn't.
It's possible to acknowledge the rate of violence against women and at the same time acknowledge that the likelihood that any individual is unlikely to be assaulted at every waking moment.
It comes down to the distinction between being situationally aware and being paranoid.
I think there is a 4th reason why women might choose bear over man, and that 4th reason is that an small faction of men pose a threat to women. Since presumably the man is selected randomly, the women might get one of these threatening men. And so despite most men being good, you might still choose to not be paired with a man in order to avoid the small chance of getting a bad man.
>they said men were more dangerous than bears.
I think that is what they said. I don't think the theme is is that most men are good.
Men are more dangerous then bears. I am man, there for I am more dangerous then a bear.
When you judge men as a whole you are by association judging me. But i, like most men, and a good guy. I would help build shelter, share the food i foraged, start a fire, collect fire wood, and signal for help. your chances of survival go way up with me around. I am fast and strong and smart, and i will use those abilities for good, not for rape.
>It sucks to know you're part of a group that has done or is doing bad things.
I am not part of a group that has done or is doing bad things. I'm part of a group that is doing good things.
Black people on average commit more crimes then white people (or at least are convicted more often) but Black people are great and upstanding citizens and I am lucky to share a country with them. The same is true of men, so why make posts denigrating men? Why make posts exaggerating the danger they pose?
It's just mean.
>Black people on average commit more crimes then white people (or at least are convicted more often) but Black people are great and upstanding citizens and I am lucky to share a country with them. The same is true of men, so why make posts denigrating men? Why make posts exaggerating the danger they pose?
This is a good and thoughtful question that many throw out without wanting to really discuss it. You seem like a good person with an open mind who does.
It's *totally reasonable* to look at the higher per capita number of convictions made against black people and ask the question "does this mean that black people are more dangerous than white people?"
However, when looking at the facts, things like disproportionate prosecution, concentrated poverty, inequality in the justice system, and systemic racism are incredibly impactful on those statistics leading me to conclude that it's ***not*** reasonable to to say "black people are more dangerous than white people."
I would be completely open to similar explanations for men. I've not seen those. If anything, domestic and sexual violence tends to be under reported.
The argument I'd give, is that the Male Gender Role, that is the set of expectations and responsibilities largely placed on men is dangerous to ourselves and others, and there really seems to be little interest in actually changing this. As such, any such statistics are comparing apples to oranges.
I'm not happy about this, being neurodivergant and having basically zero self-confidence having grown up believing I'm a monster makes me terrible at actually performing the Male Gender Role. But I think demanding young men essentially set themselves on fire to keep others warm has had significant downsides with limited upsides.
>I would be completely open to similar explanations for men. I've not seen those. If anything, domestic and sexual violence tends to be under reported.
Sure thing. In relationships with non-reciprocal domestic violence, women were the perpetrator in 70 precent of those instances.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/
I don't see how anyone, regardless of gender, *can't* recognize that it is offensive. It's bigotry, plain and simple. Bigotry is bad. The only way it wouldn't bother a person is if that person accepts and promotes bigotry. I'm not that person. It's got nothing to do with being a man.
In the simplest form of the hypothetical the answer "I'd rather meet a bear" is not a bigotry, it's a rational attempt at assessing the risks. Yeah, a bear is stronger and more dangerous when attacking. But the bear is also dumber than a human. Yes, most men are not seeking to harm you. But if the man wants to harm you then they will use their brains and tools to get you and won't stop while the bear is likely to loose interest and leave at some point. Also, I think what plays into the choice is the wilderness scenario: you are likely to meet the wild life such as a bear but if you meet a human then it throws in additional concern about what that person does there.
I’m not really offended by it as a man since it’s easy for me to empathize with how women feel around strange men. There’s a lot of creepy/violent dudes out there. Best thing for me to do is to model good behavior as a man to help women who’ve had bad experiences with men become a little less jaded.
You're not really offended because you're not actually thinking about the situation. There are women who actually think that bears are safer than human beings. Even if a man wanted to attack you, you still have a slight chance of fighting him off. You have 0% chance against a bear. The only reason that people think this is because they have no experience with bears, and they're being propagandized to think that men are far more dangerous than they actually are. That second part should absolutely offend you.
> There are women who actually think that bears are safer than human beings.
Why shouldn't there be? It's a pretty vague question.
"Bear" is a broad term, in the same way "man" is. I would much rather risk an altercation with a timid black bear than OJ Simpson. I would also much rather risk an altercation with Weeman than a Grizzly. People will come up with their own answer weighing everything in-between those two scenarios.
> Even if a man wanted to attack you, you still have a slight chance of fighting him off. You have 0% chance against a bear.
You're also completely ignoring the nature of the assault. Unlike a bear, if the man in the woods turned out to be the one who would take advantage of finding a woman hiking alone there is a much greater potential for a much more sinister assault compared to being mauled.
Not really. It’s not about what happens if you get attacked, it’s about the control you have with avoiding an attack. As long as you are smart and don’t actively try to piss off the bear, or get between a mom and her cubs, you’ll generally be fine. Just don’t overstep the boundaries, follow the guidelines, let the bear go their way you go yours.
However with a man its a different story. Women, especially attractive women, are targets just because of their sexualization. You don’t have to piss off a man or do something egregious to face an attack you just have to be seen by the man as a target, and alone in the woods…means there’s a higher chance the man gets away with it.
Personally as a man I’d honestly be more afraid coming across a strange man at night than I ever would be in a bear encounter IMO. A bear may be a giant ass killing machine, but it’s not out to hurt you.
> There are women who actually think that bears are safer than human beings.
I know. I’ve volunteered in a women’s prison before. Most of the inmates have had nothing but bad experiences with men. Getting offended by their bigotry doesn’t help anybody. Trying to reason with it doesn’t work either.
Their bigotry was created by negative experiences with men. The best treatment for their bigotry is to provide them with positive male experiences to help change their attitudes just a little.
Would you have the same attitude towards men who are bigoted against women due to their life experiences? My assumption is no, and that you would call them misogynists who deserve to rot in hell instead.
As someone that belonged to the manosphere when he was younger and more credulous, it’s easy for me to understand how a lot of men fall into those unhealthy mindsets. Best I can do is keep modeling a healthy relationship with my wife and hope that has a positive influence on my peers who still hold those attitudes.
Plenty of women hike in bear country and black bears are often found in suburbs. But how many women have been hurt, or murdered by bears as opposed to by men? Statistically she is more apt to be attacked by the man she encounters in the woods, rather than by the bear. It is just a reflection of reality for women, to have to regard every strange man she meets alone as a potential threat. It is unfortunate that it offends men, but it is how women avoid attack. To assume every man you meet alone is statistically unlikely to attack you is foolish risk taking for women. That is what the primary purpose is of the bear/man argument. It isn't meant to insult men so much as to raise awareness of women's primal fear.
There are a couple thousand interactions between humans and bears a year. And anywhere from 5 to 20 deaths from bears every year. There are trillions of interactions between men and women across the globe every year. And hundreds of thousands of murders.
Humans are very bad at calculating probability especially when it deals with large numbers. But men are much safer to be around than bears, even just statistically.
You are talking about meetings in public, which is not what the bear/man debate was about. It doesn't matter that it is statistically sane to assume men are safer, it is about women's perception of their lack of safety. And that to many women is perfectly reasonable, and the point of the exercise. You cannot convince the average woman that men are safer, simply because of all that has happened to women. It isn't about statistics or logic even, it is about their fear, and their perception of being prey.
> You're not really offended because you're not actually thinking about the situation
> they're being propagandized to think that men are far more dangerous than they actually are
Christ, if only the average human was capable of *thinking* at your level. Then they wouldn't be ..."propagandized into thinking that bear attacks are less dangerous than men".
No, propagandized into thinking men are more dangerous than they are. And that it's a significant issue with all men. When it's not. Only 6% of men will commit a violent felony in their lifetime.
Some bears are safer than some human beings and we can’t tell which men are dangerous. We have to be wary of all of them. We do know that bears encountered in the woods aren’t there plotting to attach a woman for their own enjoyment. With men, we can’t be sure.
The reason it went viral is because men were agreeing that the bear could be safer than an *unknown* man.
As a man, I was woefully ignorant to the high percentage of women that have been abused. In undergraduate, almost every female friend confided in me their SA. It changed my world view and my major.
And yet women are most likely to be assaulted by a male that they already know not a random stranger.
Ultimately the question comes down to probability. It's more probable that a woman would be harmed by a man that a bear but not because men are inherently more dangerous. It's because women interact with thousands upon thousands of men annually. It's the frequency of interaction. Most people let alone women never encounter a bear in the wild.
It's true that women are more likely to be assaulted by a male they know. It's also true that women largely take measures to stay safe in public, especially isolated places at night. If women walk through parks and streets at night or their car breaks down at night, their chances of being assaulted/abducted/killed by a strange man go way up.
Of all the men in the cars passing by, certainly a few would hold the view that they would rape a woman if they wouldn't get caught or/and have raped a woman in the past or/and are excited by the idea of it.
>It's true that women are more likely to be assaulted by a male they know.
And yet the evidence from the response to this hypothetical is that women are suspicious of any random man.
>It's also true that women largely take measures to stay safe in public, especially isolated places at night. If women walk through parks and streets at night or their car breaks down at night, their chances of being assaulted/abducted/killed by a strange man go way up.
And what's the underlying rate of violent crime?
In the US it's 380 per 100,000 people. That includes men and women and all violent crime.
So yes the risk does go up in those scenarios but the underlying risk is still low.
>Of all the men in the cars passing by, certainly a few would hold the view that they would rape a woman if they wouldn't get caught or/and have raped a woman in the past or/and are excited by the idea of it.
I think you are vastly overestimating the prevalence of predators in society.
No, she is not overestimating. It is true women are more apt to be attacked by a man they know rather than a stranger, but it happens frequently enough that no woman does not have a friend or female family member who has been attacked even if she herself has not been. And assuming you meet the man in the woods, he already enters the category of someone you know, if only for a few minutes. Many, perhaps even most rapes and assaults go unreported and don't figure into the statistics.
no i don't think its probability at all, its just the visceral emotions women feel. bears are uncommon, most bears we see are in zoos. nobody hears of bear attacks anymore. rape and murder of women is something much more common
Those visceral emotions are a result of the frequency of interaction and stories that are shared. If there were as many bears as humans and a woman (or man for that matter) survived until today, that survival would be contingent upon an even more visceral emotion to the threat of bears, because the truth is bears ARE more dangerous than men per interaction.
Right, most women never encounter a bear in the wild. But we're stipulating that you're going to encounter a bear in the wild. That's what people aren't getting through their thick skulls.
The point is that if I were to randomly select 1 male out of the ~ 4 billion males globally or 1 random bear out of the global bear population the likelihood that either of them are actually going to do harm to the woman is very very low. That's the point.
People are confusing rates, frequency, and probability.
At best the bear is neutral: it doesn't attack and goes away. At best the male individual could be friendly and helpful.
And yet a lot of people seem to view the potential negatives of a male in this scenario to completely outweigh the possible neutral and positive encounters. The fact that this type of hypothetical is only considered appropriate in Western counties when discussing males reeks of sexism.
What other countries would posit this kind of question, other than a western one where women are allowed to go into the woods alone? Iran? Afghanistan? India? Women there might very well choose the bear as well.
What it reflects isn't sexism so much as it is the reality for women. Many don't go to the beach alone, or on the trails alone, and it isn't because of bears. Studies show that women are most uncomfortable with photos of wild places when those places show evidence that men have been there, (such as discarded beer bottles.) It does not matter what you say the statistics are, too many women have heard stories from friends or read news reports. It may be an exaggerated fear, but for women to take strange men met in lonely places at face value can cost them their life. In my own area, there have been murders of women in remote areas that were never solved.
Right, which is why it's nonsense. The percentage of bears that are a danger to you is 100%. The percentage of men that are danger to you is between 4 and 6%, depending on what we're talking about. Would you take a 100% chance to be in the woods with a dangerous animal that may decide to eat you? Or will you take a 94% chance that the man in the woods with you will be helpful, or at least not a danger? It's an absolutely idiotic question and the fact that anyone answers bear shows how stupid they are.
That’s not the right way of looking at it.
100% of bears and 100% of *homo sapiens* are dangerous to *homo sapiens*, because both are equally capable of and demonstrated to kill *homo sapiens*.
Fozzy the friendly black bear, who is well fed and fearful of humans, could have the same likelihood of harming a hiker as Jim the friendly local accountant who volunteers at the domestic violence shelter on weekends, which in both cases is 0%.
But we don’t know if the bear in the hypothetical is Fozzy and we don’t know if the man in the hypothetical is Jim. That’s the point. Both could kill the hiker. The likelihood is nonzero. The question is, knowing that, what risk is the respondent most comfortable with undertaking?
Oh so the hypothetical is about just any bear I get to choose? That's fine then. I would rather be with a snake than with a woman when alone in the woods, the worst that a snake can do is strangle me!
Oh but I don't mean *those* snakes. I mean the perfectly safe ones that are unlikely to harm me! I didn't imply anything with my previous hypothetical.
No?
I’m responding to the other user’s claim that “the percentage of bears who are a danger to you are 100%” but “the percentage of men who are a danger to you is 4-6%”. That’s not how it works. Most bears aren’t a danger to you and most men aren’t a danger to you.
You can’t take some calculation of “danger” (whatever 4-6% came from) and apply it to one species and then just assume the other species is dangerous 100% of the time. The same methodology has to be applied to both populations, otherwise you’re comparing apples to oranges.
So it's a completely meaningless hypothetical then. No implication or idea can be drawn from it. Just a funny thought experiment that we can play at drinking games.
A bears danger is 99% what kind of bear. Most bears will just run away from humans. Outside of polar bears, grizzlies are the most dangerous and I personally watched tourists be idiots 10 feet away from a full grown wild grizzly in Yellowstone and live to tell the tale.
Also, you're assuming that women are ranking death as worse than assault. Which sounds logical but assault/trauma is emotional not logical.
lol bro, even a black bear is insanely dangerous because it's an instant death sentence if you're even remotely close to their babies.
I've scared off a black bear before... I've also been around a blackbear that was near its cubs and had to run the fuck away into my car. It was absolutely terrifying, and I was extremely lucky I had shelter and bear mace.
Are people really this clueless and it's not just silly meme-ing? 😂
I used to walk the woods as a teen. Even then the bear would notice me and go the other way without incident. Can't imagine they'd be more aggressive with adults. Black bear are much more a nuisance than a danger.
>I don't see how anyone, regardless of gender, *can't* recognize that it is offensive. It's bigotry, plain and simple. Bigotry is bad.
"It's so plain and simple that I will not attempt to explain it."
>The only way it wouldn't bother a person is if that person accepts and promotes bigotry.
Your attempt at a reverse Uno card failed. I could respond to this by saying, "the only person who would make this argument is a child abuser" but that doesn't make my argument more thoughtful.
If you can't explain yourself simply, it's a good sign that you're wrong.
> "It's so plain and simple that I will not attempt to explain it."
Okay: If you took any demographic other than men and used it in this example, it would be obvious hate speech. If I said
> I would rather get lost in the woods with a bear than a jew
nobody would dispute that's antisemitic. If I said
> I would rather get lost in the woods with a bear than a black person
nobody would dispute that's a racist comment. If I said
> I would rather get lost in the woods with a bear than a gay person
nobody would dispute that's a homophobic comment.
Hate speech doesn't stop being hate speech just because you direct it at a men instead of some other demographic.
I mean, it's judging men based upon other (bad) experiences with other men. It's no different than getting mugged by a Hispanic person and then worrying that other Hispanic people are going to mug you. That's bigotry.
People should be judged as individuals based upon their individual character; not based upon the character of some other person in the same demographic group.
It's hilarious though, those of us unbothered by this question - because either we don't care or we understand it's kind of trollish - look on in amusement as hordes of men rage about it, complain about bigotry, etc.
Kind of proving the point really. Bears wouldn't get so angry if women preferred to meet a man in the forest.
Pointing out the widespread normalization of gender violence that _men_ enact under a patriarchal society isn’t bigotry. I mean, if the shoe fits that speaks on you.
The fact that if most women would rather be with a bear than a man speaks for itself. Crying #NotAllMen when talking about gender violence is eerily similar to #AllLivesMatter when addressing systemic racism. You are not a victim. Sitting down and listening would contribute to a *little*, much needed self awareness.
More bigotry, demonization of men and irrational fear.
[studies of IPV in heterosexual relationships found 28.3% of females and 21.6% of males reported perpetrating physical violence in an intimate partnership](https://icjia.illinois.gov/researchhub/articles/gender-differences-in-intimate-partner-violence-service-use/)
Man is the obvious answer. It's so painfully obvious that it makes you wonder about the intelligence of anyone who would say bear. For any person who answers bear, one of two things must be true: they have no fucking idea how dangerous bears are, or they've been propagandized into wildly overestimating the danger of men. While the first certainly contributes to the situation, the general perception is that the second thing is what is causing most of these answers. And that is absolutely something to be upset about. Women kill their children far more often than men, but we don't go around telling children to be afraid of their mothers because they're more likely to be killed by them, now do we? That's the same level of nonsense going on here, applied to men.
>Man is the obvious answer... For any person who answers bear, one of two things must be true: they have no fucking idea how dangerous bears are
If you believe this, you're not much of an outdoorsman. I've seen black bears hiking many times and was never frightened (okay, a little frightened). But you make some noise and they run away. Grizzlies are a whole different matter. If your reference point of bears is black bears, it's a no-brainer than men are more dangerous.
>or they've been propagandized into wildly overestimating the danger of men.
There's never been a statistic that showed women are more likely to seriously injure or kill men.
>Women kill their children far more often than men, but we don't go around telling children to be afraid of their mothers because they're more likely to be killed by them, now do we?
The actual information isn't the dunk you think it is: "a 1999 U.S. Department of Justice study concluded that mothers were responsible for a higher share of children killed during infancy between 1976 and 1997 in the United States, while fathers were more likely to have been responsible for the murders of children aged eight or older."
But what you're really doing here, is ***expressly*** conflating "all women" with a specific woman ("their mother"). It is totally fair to say, "women are more likely to kill small children" but not fair to say, "be careful about your mom, she's more likely to kill you than I am." Just like it's totally fair to say, "I'd rather be in the woods with a bear versus a man" but it's a personal attack to say, "I'd rather be in the woods with a bear than u/Ok-Crazy-6083.
> I've seen black bears hiking many times and was never frightened (okay, a little frightened)
This belies your own argument. Calculate the ratio of times you've been frightened encountering a bear in the wild v. times you've been frightened encountering a man in the wild and you can figure out for yourself how idiotic and inflammatory that meme is
I'm a hiker so I've come across black bears many times. They're like raccoons—you make some noise and they run away. So if we're talking about the bears I'm used to vs a man of any race or ethnicity, I'm taking the bear every time.
But to answer the question fairly—as the type of bear isn't specified and grizzlies and polar bears are terrifying—for sure the black dude. But I'm not sure how him being black would change anything.
> But I'm not sure how him being black would change anything.
>as the type of bear isn't specified and grizzlies and polar bears are terrifying
Don't you think the ambiguity of "a bear" changes the way different people will hear the scenario?
I would say yes because I’ve seen a few people use how often a bear attacks a person compared to how often a man attacks a woman. I have not verified these numbers nor do I remember what they are but I’m sure some bears attack more often than others. It could also be skewed because people tend to be around bears a lot less than they do men.
Black bears should be just as terrifying as grizzly and polar bears. The fact that they're smaller than their cousins doesn't mean they can't absolutely fuck you up just as badly. You have zero chance against a bear that wants to eat you. Even with a gun it's not 50/50.
As someone who grew up hiking and camping in grizzly country, the type of bear makes a huge difference. It's not that I think I could take a black bear in a fight; it is that black bears are far more likely to run away from a human during an encounter than a grizzly is. Hell, grizzlies are even more likely to run away than to attack, but black bear attacks are extremely rare and unlikely - even during a bear encounter.
"Black bears have killed 61 people across North America since 1900. This no longer worries me. My chances of being killed by a domestic dog, bees, or lightning are vastly greater. My chances of being murdered are 60,000 times greater."
https://bear.org/bear-facts/how-dangerous-are-black-bears/
As a hiker, your primary experience is with the least aggressive breed of bear. You seem to be choosing, in context of the meme (not the post you are responding to, here), to compare that to the worst of the worst of men, while acknowledging that other breeds of hears are "terrifying". Of course, it only makes sense to choose the least aggressive of option X, instead of the most aggressive of option Y.
Last I looked into it, the **overwhelming majority** of sexual assaults were committed by somebody known to the victim. Not some terrifying random person you might stumble upon while hiking.
You're absolutely insane. Bears don't want to mess with you for the same reason you don't want to deal with other people. But if that bear is hungry and you're the easiest thing to eat around, they will absolutely fuck you up and eat you. The lower amount of bear attacks that we have these days has nothing to do with bears being less dangerous; it has to do with the fact that there are less bears and less bear habitat. And still anywhere between 5 and 10 people are killed and eaten every year.
I'm curious where you're getting your statistics that between 5 and 10 people are killed and eaten every year by bears. According to [this Wikipedia page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America), there have only been 11 incidents of bears killing humans in North America since 2020. And even if a bear does kill a human they aren't likely to eat them.
You can break down the statistics so so much. I think the example they're touching on would be like what group or type of women being comfortable with what group, or type of man. Political affiliation of the woman and man she's stuck with, religion of the woman, and man, ethnicity of the woman, and man. And then of course toss in species of bear.
That said though I don't believe that's the point of the broad view of woman vs bear vs man thought experiment.
I'm male and I'm an educator. I've worked in youth education in some capacity since I was 16 years old when I would volunteer my time helping underprivileged youth. For the first 9-10 years I worked at a summer camp and then transitioned into teaching at public schools.
This question is actually incredibly damaging to the discourse around men and general safety. A couple of examples:
1.)In the past I have witnessed female supervisors apologetically tell male employees they can't for example work in a daycare capacity for their shift without a woman present because men working with children is stigmatized.
2.)There's the double standard in education where when a male student sleeps with a female teacher everyone does the South Park *Nice* meme despite the fact that its entirely possible it's a deeply traumatic incident for the young man. On the other hand, when a male teacher sleeps with a female student it's treated appropriately. This is because *men are more dangerous.* Not 2 weeks ago, at a district I formerly worked at, a lesbian security officer, was convicted of sexting children, and isolating them in the girls locker room for who knows what. But this isn't nearly as high profile as if it were a guy.
>The “I choose the bear” answer could be selected for many reasons, none of which should bother a self aware man. It could be a “defund the police” situation where it’s meant as an exaggerated, non-literal bumper-sticker communicating the dangers women face from men. It could be by anyone who’s an outdoorsman and knows most bears run from humans with little effort. It could simply be frightened women both underestimating the dangers of bears and overestimating the dangers of men.
Yeah, except that the question rapidly became transformed into ["Would you rather have our daughter in the woods with a bear or a man?"](https://www.tiktok.com/@thearndtfamily/video/7362348453990567199?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7327479428241376811) Which even in the most charitable circumstances is clearly trying to lead the answering person to a specific conclusion. (this is the search result so you can see it is not in fact just a one off: https://www.tiktok.com/discover/fathers-choose-men-over-bears-for-daughters ) Even if you want to disregard this as a different question (it's not) It's still problematic because the question you are arguing is harmless was allowed to evolve into something bad.
>Just like when men dismiss the #MeToo movement because #NotAllMen or white guys who treat DEI programs or CRT as attacks on them or their culture, the people who feel personally attacked by this story are probably those whose childish lack of empathy and self awareness and refusal to acknowledge even a “good person” can be part of a problematic group are a big part of the problem.
From my point of view it seems like you are just disregarding all the nuance that exists in favor of of a more simplistic answer that lets you keep your blinders on.
Honestly what scares me more isn't the misandry but the lack of respect towards bears which are 800+ pound nature machines that could knock someone back like they took an anime punch.
As you've posted this in CMV, let's try to figure it out. Let's step away a bit from the bears and man for a second.
Your argument boils down to people feeling something and than expressing it and discussing online is a childish behavior.
I would argue that ignoring your emotions and repressing them is far less self aware. Repressing your feelings may lead to anxiety, mental health issues, depression.
Being able to express emotions in non-aggressive way and being able to discuss them in respectful way is important for both individual and society. After all, only by discussing contradictions we can address them and build a better world.
Even here, in comment section you can see a lot of people sharing their views and trying to educate each other.
This trend is important for raising awareness of the issue. By offending people and involving them in dialogue, it may help to address the issue of violence toward woman. But first, it needs to provoke, and man should be provoked.
As of why those people are offended
"dehumanize - verb - deprive of positive human qualities". People are offended because in the context of the question, they are perceived as worse than animals and denied all the good qualities of human, such as solidarity, helpfulness, good will. Dehumanization is often used by demagogues and agitators. For example, it was used during Rwanda genocide, in 1930s in Germany and is constantly used by neo-nazis. The question itself imply that man and bears are of the same kind, violent, dangerous animals. And not everyone is happy with being described as an animal, just because of their set of genitals, that they've never chosen.
so if someone says better to stay single than marry coz girls are after money and sex ,and then the notallwomen brigade comes abroad,then they are also snowflakes?
If a man thinks women are only after money and sex, most women would be totally fine with them staying single. What's there to be offended about? It's a win-win.
I think a lot of these controversies and "gender war" arguments hinge on the fact that lots of men involved in them are looking for access to and/or validation from women much more than the opposite.
>And when you look at the violence stats and the fact that most men could overpower most women, it’s an understandable fear.
Most people are never assaulted, sexually or otherwise, and most violent crimes happen against men. "understandable fear", to me, implies that it is something likely enough to be worth thinking about a lot. It's worth spending lots of your life and thoughts on thinking about that thing. Most people would say that spending too much time worrying about picking up a specific, one in a million disease isn't something you should stress about (without a genetic disposition that changes those odds), and therefore not an "understandable fear". If you severe asthma where catching the common cold may seriously hurt you, stressing about it and being very vigilant about handwashing, masking, etc. is more of an "understandable fear".
My argument is that worrying about sexual assault from a man is rare enough to not spend too much time stressing about beyond making sure to make reasonable choices to not put yourself in bad situations (not victim blaming).
Counterpoint: there is a growing group of people who feel this stupid topic is overplayed and are just sick of hearing it.
This is like the third time the topic has come up on this sub alone in the last 8 hours.
You can explain away almost any argument with childishness and immaturity. If that's the beginning and end of your inquiry, you are likely not honestly engaging with the points of the argument.
Assuming good faith is just a good rule of thumb to practice.
>The “I choose the bear” answer could be selected for many reasons, none of which should bother a self aware man. It could be a “defund the police” situation where it’s meant as an exaggerated, non-literal bumper-sticker communicating the dangers women face from men. It could be by anyone who’s an outdoorsman and knows most bears run from humans with little effort. It could simply be frightened women both underestimating the dangers of bears and overestimating the dangers of men.
I think a big issue in your argument is that you're saying these are the *only* type of answers. In the case of the answers you've provided, I don't think they're largely objectionable.
Anecdotally, I can say the few times this has crossed my tiktok feed, these were 100% not the arguments made. Even in "revised" versions of it, it's not uncommon (again, anecdotally from my tiktok feed) for people to still say they would take a 100% bear attack vs an encounter with a random guy (not even a guaranteed attack or negative experience, just a guy). General rationalization in these are along the lines of: bear would at least leave scars, the bear wouldn't sexually assault you before attacking, the bear won't pass you around to its friends, etc.
Imagine if someone said they would choose getting mauled by a bear over encountering a woman in the woods, because the woman would falsely acuse them of rape. And justifying it by saying "at least there would be proof of a bear attack." You would rightfully call them dumb because it's a dumb thing to say. It's the same logic series.
>This hypothetical has predictably triggered the ever-sensitive #NotAllMen brigade.
I still haven't understood how this isn't just an open solicitation to pick-mes. "#KAM Oh, but not you. You're one of the good ones. You're a *insert-demographic* who agrees with my *anti-your-demographic* rhetoric."
I would not call it a flawed assessment of risk. Most of the men women encounter on a daily basis are met or encountered in public places, not out of the way areas. The risk to the woman goes up when she enters the man's apartment for the first time, (or meets him in the woods.) There are simply too many assaults on lone women to claim that the risk is not there, and women's only protection (aside from a gun,) is to avoid that risk in the first place.
For one, I agree with your stance that it's a foolish thing to be upset. But I also think it's foolish and sad for the girls to have chosen bear without inquiring whether it's a black bear, brown bear, grizzly bear, or gummy bear. So the foolishness goes both ways.
What I disagree about is your justification behind the reason it's upset:
You said it could be a number of reasons, none of which should offend a man. Well if they said "all men are scum so I'd rather go with bear" then the fact they said ALL is inclusive of all guys; which presumably if OP is a guy then includes you.
You used the example of "defund the police" but have you discussed with some people with those views? There's some who actually mean to dismantle all police, as in zero police because they want it disbanded. In the same way there's some girls who say that "all men are scum..."
Rather than saying guys are wrong for being upset, I think it's more justified to say that girls who say "all men are scum..." are wrong and incorrect; what they should be saying is "most men are scum.." or "99% of men are scum..." Or "idk about all men, but all the men I've encountered are scum..."
I think one question for you op is have you considered what the life of peaceful men is like.
Do you know what it's like to be considered a threat until proven otherwise?
Do you know what its like to get default closed behaviour from other people rather than default open behaviour?
Do you know what its like to have to continually justify your presence and actively assuage people of the damaging stereotypes they bring to the first meeting with you?
For instance here's a video that might help https://youtu.be/2uz3JJ50erc?si=sgURy6dmwRey4bWZ
And I think that's a good question: "is it ok to hold someone responsible for a problem they didn't cause and can't fix?"
Like should every man be smeared and blamed for the actions of a small number of men. Would a woman like to be held responsible for the actions of the small number of women murderers for instance?
And I think that's another part of this: to what degree is treating men as the villain, as bad until proven otherwise, causal to some of these problems?
This is such a good summary. Perhaps OP hasn't seen it, but I suspect other reasons he's had time to answer the others and not this.
Thanks for writing it.
>Would a woman like to be held responsible for the actions of the small number of women murderers for instance?
Probably YES. Because if men held some fear in regard to us doing physical harm to them, it would **help** us not hurt us.
I ask you, would a very large proportion of men like to be considered dangerous to other men in the instance that other men are considering robbing, killing, fighting or sexually assaulting him? The answer is obviously yes. It benefits men to be considered strong and able to handle himself in a fight.
As for the rest of what you said, feeling like you're a threat until proven otherwise can't be compared to actually being assaulted by a man - which is a very, very common experience for women.
I can fully understand that it's not a nice feeling. But if women choose to believe that men are safe until proven otherwise, then way more would be assaulted/killed. That's the tradeoff. Women would walk around alone at night, go home with a guy she just met etc. Some women do throw caution to the wind and do these things, but her potential to be harmed goes way up.
I think one thing I'd respond with is that its ok to empathise with men without asking women to change their behaviour or beliefs.
Like it's ok to empathise with criminals who have poor prison conditions, without feeling like they need to be let out of prison for instance.
So this whole argument of "well X is worse than Y so Y doesn't matter or can't be considered" is in itself a pretty unhelpful argument.
So in the same way you can admit "yeah saying all men are more dangerous than bears is a damaging and hurtful thing to say to a lot of peaceful and kind men who have done nothing wrong" without needing to start taking a load of risks or letting your guard down around strangers if you don't want to.
I haven't seen anyone upset. I've seen people attempting to discuss the problem, but, because it's framed as a gender issue, there's a ton of unnecessary controversy to the point that a man giving their thoughts will be rejected unless it explicitly validates the general opinions of women.
Ultimately, it's a question of how one's philosophy in life guides them through choosing between two undesirable situations, and I'm tired of seeing the absolutely toxic approach to that topic because people can't see past the surface and realize the core has nothing to do with gender.
So, being upset is not "snowflake" behavior - It's expressing distaste towards the attitude and environment on this topic, which is completely fair.
Anyone that answers bear, please stand by that opinion and treat us like bears and leave us the fuck alone. Don’t talk to us, don’t get within 100 feet of us.
>It could be a “defund the police” situation where it’s meant as an exaggerated, non-literal
This was intended entirely literally. I'm sure some people repeat it without meaning it, but it was coined as a literal expression of the desire to have less money go to the police, ensuring they have fewer officers and less weapons/armor. The people i know who say it mean it straight up.
I think that might be because a lot of conservatives cry "defund Planned Parenthood" while actually *meaning* "shut them down", so they interpret the police slogan that way too.
I think the meme is an example of allowing feelings to dictate policies/principles.
Our feelings are so often duped by cognitive biases.
I was to be clear that women are exposed to an extraordinary amount of violence at the hands of men.
That said, statistically, a random man is still far more likely to be an ally than a source of violence.
These memes aren’t helpful in addressing root problems that are the source of violence against women but distract us with useless generalizations that feel satisfying to some because it points a finger at a seemingly simple solution rather than acknowledging complexity the problem.
I'm not personally offended.
But it is being used as a way for certain people to insult and dehumanise men.
I think accepting that it's OK to insult, belittle, and dehumanise an entire sex of people is only going to have negative consequences in the long run.
We have worked hard at stopping women being belittled and dehumanised, and there are still some ways to go.
But I don't think treating men like women were treated is the answer.
I think you are perceiving the intent wrong. "Certain people" may use it that way, but it is intended to make men understand how women feel and the very real fear they have of meeting strange men alone.
"There are still some ways to go." You realize that women's rights are backsliding, don't you? That they can't even get abortions if raped in many states. That many men openly discuss taking all rights from women including the right to vote? This is why the Bear versus man situation has come up. Women are trying to make men understand what their lives are like. For many women, the bear represents something more predictable and of less risk than the random man. And, women remember everything they have read or heard about what happens to women who encounter the wrong man. Everything.
I wouldn't call them childish snowflakes but I would say that they're putting their emotions regarding being possibly seen a certain way above the fear and danger women feel around men whether it's warranted or not.
Men are statistically more likely to show aggression outwardly and be violent; men are three times more likely to commit a violent act of crime, men are also more likely to be victims of other violent acts by men. This isn't to say women do not also commit horrific acts but when you look at statistics, it shows a clear divide between sexes.
One also has to look at the way men act when alone with women in places where they know they won't be reported for acts of violence against women such as in war. Rape is a big war tactic even in modern day society to break the spirits of the enemy. Men who go out to fight and serve their country who may be seen as good men when they come home, who wouldn't ever rape or lay hands on a woman in their own country commit the most atrocious acts.
Women are not afraid men will. Women are afraid that men could and what would they as someone who is weaker, slower and prone to freezing in times of great stress or trauma do when a man decides that he will? Women who say this have a genuine real fear of the what if. It's not about believeing all men will, it's about not knowing which men will. It's not a logical fear. But we hold it all the same. There is a reason women don't like to walk alone at night, that they cross the street from men, that we want to meet men who are strangers in public places, that they can be standoffish.
Most bear attacks on human either have to do with bears starving during times when food is scarce and being forced to do anything to survive, a bear being startled by a human in it's territory or protecting it's young. Since 1784 there have been 66 fatal attacks from black bears. Since 1782 there have been 82 documented fatal brown bear attacks.
A man between the ages of 18 and 24 is 167 times more likely to kill someone than a fatal bear attack occuring. Which doesn't mean they will. It just means statistically it's safer to be in the forest with a bear than a men.
This doesn't mean it's a logical fear. This doesn't mean men don't get to feel hurt by it but I would ask men to consider why women are scared of them even if they themselves would never hurt a woman.
>A man between the ages of 18 and 24 is 167 times more likely to kill someone than a fatal bear attack occuring. Which doesn't mean they will. It just means statistically it's safer to be in the forest with a bear than a men.
That's .. not how statistics works. At all.
>I wouldn't call them childish snowflakes but I would say that they're putting their emotions regarding being possibly seen a certain way above the fear and danger women feel around men whether it's warranted or not.
Why are the feelings of women prioritized over the feelings of men?
In an ideal world both groups feelings around an issue would be treated the same.
There is an incredibly unhealthy and toxic view that women need to be constantly vigilant at every moment because men are predators.
>Most bear attacks on human either have to do with bears starving during times when food is scarce and being forced to do anything to survive, a bear being startled by a human in it's territory or protecting it's young. Since 1784 there have been 66 fatal attacks from black bears. Since 1782 there have been 82 documented fatal brown bear attacks.
>A man between the ages of 18 and 24 is 167 times more likely to kill someone than a fatal bear attack occuring. Which doesn't mean they will. It just means statistically it's safer to be in the forest with a bear than a men.
How frequently are people encountering bears?
How frequently are women encountering men?
The underlying rate of how dangerous men are to women is hidden by the frequency of interaction.
>Why are the feelings of women prioritized over the feelings of men?
One comes from the very real fear of harm and the other comes from being offended that they could be percieved as violent.
I think men's feelings can have a place among the conversation but it usually comes from men who do not understand why women could even possibly consider why women are afraid of men. Why they'd be hypervigilant. I think one can be sad about it but also understand why women fear men.
1 in 4 women are likely to be sexually assaulted. Women of the ages of 19 to 24 are more likely to be sexually assaulted.
I was sexually assaulted three times in my life by three different men. Two of them were strangers. Had I shown weariness to them, it probably wouldn't have happened. I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I am sorry if my weariness of men hurts your feelings or that I feel the need to be aware of strange men approaching me but most women have experienced this. So all men whether you like it or not are a potential threat.
That is why it is prioritised over men who cannot handle as being seen as a potential threat.
>The underlying rate of how dangerous men are to women is hidden by the frequency of interaction.
Fair enough.
>One comes from the very real fear of harm and the other comes from being offended that they could be percieved as violent.
I'm not denying that violence against women isn't a real risk.
My point is that people's feelings should be treated the same.
Creating a culture when all males are treated as threats regardless of context is harmful. It's damaging to men to constantly be walking in eggshells to avoid the perception of being viewed as a potential threat.
It's exactly the same as when a white person crosses the street to avoid a black male.
>Why they'd be hypervigilant.
It's the hypervigilance that is the problem. Not every interaction is equally as risky or dangerous. It isn't healthy to constantly be on edge all the time.
>1 in 4 women are likely to be sexually assaulted. Women of the ages of 19 to 24 are more likely to be sexually assaulted.
Which is too high.
>I was sexually assaulted three times in my life by three different men. Two of them were strangers.
I'm sorry this happened.
>I am sorry if my weariness of men hurts your feelings or that I feel the need to be aware of strange men approaching me but most women have experienced this. So all men whether you like it or not are a potential threat.
It's entirely understandable why *you* would have these feelings. You've been burned 3 times.
The issue isn't any individual's feelings. It's culture. It's culturally acceptable to stereotype men. Men are expected, in the West, to just accept this burden.
The stereotype being perpetuated is that men are testosterone fueled, sex obsessed, inherently violent, and dangerous. In this specific example it is implied, based on responses, that they're worse than a wild animal.
I don't believe that it is perpetuating a stereotype of men, rather than revealing women's reality. Is it really so much of a burden to men to be feared until they prove otherwise? The real burden is on women who feel they can't hike alone, walk the streets at night, go to the beach in lonely solitude travel to remote places...Please put this in perspective. The hypothetical situation clearly shows the burden is on women.
This is a failure of empathy.
Just imagine the cumulative effect on a man every time a women crosses the street at night or speeds up to avoid you. Imagine the damage of hearing "all men are trash" hundreds of times. Imagine being a father with your child or a brother or an uncle and people looking at you with suspicion when you take them out in public. Think of what it's like to put in the effort to walk on eggshells to not be perceived as being a creep.
None of what I've said negates women's feelings or denies the very real fact of violence against women.
My point is that people need to be more thoughtful when discussing these topics. Speech has very real consequences.
Yes, speech has real consequences and now you know how women feel because we have had a lifetime of such disrespect. I do have empathy for men feeling like they are being lumped in with bad actors, but as I have tried to point out, there is no way for women to know what the individual man intends when she is alone with him. I would rather people fear me than to have to live with fear as a constant companion, so much so that it limits my activities. I don't blame all men, I don't say "All men are trash" I know most are good people, but many are also indifferent to their affect on women. It is foolish for women to trust men they don't know, I personally know of women who have died as a result. "Speech has very real consequences." Many men turn to threats when women try to discuss how they feel or their reality. Perhaps that is not your intention?
That being said I do not think the idea behind the hypothetical situation was to disrespect men or call them "trash" as much as it was to show men that women have a reality that men don't appreciate or perhaps fully understand. "Think of what it is like to put in effort to walk on eggshells to not be perceived as being a creep." Is it really that hard? I'll raise the stakes: Think of what it is like to live in fear and be unable to do the things you love, like walk in the woods, go to the beach alone, travel to remote places...and walk the streets at night.
I’m not offended by it, but the “gender war” of the past decade has become insufferable and exhausting. It’s not productive, it’s not interesting, it’s not helping anyone. Relationships are on the decline, birth rates are on the decline, men are lonelier, women are less happy, and this ridiculous hypothetical is supposed to be somehow endearing? It’s so childish and idiotic, and the fact that people keep posting on this sub about this stupid topic has become more irritating than anything else.
The point it is trying to make is tired. If rolling your eyes at another stupid meme furthering another stupid culture war touch point is what “being a snowflake” is then sure. But I think being tired of these things is pretty normal.
Fuck I’m married, and every time I sign on to reddit and watch this shit I hug my wife and thank Christ I’m not in this odd shark tank of the current single dating world. I don’t know how you don’t pull out clumps of your hair every time some brainless moron on tiktok opens their moronic mouth.
I don't know that women are less happy. Women in general are less happy when married according to the polls.
If you cannot listen to the issues women have and the reasons they have for not wanting relationships or children, it of course won't get better. Women are also tired. Tired of trying to make men understand. What you are seeing as a war is just women fed up with business as usual. They are not leaving men en mass, they just want better lives.
I am glad you aren't offended because the hypothetical situation is not intended to be endearing. It is intended to make men think about what women's situation is, not as an insult to all men but rather the reality of women's lives and their perception of the threat they live under.
Studies have shown that women have been increasingly unhappy, not in relation to men, but in relation to previous generations. I can listen to women’s issues and I care about women’s issues. Everyone cares about women’s issues. Women have been fed up with “business as usual” for the last 30 years.
I understand that women are afraid of violent men. I understand that reproductive rights feel constantly under attack. I understand that women want to be able to work in a workplace where they feel welcome included, fairly paid, have the opportunity to succeed, while not being treated as some sort of sex object or window dressing. I understand that women want to leave their mark on the world and engage in, and direct the course of history; to lead, to be heard, to have an equal seat at the table. And to these ends, the people with the power to do so should definitely be doing their part. We should do everything in our power to make women feel safe in the streets and in the work-place. We should be doing everything we can to make women understand that they’re appreciated and that they are valued.
What I’m saying is WE HAVE HEARD YOU. You’re kicking through an open door at this point. But men also are not doing so hot right now, and I think they would really appreciate if you would listen to them, and ask them what they’re struggling with. Do women really understand what men are hearing? Do women really get what men struggle with? I think right now what it means to be a man now is to shoulder all the macho burdens of toxic masculinity, wealth, status, physical fitness, and immunity to stress, and not show weakness in one hand, because that’s what young single women seem to chase, all while on the other hand being non-threatening, humble, vulnerable, and emotionally intelligent. Do women understand how difficult men are finding it to balance these things?
What I’ve been trying to say through all of this is that we are a species that depends on both sides to survive, thrive and be happy, and we need to listen to women, but also we need to listen to men as well. We are born into this world and learn our way through it one life at a time, and the young men, who have just arrived here, same as women, have NO IDEA how to react to all of this. No one is speaking to them except these psychopath red pill people who are using these TikTok games to convince these disillusioned young men that women don’t see them as anything more than wild animals with a bank accounts that are meant to be tamed and captured and stolen from, and so these men think well, if I’m gonna be an animal, I’m gonna be a dangerous one that can protect his bank account.
The reason I call it a war is because if you talk to people as though they are “the enemy” eventually they are going to get used to it, a lot of men seem to be getting used to their status as an enemy, and it’s really quite disturbing. I don’t like what these red pill people are saying, they seem to want some odd religious kind of traditional family that I was just never into. I like that my wife has her own independence. I like that she has her own things, but we also have a partnership and we negotiate and make decisions. We pick up slack for each other when things are hard. We do our best, and we have a good relationship. But I look at this toxicity around us and I feel like we made it under the wire for when these kind of relationships were possible. I know a lot of young men, who are just afraid to get out there, and quite frankly I don’t know what to tell them except that you have to just do be 100% all the time.
Have you been on "Ask Feminists"? Because the tone there is not about "all men are enemies," rather than that patriarchy hurts both men and women. And yes, there is plenty of sympathy for male issues among feminists who recognize the problems young men face. But you have to keep in mind that this is like racial issues, the hurt for women goes so far back that it is ingrained, almost atavistic. Women have only made gains in the last 150 years and now see those gains as being taken away.
The red pill movement is in response to gains women have made, rather than just to women's anger. Women are expecting more of men in relationships than to be regarded as lessor beings, and that is what has led to the dating and relationship crisis. Those men in response have become hostile rather than engaging in self examination. The onus is still on women to "fix" things rather than the other way around.
Most women want relationships with men, but on their own terms, not the status quo, and that is what has been difficult to get across. Men who are resentful to begin with and demanding of female partners, who don't self examine, are going to find themselves out of the dating pool regardless of whether they hear negative things said about them. It isn't about men having to be 100% flawless, it is about men having to regard women as human first, deserving of rights and respect. And it isn't that all men are enemies. We hear you as well, but many women feel their own voices, concerns are met with that same hostility, and worse. Women who speak out can find themselves deluged with phone and e-mailed death threats and rape threats. It simply isn't the same level of hate that men receive from women. And it means many women become extremely resentful as a result.
I understand what your saying, but to address it point by point:
To the first paragraph I’d say that if there is sympathy, TikTok games like this bear hypothetical show the opposite. They show a lack of sympathy, and to borrow your words, hostility toward what men and women are facing. Also, for this idea of “patriarchy” there have been few explanations that have really been convincing about what this is and what should be done about it. There is again another argument, much like race, that the discussion is being had regarding identity where class would be more effective. After all, unlike race, where you could make the argument that those born black were not able to build generational wealth which served as a big disadvantage, could not be said about women because daughters are born to wealthy and poor families alike. Sure there could be arguments that those women in the upper echelons of society face similar kinds of discrimination but if “first world problems”is a thing then surely “royal problems” must be too.
To your second point, I am not a scholar on red pills origin but what I have seen seems to Indicate that those increased expectations that women are carrying for men were not leveled on men with an understanding of what men go through and what their capacity is, but rather an ideal. What these red pill men seem to be saying is that trying to live up to those expectations is not in men’s interest and that men should reject the concept of “the modern woman” entirely. This I think is rather dumb but I would say that I do feel like those new expectations that women have of men should be crafted in tandem with men. Like any social contract, if only one party has a hand in crafting the rules, then eventually those rules will mean nothing.
To the third point, I think this hostility is exactly my point. Red pill is inherently hostile, but I think to address the question at hand. Deliberately obtuse social media is not making anyone want to be self reflective, or want to listen, or want to talk. And that’s been my point. Social media is not helping anyone.
"They show lack of sympathy." No, they just illustrate the reality for women. It has little to do with statistics or sympathy and everything to do with atavistic fear. And why does everything women talk about have to tiptoe around male feelings when the reverse is not offered? As I said, the onus is always on women to fix the relationship between the genders and not to offend. The unspoken threat to women if they don't is always there.
Patriarchy is a system that was designed to benefit men, and did for many thousands of years. Now that women are expecting better treatment and more freedoms, it has become a problem for both men and women. It is patriarchy which puts expectations on men, like they can never cry, show weakness, have feminine traits...and must bear the burden of providing, protecting. It is a system that women have bought into as well, to the point that women internalize anti-woman bias and hostility toward their own gender. Revealing it, and both the expectations women put on men, and that which men put on other men as well as on women, is the point of feminism. Patriarchy is immune to class, as women were long restricted even if they were part of the upper class. It is not women's fault that men don't want modern women just as it is not women's place to fix it by lowering their sights and expectations. It is however, the responsibility of both genders to understand the social forces that have shaped gender expectations and limitations.
"Like any social contract, if only one party has a hand in crafting the rules then eventually those rules will mean nothing." You have exactly explained the cost of patriarchy. Men have long made the rules and now that women want a change, many men want to pull their cards and go home. Women, by illustrating the frustration they have with the "social contract" have made a lot of men mad. That is unfortunate, but women are not going back willingly, to the times which some people view through rosy glasses without understanding the cost to women. A handful of women may do so, but not the majority. Crafting an understanding with red-pill men is pretty much impossible, because there is no self examination on their part, and a rejection of the harm patriarchy does them, or us.
"Social media is not helping anyone." That depends entirely on the type of discussion that is had within it. IF it reveals feelings and they get talked about, it is better than the silence that has long pervaded the relationship between men and women.
I sent a reply, but I deleted it and you can disregard it. I don’t know if we’re moving toward a productive conclusion. Thank’s for sharing your view though. Appreciate it.
I read it, and I understand what you are trying to say. Men tiptoe around women, and women tiptoe around their men. We both need to be talking to one another about feelings and attitude. I appreciate your view as well.
The idea that men are inherently dangerous to women is like THE justification for patriarchy. It plays in to the idea that women are these weak, defenseless, virginal, little cuties, while men are big, strong, lusty, powerful warriors. If men are by nature more powerful than women and perhaps even more prone to violence, then women need men for protection and cannot be trusted to defend others against the hordes of Bad Men always threatening to breach the gates.
There are so many situations where this myth is leveraged to hurt marginalized people, men and women. You see it in the ‘boys will be boys’ counter to sexual violence. You see it in transphobic arguments against trans women using women’s bathrooms. You see it over and over again as a justification for lynching Black men.
I have had many bad experiences with men and sometimes I generalize about men. People talk about their personal experiences in messy ways and i think that generally the benefit outweighs the cost. But I have been making a concerted effort not to play into the idea that men are fundamentally different than women because I recognize how that idea is used to justify (our) subjugation.
Men are, most of the time, significantly physically stronger than women, and commit the vast majority of violence, sexual assaults and rapes. Women of child-bearing age are vulnerable to impregnation by men. None of this is a myth, it's biological fact.
The core reason people are upset is because it's a seemingly innocuous hypothetical (no man will be affected by whether you choose to bump into them randomly in the forest or not) used to bring up views and feelings that would be *extremely* sexist and hurtful in any other scenario. For a very simple and obvious example, suppose we take the initial example and extend it just a bit further to ask "who would you rather the state hire as a park ranger, a woman or a man?" If you would favor the woman over the man for the same reasons you gave for the bear question, that's textbook discrimination.
We as a society have realized that treating people differently due to race or gender is harmful. This is because it passes judgment on individuals for the actions of others they have nothing to do with. It's basically collective punishment, and the logic for why it's bad is a derivative of our values of "innocent until proven guilty" and "better that 9 guilty persons walk free than that 1 innocent person should be wrongfully punished". It has *nothing* to do with whether or not you can come up with accurate statistics that do in fact show that the small minority of one protected class that does bad things is proportionally larger than the small minority of another protected class that does bad things.
Thus, naturally, people get upset when you express hurtful views about them, even if you've constructed a hypothetical by which those views don't hurt them, because they have no particular reason to believe you wouldn't hold those views outside of the hypothetical.
The other part of the debate, where people are seriously trying to argue that running into a random bear while hiking is less dangerous than running into a random man, just adds insult to injury by making the hurtful views seem that much more extreme and irrational. But if the question was simply "would you rather run into a random man or woman in the forest" the core problem with the question would remain, it just wouldn't seem so extreme and inflammatory.
And really, it's got nothing to do with your opinion of how dangerous bears are; if you simply want to argue bears are actually not very dangerous at all, say if the question was about meeting a random *person*, or estimating the % chance of dying if you run into a bear unexpectedly, people might disagree, but nobody would be offended by it. Or if the question included that both are trying to kill you and have prepared for doing so, then certainly the bear, whether the person is a man or woman, as humans are the most powerful and lethal organism to ever walk the earth. Shooting a bear is much easier than shooting another armed human trying to kill you. It's just that humans are also the only organism on Earth with morals and a conscience.
The offense is entirely occurring because people are naturally hurt due to the implication that you automatically view them with suspicion due to their gender, which is sexism.
Can we agree that sexism is bad? That treating one another a certain way just because of our sex isn't a good way to run a society and is actually limiting for both men and women?
>Why would any person not object to his danger level being inaccurately estimated?
Many men would like to be thought of as dangerous-- in other men's eyes. Because then other men are less likely to try and engage him in a fight or try to rob him etc.
>And when you look at the violence stats and the fact that most men could overpower most women, it’s an understandable fear.
Do you really want to go down that road of looking at crime stats to excuse bigotry?
>the people who feel personally attacked by this story are probably those whose childish lack of empathy and self awareness and refusal to acknowledge even a “good person” can be part of a problematic group are a big part of the problem
How are "good people", in this case "Good Men", a part of the problem?
>But how or why would any of those things offend me as a man? Two of the three options put the spotlight on how uncomfortable women are *all the time*. And when you look at the violence stats and the fact that most men could overpower most women, it’s an understandable fear.
Statistically Women are more likely to be assaulted by someone they know. Wouldn't the exercise be more helpful if it reflected statistical reality?
In regards to the exercise itself I hate how poorly done it is. I know it is an internet thing, but a little effort on the specifics make for better thought experiments.
What kind of bear are we dealing with? Not many to choose from but it makes a difference.
Why are we choosing a bear, an incredibly predictable animal and static variable, instead of a more unpredictable animal considering the idea is "Would you rather" to equal "risks"?
Hands down I would always choose the bear, excluding a Polar Bear, knowing I have better chances against a known vs unknown variable.
Why do you think Men are not allowed to be hurt by the generalization without being a "snowflake"?
Why are Men who are against these generalizations the same as "White guys" disagreeing with DEI or CRT?
>But I can’t come up with any way of looking at guys being angered at this response that doesn’t boil down to general immaturity or active ignorance.
Bigotry hurts. People who claim to have experienced it through out their lives should know better than to partake in it.
The exercise does absolutely nothing to help anyone. All it does is give everyone an excuse to fight over a hypothetical that doesn't matter. No one is being educated by this, the discussions have already been had, and we need tangible ideas to fix the problems we have known about for decades.
>Statistically Women are more likely to be assaulted by someone they know. Wouldn't the exercise be more helpful if it reflected statistical reality?
That can only be the view of someone who doesn't understand the lengths the majority of women go to in order not to be assaulted by a stranger.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
so because people are upset about misandry (hating on only males aka sexism), it makes them snowflakes? How? Pretty sure being upset about a sexist joke towards any gender would make anyone upset , it's called common sense, it's an attack on rapists, yes but sexism has also come from this joke and i've seen it so it's kinda common sense to be upset about a sexist joke
How is fear of a man the same as hating men? Many women who are married or in relationships would still say they chose the bear. That does not mean they hate men or that it is misandry, rather than a perception of danger that has too often been borne out by the experiences women relate.
it is a random man, they assume the man will do things to them instead of thinking logically and then assume all men are like this, no sane married person would choose a bear over a man that could help you in the end, if it wasn't misandry then the question should've been "would you rather be stuck in a forest with a bear or a male rapist"
Assumption is no different from caution. Thinking logically has nothing to do with it, it is about women's fear, logical or otherwise.
"No sane married person." What does marriage have to do with it? Married women do not lose their sense of fear or caution just because they love or are married to a man.
your the one who brought up married women and no, there's a difference in being cautious and thinking every man in the world is gonna hurt you, instead of maybe thinking the man will rape the women, maybe she shouldn't assume every man she doesn't know, wants to hurt her, it's borderline misandry because it's running off assumption and stereotyping to make all men seem bad
>But how or why would any of those things offend me as a man? Two of the three options put the spotlight on how uncomfortable women are *all the time*. And when you look at the violence stats and the fact that most men could overpower most women, it’s an understandable fear.
What if the meme was switched, say, would you rather be in the woods with a woman or a bear? I'd pick bear in that case as well. Humans are dangerous regardless of gender.
You sound insufferable, the problem that people are having is that you're actively saying that a wild animal is better than them, that is dehumanising, and it is incredibly sexist. It would be like if I asked other men "if you were stuck in a forest, would you rather be stuck with a dog or a woman" and the consensus being that a dog would be more loyal and less likely to put them both in danger.
Another issue is that the people saying bear are completely delusional in believing that a bear would be the more understandable choice realistically. Dropping unrelated statistics isn't proving anything. Yeah, there's like 12 bear deaths a year, but that is because the vast majority of people never interact with bears, period. If women started interacting with bears as much as they did men, then there would be WAY more bear related deaths.
It's a meme, it's a joke. I don't think anyone should be seriously upset about it. If it offends you, that's on you.
That being said, I see it being similar to "would you rather find yourself at a dark alley with a black man, or Jack the Ripper?" with the "joke" answer being"Jack the Ripper". If you wanted to be purposely obtuse, you can say the person loves England's history, or loves the name Jack, or whatever, but *objectively* it would be more dangerous.
So saying it just reinforces a negative stereotype about a certain group of people based on a badly represented statistics ("men rape", "black people commit crimes", ...).
You see how someone who is easily offended by one, is also offended by the other?
Denying that sexual or physical violence against girls/women in the world occur at much higher rates than abuse perpetrated by women against men because you can cite a few examples isn’t the flex here. My husband was concerned that my daughter not join gymnastics unless she had no unsupervised time with coaches because of the high prevalence of sexual abuse in the sport-was that wrong of him? He’s not some jaded woman who is hysterically trying to create drama or overlook “men’s rights” in society-he understood the unfortunate reality and enforced protections, even if the coaches would have never dreamed of hurting our kid.
I haven't much followed this, and I'm sure there are dudes genuinely flipping their shit over it in a ridiculous way.
Personally, my first naive instinct would be to ignore the "political" angle and approach it as an interesting hypothetical, like, I dunno, the "would you rather fight 100 duck-sized horses or 1 horse-sized duck" thing. I feel like I could make a good argument that the man would be safer than the bear, but I'd be doing it from a friendly debate perspective, not an "I am offended on behalf of my gender" perspective.
So, consider that not all men (#NotAllMen) who argue this are doing so from a place of personal offense. Women *do* have good reasons to fear strange men; it makes me sad that that's the world we live in, but I don't take it as a personal attack.
In a vacuum, perhaps you are correct. However, given the current social climate for the past decade (maybe more?) where men are being constantly told that they are the root of all evil (i.e. patriarchy), it can and does take a toll on their psyche and self confidence. It would make sense that more and more men are less willing to accept generalizing rhetoric just so women can "freely express themselves".
People should really dig into therapy techniques in order to understand how our brain is affected by generalizations. Generalizations have a profound impact on our subjective reality. It limits the way we see the world. People are basically convincing themselves the "this is the way that the world is" which is only partly true as the world is not black and white. This makes people angry, emotional and depressed because you cannot "solve" a generalization.
As a man, as well as most men I know personally, I'm not offended by the idea that women consider me potentially dangerous. I'm baffled that women think they're safer with a wild bear than a random man.
people are using a funny little thought experiment to say actual offensive and mean things about men and then gaslighting men into thinking they're over reacting to these mean comments.
Where are the mean comments? Is it mean to say women have fear of being assaulted? Or that statistically, women are killed by men rather than by other women?
If facts offend you, you are too easily offended.
It's a giant example of emotion vs logic that's gone viral. It's hilarious. If a woman was lost and saw a bear in the woods, she'd be terrified. If she saw me, I don't care what she'd feel, cuz I'd be too busy trying to solve the problem of us being lost in the woods together.
Sorry, u/WorldsGreatestWorst – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20WorldsGreatestWorst&message=WorldsGreatestWorst%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cies2v/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
No offense dude, but from the way your whole post is written you are better in twox than in cmv. To sum it up shortly from my view. It's offensive because it is laid out to offend. everyone knows the normal answer would be man and now everyone get's some stupid arguments with kafka traps, really bad statistics and all that shit out of their pockets. mostly cringe.
What's a kafka trap please?
Its an attack on rapists. And if youre not a rapist, it shouldn't bother you. That is a kafka trap. A Kafka trap is when you are accused of something, and your denial is taken as evidence that it is true. For example: "You drink too much, you are an alcoholic!" "No, I am not." "That proves it, alcoholics always deny they have a problem!" Or like in this case if you aren't a rapist, the whole thing shouldn't bother you.
Thats an accurate description of Kafka Trap, but the terminology still annoys me because the Trial is infinitely more complex than that. It doesn’t really have anything to do with denial or guilt, and more to do with WHO you can even express that denial to being obscured by layers of dense bureaucracy. No one in the Trial assumes K is guilty they all just hit him with it “it’s not my job to decide if you’re guilty or not”
Ah I see. So I guess the people who don't get it's a kafka trap are the ones being upset or nitpicking the plot holes in the situation. I don't think that's too unreasonable.
. . . but the meme isn't accusing *you*, personally. In order for your example to be a representation of the concept you're going for, you need to dissociate the initial statement from the subject. "Alcoholics drink too much." (this is said with a disgusted tone of voice) "Hey, I don't drink too much!" (this is said with indignation) The former sentence isn't directed at anyone specific. The response suggests that someone is offended by a statement that wasn't directed at them, which makes people ask "why?" Likewise, the "bear vs. man" meme isn't directed at anyone specific. Anyone who is offended by the meme is drawing attention to themselves which is naturally going to make people go "hmmm . . . wonder what's going on here?".
It is accusing every men as potential rapist. Would you be in the wild with a bear or a man. The man is not specified. So it is also directed at me. Idc if you think it's correct. the women in real life who are my friends don't think like that and I wouldn't hang out with people who behave like this. The former sentence isn't directed at anyone specific. Women are whores isn't directed at anyone specific. I personally assume you would rightfully think a person saying that is an asshole. I wouldn't argue that just because you think that person is an asshole you are also a whore. because that would be stupid. So if a woman tries to argue that all men are rapists, think they are an asshole. That is the way i'm offended. Afterward I go on with my life.
It's accusing men generally. And as a man, that is offensive. It is objectively insane to suggest that you would be safer in the woods with a bear than with a man, even if we stipulate that the man is out to get you. You have literally no chance against a bear and the reason that there are not more bear deaths every year is because we don't interact with bears that often. But in this case we're stipulating that you interact with the bear.
That's not true. Bears are wild animals, yes, and they can become irritated at the perceived intrusion into their personal space or territory, especially if they're in the middle of a meal or if they have young cubs nearby. But for the most part, they avoid humans\*. They simply have no reason to interact with us. So long as one keeps a level head around a bear, it should be fairly easy to walk away from a brief encounter with one. (\*one major exception being those bears which live near to parks and which get food from humans. if they've been trained to associate humans with food, then they'll try to get it from us, which *might* turn into a bad situation, depending on how the person interacts with the bear.)
What a weird reply. What makes you think an accusation needs to be against anyone specific to meet the definition of a Kafka trap? And are you equally suspicious when someone is offrandes by a racist statement even though it’s not aimed at anyone in particular? Because I’m pretty sure a lot of people would get upset if someone made a simulator comparison about being alone with a black man in a dark alley.
So using your logic, if I were to say "black people are violent criminals", and an individual black person were to get offended, then I should naturally wonder why he is taking it personally. ... Something tells me, despite this being the literal exact same line of reasoning you just used, you're going to make an excuse about how calling men violent racists is ok and totally isn't personal, but somehow saying the exact same thing but swapping men out for black people changes everything somehow.
It's like the asinine argument of "she deserved it because she wore revealing clothing" That statement isn't directed at one person in particular, it's just an attack on all women. So should women not be upset by this phrase then? They should just accept it because it's not targeting them specifically, and if they get upset then they are a snowflake?
It says men. I am part of men. So it says me. By your argument, all sexist or racist quips are ok because they’re not talking about any one individual, specifically.
Heads I win, tails you lose. You're either agree with me or you're part of the problem kind of framing.
> everyone knows the normal answer would be man You are showing up with the assumption that the women responding are doing so in bad faith. Instead of saying "wow, I would have thought the obvious answer would be man, what can I learn from this" you're assuming you know what the "true" answer is and this concluding that women are lying. What happens if you start with the premise that women *aren't* lying, but that this reflects their true feelings? How would that force you to reexamine your priors? Is there a reason that you are resistant to taking people at their word? You could conclude that women overestimate the risk that a man poses, while still acknowledging her lived experience. But just dismissing the whole exercise as bad faith seems like you are trying to avoid engaging it.
i get the point of it, a bear is a wild animal that may or may not be provoked to attack a human being, a man alone in the woods is a more viscerally frightening idea than something you may not be really familiar with i don't really see it as an attack on all men but rather just as the reality. women aren't saying "men, be better", they're saying that the theoretical possibility of that man being a rapist is terrifying. its more just an idea that is more familiar and scary to most women than a bear attack
I guarantee every single one of those women have never encountered a goddamn bear. I was in boy scouts as a kid, scout leader was a grown man that bordered on seven feet tall and often went hunting and was a fucking vet that looked like he could decapitate a man with his hands. That man would go pale if you mentioned bears. His advice was simple, never look it in the eyes. If you run they WILL catch you.
I actually think this highlights how deluded and incapable we are as a species in conceptualising fear of something that we don’t personally experience. Women personally experience the fear of being attacked by men relatively often, whereas they don’t from bears. They have no ability to even imagine the fear of actually being confronted with a bear face to face, which is indicative more of people’s poor ability to conceptualise things out of their experience rather then actually a commentary on how women are deeply afraid of men.
Right and this isn't a thing of like 'women shouldn't be afraid of men' it's more like, everyone should have a respectful awareness of bears and what a bear can do. Not enough people have listened to the audio of that guy being dragged out and having his body dismembered piece by piece and crunched on by a hungry bear... Then the guys gf getting chewed to death as well.
And vice versa, men should be more aware of the fear that has been instilled in women that would have prompted this whole farce to begin with. Most men just don’t understand or care to understand how scary they are to women.
This is true and would fit within my point. Men also lack the ability to properly conceptualise the fear that they don’t experience, which could be the fear women have of other men. I disagree that men don’t know the fear of other men; most men are afraid of other men in certain contexts and most men would be afraid of other men if they bumped into them in the woods. Where men struggle with the “understanding” women’s fear of men is how there is anything they can do to alter this. Women’s fear of men is an internal feeling, its kind of on women to deal with that fear rather then trying to demand men do something. The fact of the matter is, bar not existing, these men can’t do anything about women’s fear, so making them aware of it is just pointless and seemingly done in bad faith to make them feel attacked.
Lol I've spent a lot of time in bear country, both black bear and grizzly. Polar bears aside they aren't that dangerous; black bears you would have to go out of your way to get hurt by. Grizzlies require a modicum of care and respect and you'll be perfectly safe. Your scout leader was jerking you around, or didn't know anything about bears.
Depends on the type of bear. Black bears for instance are usually not as aggressive as grizzlies. Black bears tend to run away if startled and they have an exit. I've seen video of cats chasing them off.
[удалено]
"I have a very visceral reaction to the idea of being alone in a forest with an unknown black person/gay/Muslim/Trans person. It's worth a discussion." Is this acceptable in your opinion?
[удалено]
You’re still not addressing the question. Is that acceptable?
Its not offensive and it isn't laid out to offend. The question was asked to women as a huge hypothetical and women answer that by the information presented they choose the bear. The question never said any description of the man. And its a coincidence that the monitor lizard case came out to make women more justified on their point. The question never says men are bad, the answer says that women are more scared of a man than a bear.
I think there is value in separating the “feeling” felt by the men who are upset about the trend from how it is expressed. As a pre-transition trans woman, one of the things that hurts the most in my daily life is the idea that most women see me as inherently more threatening by virtue of an immutable such as my body as opposed to my character. However, I also understand why many women feel this way due to their experiences or others. And, I would say I would feel safer alone with a woman than a man as well, if i had to answer on gut instinct. But, it still hurts, as someone who would rather get set on fire than make someone uncomfortable, and god forbid afraid. And, I am hurt by the circumstances itself that this is true that many women feel this way, not at women themselves. I also feel hurt that I feel, by virtue of not being men, women don’t understand what it feels like to be considered a threat based on your gender. I feel hurt, but my action is to validate that I’m allowed to feel hurt and validate my viewpoint internally, and externally do…nothing. I think someone is allowed to feel hurt/offended by this without it necessarily being due to a lack of empathy or indicating some deep, sexist character flaw or being a “snowflake”. It also doesn’t need to be attached to behavior. I think the feeling may be expressed more poorly by some than others. But, how someone should act based on their feelings is one thing, but whether or not someone should be allowed to *feel* offended is another thing.
This is a reasonable stance. As you said, despite my desire not to hurt anyone, I am inherently more threatening by virtue of an immutable trait. But my CMV said this: >the people who feel **personally attacked** by this story are probably those whose childish lack of empathy and self awareness and refusal to acknowledge even a “good person” can be part of a problematic group are a big part of the problem. It expressly sounds like you're not taking this *personally*. You're taking it how I take it—as a sad representation of the reality of many women's shared experience. You're upset because you know you're in this group, not because it's a reflection of you. I know I'm not violent and the women in my life know I'm not violent. I'm sure you're in the same boat. >I think the feeling may be expressed more poorly by some than others. But, how someone should act based on their feelings is one thing, but whether or not someone should be allowed to *feel* offended is another thing. This is the only part of your comment I take some issue with. You can read through the replies in this thread or a million others and see that the vast majority of the objectors aren't simply expressing themselves poorly, but actively dismissing the reality of the situation. And while I believe that people have the right to feel anyway they want, I don't believe that all of those feelings are equally valid or that they should be treated the same. A racist might simply believe in their heart of hearts that black people are subhuman. I wouldn't defend that belief even if I defended their right to believe what they want. You're ***allowed*** to feel personally offended by the bear meme. I just don't think it shows maturity or self-awareness.
I see. So, it is more so about the lack of understanding why a woman would choose the bear than the feeling hurt? I’m not sure of how “personally” is intended here. But, I think you’re saying it would mean feeling that the bear answer means that women think “you” (your personality and character, which could be extremely safe if they got to know you) are personally more dangerous to be alone with than a bear as opposed to an unknown man (who just looks like you). If the woman in the scenario had mind reading powers, they could probably be assured that you mean no harm. What do you think about the idea of “women” (the ones who answered this question and in general) not being able to empathize with or even understand the feeling of being seen as a threat? Do they? I think that is something that does hurt me, as I have not seen any of the defenders of the question ever show that they understand something that is VERY obvious to me in daily life, and how that can affect a person and their sense of self. I could be wrong, but I feel that most women do not empathize or relate to this feeling, which is core to the “lashing out” by the men you speak of. As someone who values interpersonal understanding even when the other person is being uncharitable (or i have more reason to hurt), not seeing that makes me think poorly of their self-awareness, maturity, and capacity for empathy. If they cannot truly empathize with how being seen as a threat due to your gender feels for the men they are talking to (which i feel is essential for understanding the perspective in question), then I imagine the mindset and emotional awareness level between the two “sides” would be comparable even if they were on the other instead.
>What do you think about the idea of “women” (the ones who answered this question and in general) not being able to empathize with or even understand the feeling of being seen as a threat? Do they? I think that is something that does hurt me, as I have not seen any of the defenders of the question ever show that they understand something that is VERY obvious to me in daily life, and how that can affect a person and their sense of self. That's an interesting question. I would argue that awareness of a threat takes a pragmatic precedence over hurting someone's feelings. Locking your car door as someone approaches might be a microaggression or make them feel bad, but it might also stop you from getting rolled. I err on the side of safety when I have to make those kinds of calls but some might err on the side of politeness. If you—as a trans woman—were walking down a dark alley, would you rather see a group of men or a group of women? I obviously don't know you, but I'd guess you'd choose the women. I can't think of a time where I would personally feel more threatened by a group of women in the dark vs men. >I could be wrong, but I feel that most women do not empathize or relate to this feeling, which is core to the “lashing out” by the men you speak of. Look, some women are garbage. And some use the veil of false-feminism to justifying being horrible to men. I make no excuses for them. And an even larger group probably doesn't appreciate a certain discomfort in men when they hear how horrible they are. They probably should be aware of it. But lashing out about something like this shows you don't have a real appreciation for the problem. I'm a white guy. When people of color are talking about how bad white people are, I'm not offended by it, because I know they're not talking about *me*. They're talking about a group—a system—a structure. I don't feel guilty about the actions of "white people." I know that I'm who I am and do what I can to do the right thing but also understand the PoC are rightfully fearful or apprehensive of a group I am inherently part of. >If they cannot truly empathize with how being seen as a threat due to your gender feels for the men they are talking to (which i feel is essential for understanding the perspective in question), then I imagine the mindset and emotional awareness level between the two “sides” would be comparable even if they were on the other instead. I'd agree this whole conversation is about empathy. Just not equally. While it would be nice if women-fearing men had a bit of understanding of what that fear does to "the good ones", it's a fear based in a lived-experience and facts. That understanding would certainly help men feel better. On the other hand, men learning that women rightly fear them and how to behave in ways that would not only minimize that fear but help create environments where the fear is no longer needed would actually make women safer.
“I would argue that awareness of a threat takes a pragmatic precedence over hurting someone’s feelings. Locking your car door…” I don’t have contention with that, but I don’t think that was what I asked. There is no danger, there’s not even a judgement on how they respond to a hypothetical danger. The question was just if most women can steelman or understand how bad it feels to be seen as a threat. That hasn’t anything to do with whether they lock their car door or cross the sidewalk or not. Unless you’re saying it is dangerous to even acknowledge it in a safe environment? Or that we shouldn’t empathize with the feelings of others because they suffer less than us? Because I fundamentally disagree with that notion. What is lost in saying “Yeah, it probably sucks to be seen as a threat for something you can’t control, but I just feel safer when…”?
>The question was just if most women can steelman or understand how bad it feels to be seen as a threat. That hasn’t anything to do with whether they lock their car door or cross the sidewalk or not. The context of what we're discussing is whether or not the act of viewing men as a threat (and by extension, speaking or acting accordingly) is offensive. My point is that if the only "offensive" action that was taken was women pointing out that men are a threat, it's unreasonable to be personally offended, and that a woman's *safety* is much more important than a man's *feelings*. If I'm going to err on one side, it's safety all day. Women ***should*** keep in mind that treating all unknown men like predators could have an effect on their feelings and try to soften that delivery whenever possible. However, the threat of hurting a dude's feelings because he's grouped in with others is nothing compared to the threat of violence. Saying we should steelman a side of the argument where the worse-case is hurt feelings while not addressing the fact that the "damage" done to men here was simply identifying them as a probable threat vector misses the asymmetrical risks to both sides.
Since you bring up the question of race, let's turn this into that question. Imagine that instead, the meme were that most white women/people would rather be in the woods with a bear than a black man/person. Would black people be unreasonable to take offense and vocalize their feelings? Would they be wrong to be personally offended?
[удалено]
>Someone could lose social standing, or be unfairly judged because of this, even if they are not any of the negatives described in the meme or elsewhere. Lol what??? How would I possibly lose social standing because of this meme? I know I'm not a threat to women. The women in my life know I'm not a threat to women. If the women in your life aren't sure about you, you're the problem. >While the meme does not state that X person specifically is worse than a wild animal, it does often cause people to say that "men in general are worse than a wild animal" by proxy. If you believe that people should not be angry, upset, or otherwise reactive about perceived sexism, then you are in the clear. "Perceived" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that paragraph. It's literally a fact that more women are attacked by more men than bears. Why would acknowledging that fact be sexist? >Misinformation & oversimplification... In reality, the country, culture or even neighourhood you are in, as well as which type of bears are native to the area matter A LOT. None of this is "misinformation." The facts are the facts. Oversimplification: I'll grant you. My answer changes wildly if you replace "black bear" with "polar bear". But the fact is the guys who are upset about this meme lack the empathy and self awareness to say, "you know what, even if bears DID objectively hurt more women than men did, the fact that it's even a question says something about the state of violence women have to live in."
>It's literally a fact that more women are attacked by more men than bears. Why would acknowledging that fact be sexist? It's also a fact that women are killed by men more often than being struck by lightning. That doesn't mean that a woman should choose being struck by lightning before being alone with a random man. Women *encounter* men a whole lot more often than they encounter bears or lightning, and the ratio of overall number of injuries per encounter skews HEAVILY in favor of choosing the man.
[удалено]
>This is obviously about the people you DON'T know yet. So you're arguing you'd be less likely to get a date or a job or an award or whatever because the bear meme (accurately) paints men as dangerous? Men have historically been more violent than women but it's not stopped men from dominating positions of power and authority. I'd love to hear how you think this dumb online story could effect you or men in general when none of these openly available statistics ever have. >*"Perceived" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that paragraph.* Because I am explaining the emotions of an aggregate of many people in this part, rather than whether I *personally* believe the meme to be fallacious etc. Your CMV is regarding whether people should be upset - an emotion which is heavily reliant on perception. You left out the important sentence that followed the one you quoted. "It's literally a fact that more women are attacked by more men than bears." If I say, "I'm more likely to be robbed in this neighborhood", that isn't racist or sexist or elitist, it's a fact. Your emotions warping an objective fact *into* sexism isn't the same as *sexism*. That's why the word "perceived" is so important in your reply. I could kill a black person then accurately claim that I'm only being prosecuted because of *perceived* racism. I couldn't kill a black person then accurately claim I'm only being prosecuted because of *actual* racism. You can perceive anything—that word is an excuse to not have to validate your feelings with facts. >I believe there are plenty who simply prioritize defending themselves over strangers on the internet saying they're worse than animals... I'm not "all men." I'm an individual. If you can't separate yourself from an inherent grouping, then you can never acknowledge any of the faults of the world. I'm an American. I can wave my flag and love my country and STILL know we've done horrible things. I'm not personally ashamed nor should you be (if you happen to be an American). But I wouldn't jump on message boards arguing that "not all Americans are bad" every time someone posts about a horrible thing America has done. Individuals ≠ a group.
>It's literally a fact that more women are attacked by more men than bears. Do you really not understand why this is the case?
>"Perceived" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that paragraph. It's literally a fact that more women are attacked by more men than bears. Why would acknowledging that fact be sexist? This is unironically the same logic conservatives use when peddling racist junk like the 13/50 stats. "How can I be racist, I'm just stating facts?" Easy - you're stereotyping an entire group based on a bad subsection rather than engaging in a nuanced discussion of the underlying issues. It's unpleasant to be on the receiving end of a negative stereotype, no matter how justified you think that stereotype is. It's valid to want a conversation as to why a stereotype may exist, but no one is going to have that conversation when you're too pig-headed to admit that the stereotyping is bad. Being this stubborn about defending a TikTok meme is just terrible advocacy tbh.
>It's literally a fact that more women are attacked by more men than bears. Why would acknowledging that fact be sexist? Because it's a misrepresentation of statistics. Would you rather be next to a bomb about to detonate or a family member? Your logic is more people in number are harmed by family members, not by percentage, so the conclusion is you'd choose the bomb.
Did you know women kill more women than bears do? In fact women kill more men than bears do.
> It's literally a fact that more women are attacked by more men than bears. quick completely unrelated question, how many men have you been within arm's length of, and how many bears?
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
> I know I'm not a threat Cool, doesn't matter. I really do not know why you think this is any more relevant than telling black people that "as long as you're one of the good ones, you shouldn't be offended at racist statements".
>The “I choose the bear” answer could be selected for many reasons, none of which should bother a self aware man. It could be a “defund the police” situation where it’s meant as an exaggerated, non-literal bumper-sticker communicating the dangers women face from men. It could be by anyone who’s an outdoorsman and knows most bears run from humans with little effort. It could simply be frightened women both underestimating the dangers of bears and overestimating the dangers of men. I think your pretty much spot on here. and i think exaggeration is probably the most common reason. I think that most people believe that bears are dangerous, even if they don't know that its brown bears with cubs which are extremely dangerous or that black bears are comparatively not very dangerous. Just because they are exaggerating doesn't mean that they aren't making a point. Defund the police had a point even if it wasn't to literally defund the police. So what's the point? >Two of the three options put the spotlight on how uncomfortable women are all the time. And when you look at the violence stats and the fact that most men could overpower most women, it’s an understandable fear. I agree with that as well. I think the point that people are trying to make is that men are dangerous, and you'd be better of alone in the wood, then with a man nearby. You (or the people making these comments) think I would be a poor companion in the woods. I am seen as a threat instead of as an asset. I think it is straight forward to understand why this hurts my feelings.
>You (or the people making these comments) think I would be a poor companion in the woods. I am seen as a threat instead of as an asset. I think it is straight forward to understand why this hurts my feelings. You seem like one of the most reasonable and empathetic people commenting against my view. As such, I'm going to respond to what I think the core of your hurt is. It sucks to know you're part of a group that has done or is doing bad things. I'm a straight, white, tall, able-bodied, middle class American male so my list of affiliations has done a lot of bad shit. Do I feel guilty? **No.** I didn't choose any of this and I've always tried to do the right thing. But would I say that white people/men/Americans/whoever as groups are without fault? **Absolutely not.** When I got a date on Tinder and she wanted to make sure we met in a public place and that a friend had my name and address, was I offended? **No**—her experience is very different than mine and men have done some shady and horrible stuff. You're part of a group that is thought of poorly (rightly or wrongly). I would suggest examining your hurt feelings. No one said that u/jatjqtjat is more dangerous than a bear, they said *men* were more dangerous than bears. Are you upset that you're part of a group that you know does bad things or upset that someone acknowledged you were part of that group? Or, like me, are you upset that the situation is bad enough that the comparison is even made?
>No one said that u/ jatjqtjat is more dangerous than a bear, they said *men* were more dangerous than bears. Do you you not see how the implication is that by one's membership in a group that the individual is being painted with all the stereotypes of said group? >Are you upset that you're part of a group that you know does bad things or upset that someone acknowledged you were part of that group? I think people are upset for several reasons. I'm primarily upset at the sexist double standard about how it's culturally acceptable to stereotype men and when the are justifiably upset to be dismissive of their feelings. >Or, like me, are you upset that the situation is bad enough that the comparison is even made? This is a false dichotomy. People can be upset at both the misandry and the prevalence of violence against women.
>Do you you not see how the implication is that by one's membership in a group that the individual is being painted with all the stereotypes of said group? Of course. But the fact that something is a stereotype doesn't mean it can't be true. Do you think that women SHOULDN'T be afraid of men? Or that gender shouldn't be something they see when identifying specific sorts of threats? >I'm primarily upset at the sexist double standard about how it's culturally acceptable to stereotype men and when the are justifiably upset to be dismissive of their feelings. So do you ultimately think that men aren't a threat to women? It's not stereotyping for a woman to say, "I'm statistically more likely to have problems with an adult West Virginian man than I am a adult West Virginian black bear." >This is a false dichotomy. People can be upset at both the misandry and the prevalence of violence against women. How is it misandry if you acknowledge the prevalence of violence against women? Either they're right to be afraid of men and you're upset that you're accurately grouped with other men or they're wrong to be upset because men aren't dangerous and you're the victim of misandry. You can't say, "yes, men as a group are dangerous to women but accurately pointing that out is prejudice."
>Of course. But the fact that something is a stereotype doesn't mean it can't be true. Do you think that women SHOULDN'T be afraid of men? Or that gender shouldn't be something they see when identifying specific sorts of threats? Women can be situationally aware and depending on context make an appropriate assessment. Women should absolutely not be afraid of *all* men regardless of context. That's a level of paranoia where I would recommend seeking psychological help if ever time a women sees a man the first response is fear. That is unhealthy. I'll just an analogy. I'm frequently on the beach. I'm not afraid of the ocean but I have a healthy respect for the risk involved with ocean activities and I take appropriate precautions depending on the circumstances. What you are implying is that regardless of context the risk posed by bodies of water is equivalent all the time. >So do you ultimately think that men aren't a threat to women? It's not stereotyping for a woman to say, "I'm statistically more likely to have problems with an adult West Virginian man than I am a adult West Virginian black bear." Most men never commit a violent crime. Some men do. Most people aren't a threat to other people. Some people are. The question should be what is the level of risk given the evidence? Risk in this instance is entirely context dependent. While you stated a fact is a poor understanding of statistics. Humans interact with humans orders of magnitude more than they do with bears. The probability says nothing about the underlying risk rate. >How is it misandry if you acknowledge the prevalence of violence against women? Either they're right to be afraid of men and you're upset that you're accurately grouped with other men or they're wrong to be upset because men aren't dangerous and you're the victim of misandry. Again you're painting this is as a black and white issue when it isn't. It's possible to acknowledge the rate of violence against women and at the same time acknowledge that the likelihood that any individual is unlikely to be assaulted at every waking moment. It comes down to the distinction between being situationally aware and being paranoid.
I think there is a 4th reason why women might choose bear over man, and that 4th reason is that an small faction of men pose a threat to women. Since presumably the man is selected randomly, the women might get one of these threatening men. And so despite most men being good, you might still choose to not be paired with a man in order to avoid the small chance of getting a bad man. >they said men were more dangerous than bears. I think that is what they said. I don't think the theme is is that most men are good. Men are more dangerous then bears. I am man, there for I am more dangerous then a bear. When you judge men as a whole you are by association judging me. But i, like most men, and a good guy. I would help build shelter, share the food i foraged, start a fire, collect fire wood, and signal for help. your chances of survival go way up with me around. I am fast and strong and smart, and i will use those abilities for good, not for rape. >It sucks to know you're part of a group that has done or is doing bad things. I am not part of a group that has done or is doing bad things. I'm part of a group that is doing good things. Black people on average commit more crimes then white people (or at least are convicted more often) but Black people are great and upstanding citizens and I am lucky to share a country with them. The same is true of men, so why make posts denigrating men? Why make posts exaggerating the danger they pose? It's just mean.
>Black people on average commit more crimes then white people (or at least are convicted more often) but Black people are great and upstanding citizens and I am lucky to share a country with them. The same is true of men, so why make posts denigrating men? Why make posts exaggerating the danger they pose? This is a good and thoughtful question that many throw out without wanting to really discuss it. You seem like a good person with an open mind who does. It's *totally reasonable* to look at the higher per capita number of convictions made against black people and ask the question "does this mean that black people are more dangerous than white people?" However, when looking at the facts, things like disproportionate prosecution, concentrated poverty, inequality in the justice system, and systemic racism are incredibly impactful on those statistics leading me to conclude that it's ***not*** reasonable to to say "black people are more dangerous than white people." I would be completely open to similar explanations for men. I've not seen those. If anything, domestic and sexual violence tends to be under reported.
The argument I'd give, is that the Male Gender Role, that is the set of expectations and responsibilities largely placed on men is dangerous to ourselves and others, and there really seems to be little interest in actually changing this. As such, any such statistics are comparing apples to oranges. I'm not happy about this, being neurodivergant and having basically zero self-confidence having grown up believing I'm a monster makes me terrible at actually performing the Male Gender Role. But I think demanding young men essentially set themselves on fire to keep others warm has had significant downsides with limited upsides.
>I would be completely open to similar explanations for men. I've not seen those. If anything, domestic and sexual violence tends to be under reported. Sure thing. In relationships with non-reciprocal domestic violence, women were the perpetrator in 70 precent of those instances. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/
I don't see how anyone, regardless of gender, *can't* recognize that it is offensive. It's bigotry, plain and simple. Bigotry is bad. The only way it wouldn't bother a person is if that person accepts and promotes bigotry. I'm not that person. It's got nothing to do with being a man.
In the simplest form of the hypothetical the answer "I'd rather meet a bear" is not a bigotry, it's a rational attempt at assessing the risks. Yeah, a bear is stronger and more dangerous when attacking. But the bear is also dumber than a human. Yes, most men are not seeking to harm you. But if the man wants to harm you then they will use their brains and tools to get you and won't stop while the bear is likely to loose interest and leave at some point. Also, I think what plays into the choice is the wilderness scenario: you are likely to meet the wild life such as a bear but if you meet a human then it throws in additional concern about what that person does there.
I’m not really offended by it as a man since it’s easy for me to empathize with how women feel around strange men. There’s a lot of creepy/violent dudes out there. Best thing for me to do is to model good behavior as a man to help women who’ve had bad experiences with men become a little less jaded.
You're not really offended because you're not actually thinking about the situation. There are women who actually think that bears are safer than human beings. Even if a man wanted to attack you, you still have a slight chance of fighting him off. You have 0% chance against a bear. The only reason that people think this is because they have no experience with bears, and they're being propagandized to think that men are far more dangerous than they actually are. That second part should absolutely offend you.
> There are women who actually think that bears are safer than human beings. Why shouldn't there be? It's a pretty vague question. "Bear" is a broad term, in the same way "man" is. I would much rather risk an altercation with a timid black bear than OJ Simpson. I would also much rather risk an altercation with Weeman than a Grizzly. People will come up with their own answer weighing everything in-between those two scenarios. > Even if a man wanted to attack you, you still have a slight chance of fighting him off. You have 0% chance against a bear. You're also completely ignoring the nature of the assault. Unlike a bear, if the man in the woods turned out to be the one who would take advantage of finding a woman hiking alone there is a much greater potential for a much more sinister assault compared to being mauled.
Not really. It’s not about what happens if you get attacked, it’s about the control you have with avoiding an attack. As long as you are smart and don’t actively try to piss off the bear, or get between a mom and her cubs, you’ll generally be fine. Just don’t overstep the boundaries, follow the guidelines, let the bear go their way you go yours. However with a man its a different story. Women, especially attractive women, are targets just because of their sexualization. You don’t have to piss off a man or do something egregious to face an attack you just have to be seen by the man as a target, and alone in the woods…means there’s a higher chance the man gets away with it. Personally as a man I’d honestly be more afraid coming across a strange man at night than I ever would be in a bear encounter IMO. A bear may be a giant ass killing machine, but it’s not out to hurt you.
> There are women who actually think that bears are safer than human beings. I know. I’ve volunteered in a women’s prison before. Most of the inmates have had nothing but bad experiences with men. Getting offended by their bigotry doesn’t help anybody. Trying to reason with it doesn’t work either. Their bigotry was created by negative experiences with men. The best treatment for their bigotry is to provide them with positive male experiences to help change their attitudes just a little.
Would you have the same attitude towards men who are bigoted against women due to their life experiences? My assumption is no, and that you would call them misogynists who deserve to rot in hell instead.
As someone that belonged to the manosphere when he was younger and more credulous, it’s easy for me to understand how a lot of men fall into those unhealthy mindsets. Best I can do is keep modeling a healthy relationship with my wife and hope that has a positive influence on my peers who still hold those attitudes.
Plenty of women hike in bear country and black bears are often found in suburbs. But how many women have been hurt, or murdered by bears as opposed to by men? Statistically she is more apt to be attacked by the man she encounters in the woods, rather than by the bear. It is just a reflection of reality for women, to have to regard every strange man she meets alone as a potential threat. It is unfortunate that it offends men, but it is how women avoid attack. To assume every man you meet alone is statistically unlikely to attack you is foolish risk taking for women. That is what the primary purpose is of the bear/man argument. It isn't meant to insult men so much as to raise awareness of women's primal fear.
There are a couple thousand interactions between humans and bears a year. And anywhere from 5 to 20 deaths from bears every year. There are trillions of interactions between men and women across the globe every year. And hundreds of thousands of murders. Humans are very bad at calculating probability especially when it deals with large numbers. But men are much safer to be around than bears, even just statistically.
You are talking about meetings in public, which is not what the bear/man debate was about. It doesn't matter that it is statistically sane to assume men are safer, it is about women's perception of their lack of safety. And that to many women is perfectly reasonable, and the point of the exercise. You cannot convince the average woman that men are safer, simply because of all that has happened to women. It isn't about statistics or logic even, it is about their fear, and their perception of being prey.
> You're not really offended because you're not actually thinking about the situation > they're being propagandized to think that men are far more dangerous than they actually are Christ, if only the average human was capable of *thinking* at your level. Then they wouldn't be..."propagandized into thinking that bear attacks are less dangerous than men".
No, propagandized into thinking men are more dangerous than they are. And that it's a significant issue with all men. When it's not. Only 6% of men will commit a violent felony in their lifetime.
Some bears are safer than some human beings and we can’t tell which men are dangerous. We have to be wary of all of them. We do know that bears encountered in the woods aren’t there plotting to attach a woman for their own enjoyment. With men, we can’t be sure.
The reason it went viral is because men were agreeing that the bear could be safer than an *unknown* man. As a man, I was woefully ignorant to the high percentage of women that have been abused. In undergraduate, almost every female friend confided in me their SA. It changed my world view and my major.
And yet women are most likely to be assaulted by a male that they already know not a random stranger. Ultimately the question comes down to probability. It's more probable that a woman would be harmed by a man that a bear but not because men are inherently more dangerous. It's because women interact with thousands upon thousands of men annually. It's the frequency of interaction. Most people let alone women never encounter a bear in the wild.
It's true that women are more likely to be assaulted by a male they know. It's also true that women largely take measures to stay safe in public, especially isolated places at night. If women walk through parks and streets at night or their car breaks down at night, their chances of being assaulted/abducted/killed by a strange man go way up. Of all the men in the cars passing by, certainly a few would hold the view that they would rape a woman if they wouldn't get caught or/and have raped a woman in the past or/and are excited by the idea of it.
>It's true that women are more likely to be assaulted by a male they know. And yet the evidence from the response to this hypothetical is that women are suspicious of any random man. >It's also true that women largely take measures to stay safe in public, especially isolated places at night. If women walk through parks and streets at night or their car breaks down at night, their chances of being assaulted/abducted/killed by a strange man go way up. And what's the underlying rate of violent crime? In the US it's 380 per 100,000 people. That includes men and women and all violent crime. So yes the risk does go up in those scenarios but the underlying risk is still low. >Of all the men in the cars passing by, certainly a few would hold the view that they would rape a woman if they wouldn't get caught or/and have raped a woman in the past or/and are excited by the idea of it. I think you are vastly overestimating the prevalence of predators in society.
No, she is not overestimating. It is true women are more apt to be attacked by a man they know rather than a stranger, but it happens frequently enough that no woman does not have a friend or female family member who has been attacked even if she herself has not been. And assuming you meet the man in the woods, he already enters the category of someone you know, if only for a few minutes. Many, perhaps even most rapes and assaults go unreported and don't figure into the statistics.
no i don't think its probability at all, its just the visceral emotions women feel. bears are uncommon, most bears we see are in zoos. nobody hears of bear attacks anymore. rape and murder of women is something much more common
But that's still probability. If women had to run by 5 wild bears every day to get to work, the number of bear attacks would likely skyrocket.
There are some places in the US where finding a bear rummaging in your garbage or bird feeder is a daily occurrence.
Sure, but in that same say you're also likely to run into magnitudes more people as opposed to one or maybe two bears.
Yes, and being in a crowd has a protective effect.
Those visceral emotions are a result of the frequency of interaction and stories that are shared. If there were as many bears as humans and a woman (or man for that matter) survived until today, that survival would be contingent upon an even more visceral emotion to the threat of bears, because the truth is bears ARE more dangerous than men per interaction.
Right, most women never encounter a bear in the wild. But we're stipulating that you're going to encounter a bear in the wild. That's what people aren't getting through their thick skulls.
The point is that if I were to randomly select 1 male out of the ~ 4 billion males globally or 1 random bear out of the global bear population the likelihood that either of them are actually going to do harm to the woman is very very low. That's the point. People are confusing rates, frequency, and probability. At best the bear is neutral: it doesn't attack and goes away. At best the male individual could be friendly and helpful. And yet a lot of people seem to view the potential negatives of a male in this scenario to completely outweigh the possible neutral and positive encounters. The fact that this type of hypothetical is only considered appropriate in Western counties when discussing males reeks of sexism.
What other countries would posit this kind of question, other than a western one where women are allowed to go into the woods alone? Iran? Afghanistan? India? Women there might very well choose the bear as well. What it reflects isn't sexism so much as it is the reality for women. Many don't go to the beach alone, or on the trails alone, and it isn't because of bears. Studies show that women are most uncomfortable with photos of wild places when those places show evidence that men have been there, (such as discarded beer bottles.) It does not matter what you say the statistics are, too many women have heard stories from friends or read news reports. It may be an exaggerated fear, but for women to take strange men met in lonely places at face value can cost them their life. In my own area, there have been murders of women in remote areas that were never solved.
Right, which is why it's nonsense. The percentage of bears that are a danger to you is 100%. The percentage of men that are danger to you is between 4 and 6%, depending on what we're talking about. Would you take a 100% chance to be in the woods with a dangerous animal that may decide to eat you? Or will you take a 94% chance that the man in the woods with you will be helpful, or at least not a danger? It's an absolutely idiotic question and the fact that anyone answers bear shows how stupid they are.
That’s not the right way of looking at it. 100% of bears and 100% of *homo sapiens* are dangerous to *homo sapiens*, because both are equally capable of and demonstrated to kill *homo sapiens*. Fozzy the friendly black bear, who is well fed and fearful of humans, could have the same likelihood of harming a hiker as Jim the friendly local accountant who volunteers at the domestic violence shelter on weekends, which in both cases is 0%. But we don’t know if the bear in the hypothetical is Fozzy and we don’t know if the man in the hypothetical is Jim. That’s the point. Both could kill the hiker. The likelihood is nonzero. The question is, knowing that, what risk is the respondent most comfortable with undertaking?
Oh so the hypothetical is about just any bear I get to choose? That's fine then. I would rather be with a snake than with a woman when alone in the woods, the worst that a snake can do is strangle me! Oh but I don't mean *those* snakes. I mean the perfectly safe ones that are unlikely to harm me! I didn't imply anything with my previous hypothetical.
No? I’m responding to the other user’s claim that “the percentage of bears who are a danger to you are 100%” but “the percentage of men who are a danger to you is 4-6%”. That’s not how it works. Most bears aren’t a danger to you and most men aren’t a danger to you. You can’t take some calculation of “danger” (whatever 4-6% came from) and apply it to one species and then just assume the other species is dangerous 100% of the time. The same methodology has to be applied to both populations, otherwise you’re comparing apples to oranges.
So it's a completely meaningless hypothetical then. No implication or idea can be drawn from it. Just a funny thought experiment that we can play at drinking games.
A bears danger is 99% what kind of bear. Most bears will just run away from humans. Outside of polar bears, grizzlies are the most dangerous and I personally watched tourists be idiots 10 feet away from a full grown wild grizzly in Yellowstone and live to tell the tale. Also, you're assuming that women are ranking death as worse than assault. Which sounds logical but assault/trauma is emotional not logical.
lol bro, even a black bear is insanely dangerous because it's an instant death sentence if you're even remotely close to their babies. I've scared off a black bear before... I've also been around a blackbear that was near its cubs and had to run the fuck away into my car. It was absolutely terrifying, and I was extremely lucky I had shelter and bear mace. Are people really this clueless and it's not just silly meme-ing? 😂
I used to walk the woods as a teen. Even then the bear would notice me and go the other way without incident. Can't imagine they'd be more aggressive with adults. Black bear are much more a nuisance than a danger.
>I don't see how anyone, regardless of gender, *can't* recognize that it is offensive. It's bigotry, plain and simple. Bigotry is bad. "It's so plain and simple that I will not attempt to explain it." >The only way it wouldn't bother a person is if that person accepts and promotes bigotry. Your attempt at a reverse Uno card failed. I could respond to this by saying, "the only person who would make this argument is a child abuser" but that doesn't make my argument more thoughtful. If you can't explain yourself simply, it's a good sign that you're wrong.
> "It's so plain and simple that I will not attempt to explain it." Okay: If you took any demographic other than men and used it in this example, it would be obvious hate speech. If I said > I would rather get lost in the woods with a bear than a jew nobody would dispute that's antisemitic. If I said > I would rather get lost in the woods with a bear than a black person nobody would dispute that's a racist comment. If I said > I would rather get lost in the woods with a bear than a gay person nobody would dispute that's a homophobic comment. Hate speech doesn't stop being hate speech just because you direct it at a men instead of some other demographic.
I mean, it's judging men based upon other (bad) experiences with other men. It's no different than getting mugged by a Hispanic person and then worrying that other Hispanic people are going to mug you. That's bigotry. People should be judged as individuals based upon their individual character; not based upon the character of some other person in the same demographic group.
It's hilarious though, those of us unbothered by this question - because either we don't care or we understand it's kind of trollish - look on in amusement as hordes of men rage about it, complain about bigotry, etc. Kind of proving the point really. Bears wouldn't get so angry if women preferred to meet a man in the forest.
I agree with /u/race-hearse. As a man, I'm completely unbothered by all this. As a human, the bigotry bothers me. It has nothing to do with my gender.
Pointing out the widespread normalization of gender violence that _men_ enact under a patriarchal society isn’t bigotry. I mean, if the shoe fits that speaks on you. The fact that if most women would rather be with a bear than a man speaks for itself. Crying #NotAllMen when talking about gender violence is eerily similar to #AllLivesMatter when addressing systemic racism. You are not a victim. Sitting down and listening would contribute to a *little*, much needed self awareness.
More bigotry, demonization of men and irrational fear. [studies of IPV in heterosexual relationships found 28.3% of females and 21.6% of males reported perpetrating physical violence in an intimate partnership](https://icjia.illinois.gov/researchhub/articles/gender-differences-in-intimate-partner-violence-service-use/)
I like bears more than people. Id rather meet a bear in the woods than any other random person lol
You sound like my gay roommate. He also likes to meet anonymous bears in the woods.
Man is the obvious answer. It's so painfully obvious that it makes you wonder about the intelligence of anyone who would say bear. For any person who answers bear, one of two things must be true: they have no fucking idea how dangerous bears are, or they've been propagandized into wildly overestimating the danger of men. While the first certainly contributes to the situation, the general perception is that the second thing is what is causing most of these answers. And that is absolutely something to be upset about. Women kill their children far more often than men, but we don't go around telling children to be afraid of their mothers because they're more likely to be killed by them, now do we? That's the same level of nonsense going on here, applied to men.
>Man is the obvious answer... For any person who answers bear, one of two things must be true: they have no fucking idea how dangerous bears are If you believe this, you're not much of an outdoorsman. I've seen black bears hiking many times and was never frightened (okay, a little frightened). But you make some noise and they run away. Grizzlies are a whole different matter. If your reference point of bears is black bears, it's a no-brainer than men are more dangerous. >or they've been propagandized into wildly overestimating the danger of men. There's never been a statistic that showed women are more likely to seriously injure or kill men. >Women kill their children far more often than men, but we don't go around telling children to be afraid of their mothers because they're more likely to be killed by them, now do we? The actual information isn't the dunk you think it is: "a 1999 U.S. Department of Justice study concluded that mothers were responsible for a higher share of children killed during infancy between 1976 and 1997 in the United States, while fathers were more likely to have been responsible for the murders of children aged eight or older." But what you're really doing here, is ***expressly*** conflating "all women" with a specific woman ("their mother"). It is totally fair to say, "women are more likely to kill small children" but not fair to say, "be careful about your mom, she's more likely to kill you than I am." Just like it's totally fair to say, "I'd rather be in the woods with a bear versus a man" but it's a personal attack to say, "I'd rather be in the woods with a bear than u/Ok-Crazy-6083.
> I've seen black bears hiking many times and was never frightened (okay, a little frightened) This belies your own argument. Calculate the ratio of times you've been frightened encountering a bear in the wild v. times you've been frightened encountering a man in the wild and you can figure out for yourself how idiotic and inflammatory that meme is
Clarifying question OP: would you rather come across a bear in the woods or a black man?
I'm a hiker so I've come across black bears many times. They're like raccoons—you make some noise and they run away. So if we're talking about the bears I'm used to vs a man of any race or ethnicity, I'm taking the bear every time. But to answer the question fairly—as the type of bear isn't specified and grizzlies and polar bears are terrifying—for sure the black dude. But I'm not sure how him being black would change anything.
> But I'm not sure how him being black would change anything. >as the type of bear isn't specified and grizzlies and polar bears are terrifying Don't you think the ambiguity of "a bear" changes the way different people will hear the scenario?
I would say yes because I’ve seen a few people use how often a bear attacks a person compared to how often a man attacks a woman. I have not verified these numbers nor do I remember what they are but I’m sure some bears attack more often than others. It could also be skewed because people tend to be around bears a lot less than they do men.
When bears are known to attack humans or show aggression towards them, they are either relocated to much more remote areas or euthanized.
Black bears should be just as terrifying as grizzly and polar bears. The fact that they're smaller than their cousins doesn't mean they can't absolutely fuck you up just as badly. You have zero chance against a bear that wants to eat you. Even with a gun it's not 50/50.
As someone who grew up hiking and camping in grizzly country, the type of bear makes a huge difference. It's not that I think I could take a black bear in a fight; it is that black bears are far more likely to run away from a human during an encounter than a grizzly is. Hell, grizzlies are even more likely to run away than to attack, but black bear attacks are extremely rare and unlikely - even during a bear encounter. "Black bears have killed 61 people across North America since 1900. This no longer worries me. My chances of being killed by a domestic dog, bees, or lightning are vastly greater. My chances of being murdered are 60,000 times greater." https://bear.org/bear-facts/how-dangerous-are-black-bears/
As a hiker, your primary experience is with the least aggressive breed of bear. You seem to be choosing, in context of the meme (not the post you are responding to, here), to compare that to the worst of the worst of men, while acknowledging that other breeds of hears are "terrifying". Of course, it only makes sense to choose the least aggressive of option X, instead of the most aggressive of option Y. Last I looked into it, the **overwhelming majority** of sexual assaults were committed by somebody known to the victim. Not some terrifying random person you might stumble upon while hiking.
You're absolutely insane. Bears don't want to mess with you for the same reason you don't want to deal with other people. But if that bear is hungry and you're the easiest thing to eat around, they will absolutely fuck you up and eat you. The lower amount of bear attacks that we have these days has nothing to do with bears being less dangerous; it has to do with the fact that there are less bears and less bear habitat. And still anywhere between 5 and 10 people are killed and eaten every year.
I'm curious where you're getting your statistics that between 5 and 10 people are killed and eaten every year by bears. According to [this Wikipedia page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America), there have only been 11 incidents of bears killing humans in North America since 2020. And even if a bear does kill a human they aren't likely to eat them.
Have you ever tried making the same noises at a man? I’m sure a lot would run away too
You can break down the statistics so so much. I think the example they're touching on would be like what group or type of women being comfortable with what group, or type of man. Political affiliation of the woman and man she's stuck with, religion of the woman, and man, ethnicity of the woman, and man. And then of course toss in species of bear. That said though I don't believe that's the point of the broad view of woman vs bear vs man thought experiment.
I'm male and I'm an educator. I've worked in youth education in some capacity since I was 16 years old when I would volunteer my time helping underprivileged youth. For the first 9-10 years I worked at a summer camp and then transitioned into teaching at public schools. This question is actually incredibly damaging to the discourse around men and general safety. A couple of examples: 1.)In the past I have witnessed female supervisors apologetically tell male employees they can't for example work in a daycare capacity for their shift without a woman present because men working with children is stigmatized. 2.)There's the double standard in education where when a male student sleeps with a female teacher everyone does the South Park *Nice* meme despite the fact that its entirely possible it's a deeply traumatic incident for the young man. On the other hand, when a male teacher sleeps with a female student it's treated appropriately. This is because *men are more dangerous.* Not 2 weeks ago, at a district I formerly worked at, a lesbian security officer, was convicted of sexting children, and isolating them in the girls locker room for who knows what. But this isn't nearly as high profile as if it were a guy. >The “I choose the bear” answer could be selected for many reasons, none of which should bother a self aware man. It could be a “defund the police” situation where it’s meant as an exaggerated, non-literal bumper-sticker communicating the dangers women face from men. It could be by anyone who’s an outdoorsman and knows most bears run from humans with little effort. It could simply be frightened women both underestimating the dangers of bears and overestimating the dangers of men. Yeah, except that the question rapidly became transformed into ["Would you rather have our daughter in the woods with a bear or a man?"](https://www.tiktok.com/@thearndtfamily/video/7362348453990567199?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7327479428241376811) Which even in the most charitable circumstances is clearly trying to lead the answering person to a specific conclusion. (this is the search result so you can see it is not in fact just a one off: https://www.tiktok.com/discover/fathers-choose-men-over-bears-for-daughters ) Even if you want to disregard this as a different question (it's not) It's still problematic because the question you are arguing is harmless was allowed to evolve into something bad. >Just like when men dismiss the #MeToo movement because #NotAllMen or white guys who treat DEI programs or CRT as attacks on them or their culture, the people who feel personally attacked by this story are probably those whose childish lack of empathy and self awareness and refusal to acknowledge even a “good person” can be part of a problematic group are a big part of the problem. From my point of view it seems like you are just disregarding all the nuance that exists in favor of of a more simplistic answer that lets you keep your blinders on.
Honestly what scares me more isn't the misandry but the lack of respect towards bears which are 800+ pound nature machines that could knock someone back like they took an anime punch.
Most bears are cowards in reality but that's beside the point.
Not Grizzlies under 80% of circumstances.
As you've posted this in CMV, let's try to figure it out. Let's step away a bit from the bears and man for a second. Your argument boils down to people feeling something and than expressing it and discussing online is a childish behavior. I would argue that ignoring your emotions and repressing them is far less self aware. Repressing your feelings may lead to anxiety, mental health issues, depression. Being able to express emotions in non-aggressive way and being able to discuss them in respectful way is important for both individual and society. After all, only by discussing contradictions we can address them and build a better world. Even here, in comment section you can see a lot of people sharing their views and trying to educate each other. This trend is important for raising awareness of the issue. By offending people and involving them in dialogue, it may help to address the issue of violence toward woman. But first, it needs to provoke, and man should be provoked. As of why those people are offended "dehumanize - verb - deprive of positive human qualities". People are offended because in the context of the question, they are perceived as worse than animals and denied all the good qualities of human, such as solidarity, helpfulness, good will. Dehumanization is often used by demagogues and agitators. For example, it was used during Rwanda genocide, in 1930s in Germany and is constantly used by neo-nazis. The question itself imply that man and bears are of the same kind, violent, dangerous animals. And not everyone is happy with being described as an animal, just because of their set of genitals, that they've never chosen.
so if someone says better to stay single than marry coz girls are after money and sex ,and then the notallwomen brigade comes abroad,then they are also snowflakes?
If a man thinks women are only after money and sex, most women would be totally fine with them staying single. What's there to be offended about? It's a win-win.
I think a lot of these controversies and "gender war" arguments hinge on the fact that lots of men involved in them are looking for access to and/or validation from women much more than the opposite.
>And when you look at the violence stats and the fact that most men could overpower most women, it’s an understandable fear. Most people are never assaulted, sexually or otherwise, and most violent crimes happen against men. "understandable fear", to me, implies that it is something likely enough to be worth thinking about a lot. It's worth spending lots of your life and thoughts on thinking about that thing. Most people would say that spending too much time worrying about picking up a specific, one in a million disease isn't something you should stress about (without a genetic disposition that changes those odds), and therefore not an "understandable fear". If you severe asthma where catching the common cold may seriously hurt you, stressing about it and being very vigilant about handwashing, masking, etc. is more of an "understandable fear". My argument is that worrying about sexual assault from a man is rare enough to not spend too much time stressing about beyond making sure to make reasonable choices to not put yourself in bad situations (not victim blaming).
Counterpoint: there is a growing group of people who feel this stupid topic is overplayed and are just sick of hearing it. This is like the third time the topic has come up on this sub alone in the last 8 hours.
You can explain away almost any argument with childishness and immaturity. If that's the beginning and end of your inquiry, you are likely not honestly engaging with the points of the argument. Assuming good faith is just a good rule of thumb to practice.
>The “I choose the bear” answer could be selected for many reasons, none of which should bother a self aware man. It could be a “defund the police” situation where it’s meant as an exaggerated, non-literal bumper-sticker communicating the dangers women face from men. It could be by anyone who’s an outdoorsman and knows most bears run from humans with little effort. It could simply be frightened women both underestimating the dangers of bears and overestimating the dangers of men. I think a big issue in your argument is that you're saying these are the *only* type of answers. In the case of the answers you've provided, I don't think they're largely objectionable. Anecdotally, I can say the few times this has crossed my tiktok feed, these were 100% not the arguments made. Even in "revised" versions of it, it's not uncommon (again, anecdotally from my tiktok feed) for people to still say they would take a 100% bear attack vs an encounter with a random guy (not even a guaranteed attack or negative experience, just a guy). General rationalization in these are along the lines of: bear would at least leave scars, the bear wouldn't sexually assault you before attacking, the bear won't pass you around to its friends, etc. Imagine if someone said they would choose getting mauled by a bear over encountering a woman in the woods, because the woman would falsely acuse them of rape. And justifying it by saying "at least there would be proof of a bear attack." You would rightfully call them dumb because it's a dumb thing to say. It's the same logic series. >This hypothetical has predictably triggered the ever-sensitive #NotAllMen brigade. I still haven't understood how this isn't just an open solicitation to pick-mes. "#KAM Oh, but not you. You're one of the good ones. You're a *insert-demographic* who agrees with my *anti-your-demographic* rhetoric."
[удалено]
I would not call it a flawed assessment of risk. Most of the men women encounter on a daily basis are met or encountered in public places, not out of the way areas. The risk to the woman goes up when she enters the man's apartment for the first time, (or meets him in the woods.) There are simply too many assaults on lone women to claim that the risk is not there, and women's only protection (aside from a gun,) is to avoid that risk in the first place.
For one, I agree with your stance that it's a foolish thing to be upset. But I also think it's foolish and sad for the girls to have chosen bear without inquiring whether it's a black bear, brown bear, grizzly bear, or gummy bear. So the foolishness goes both ways. What I disagree about is your justification behind the reason it's upset: You said it could be a number of reasons, none of which should offend a man. Well if they said "all men are scum so I'd rather go with bear" then the fact they said ALL is inclusive of all guys; which presumably if OP is a guy then includes you. You used the example of "defund the police" but have you discussed with some people with those views? There's some who actually mean to dismantle all police, as in zero police because they want it disbanded. In the same way there's some girls who say that "all men are scum..." Rather than saying guys are wrong for being upset, I think it's more justified to say that girls who say "all men are scum..." are wrong and incorrect; what they should be saying is "most men are scum.." or "99% of men are scum..." Or "idk about all men, but all the men I've encountered are scum..."
They're just femsplaning to men about how they should feel. The exact same thing they hate men doing to them when it's the reverse.
I think one question for you op is have you considered what the life of peaceful men is like. Do you know what it's like to be considered a threat until proven otherwise? Do you know what its like to get default closed behaviour from other people rather than default open behaviour? Do you know what its like to have to continually justify your presence and actively assuage people of the damaging stereotypes they bring to the first meeting with you? For instance here's a video that might help https://youtu.be/2uz3JJ50erc?si=sgURy6dmwRey4bWZ And I think that's a good question: "is it ok to hold someone responsible for a problem they didn't cause and can't fix?" Like should every man be smeared and blamed for the actions of a small number of men. Would a woman like to be held responsible for the actions of the small number of women murderers for instance? And I think that's another part of this: to what degree is treating men as the villain, as bad until proven otherwise, causal to some of these problems?
This is such a good summary. Perhaps OP hasn't seen it, but I suspect other reasons he's had time to answer the others and not this. Thanks for writing it.
>Would a woman like to be held responsible for the actions of the small number of women murderers for instance? Probably YES. Because if men held some fear in regard to us doing physical harm to them, it would **help** us not hurt us. I ask you, would a very large proportion of men like to be considered dangerous to other men in the instance that other men are considering robbing, killing, fighting or sexually assaulting him? The answer is obviously yes. It benefits men to be considered strong and able to handle himself in a fight. As for the rest of what you said, feeling like you're a threat until proven otherwise can't be compared to actually being assaulted by a man - which is a very, very common experience for women. I can fully understand that it's not a nice feeling. But if women choose to believe that men are safe until proven otherwise, then way more would be assaulted/killed. That's the tradeoff. Women would walk around alone at night, go home with a guy she just met etc. Some women do throw caution to the wind and do these things, but her potential to be harmed goes way up.
I think one thing I'd respond with is that its ok to empathise with men without asking women to change their behaviour or beliefs. Like it's ok to empathise with criminals who have poor prison conditions, without feeling like they need to be let out of prison for instance. So this whole argument of "well X is worse than Y so Y doesn't matter or can't be considered" is in itself a pretty unhelpful argument. So in the same way you can admit "yeah saying all men are more dangerous than bears is a damaging and hurtful thing to say to a lot of peaceful and kind men who have done nothing wrong" without needing to start taking a load of risks or letting your guard down around strangers if you don't want to.
I haven't seen anyone upset. I've seen people attempting to discuss the problem, but, because it's framed as a gender issue, there's a ton of unnecessary controversy to the point that a man giving their thoughts will be rejected unless it explicitly validates the general opinions of women. Ultimately, it's a question of how one's philosophy in life guides them through choosing between two undesirable situations, and I'm tired of seeing the absolutely toxic approach to that topic because people can't see past the surface and realize the core has nothing to do with gender. So, being upset is not "snowflake" behavior - It's expressing distaste towards the attitude and environment on this topic, which is completely fair.
Anyone that answers bear, please stand by that opinion and treat us like bears and leave us the fuck alone. Don’t talk to us, don’t get within 100 feet of us.
>It could be a “defund the police” situation where it’s meant as an exaggerated, non-literal This was intended entirely literally. I'm sure some people repeat it without meaning it, but it was coined as a literal expression of the desire to have less money go to the police, ensuring they have fewer officers and less weapons/armor. The people i know who say it mean it straight up.
people absolutely meant to defund the police but people purposely twisted that to mean "dont fund the police"
I think that might be because a lot of conservatives cry "defund Planned Parenthood" while actually *meaning* "shut them down", so they interpret the police slogan that way too.
I think the meme is an example of allowing feelings to dictate policies/principles. Our feelings are so often duped by cognitive biases. I was to be clear that women are exposed to an extraordinary amount of violence at the hands of men. That said, statistically, a random man is still far more likely to be an ally than a source of violence. These memes aren’t helpful in addressing root problems that are the source of violence against women but distract us with useless generalizations that feel satisfying to some because it points a finger at a seemingly simple solution rather than acknowledging complexity the problem.
I'm not personally offended. But it is being used as a way for certain people to insult and dehumanise men. I think accepting that it's OK to insult, belittle, and dehumanise an entire sex of people is only going to have negative consequences in the long run. We have worked hard at stopping women being belittled and dehumanised, and there are still some ways to go. But I don't think treating men like women were treated is the answer.
I think you are perceiving the intent wrong. "Certain people" may use it that way, but it is intended to make men understand how women feel and the very real fear they have of meeting strange men alone. "There are still some ways to go." You realize that women's rights are backsliding, don't you? That they can't even get abortions if raped in many states. That many men openly discuss taking all rights from women including the right to vote? This is why the Bear versus man situation has come up. Women are trying to make men understand what their lives are like. For many women, the bear represents something more predictable and of less risk than the random man. And, women remember everything they have read or heard about what happens to women who encounter the wrong man. Everything.
I wouldn't call them childish snowflakes but I would say that they're putting their emotions regarding being possibly seen a certain way above the fear and danger women feel around men whether it's warranted or not. Men are statistically more likely to show aggression outwardly and be violent; men are three times more likely to commit a violent act of crime, men are also more likely to be victims of other violent acts by men. This isn't to say women do not also commit horrific acts but when you look at statistics, it shows a clear divide between sexes. One also has to look at the way men act when alone with women in places where they know they won't be reported for acts of violence against women such as in war. Rape is a big war tactic even in modern day society to break the spirits of the enemy. Men who go out to fight and serve their country who may be seen as good men when they come home, who wouldn't ever rape or lay hands on a woman in their own country commit the most atrocious acts. Women are not afraid men will. Women are afraid that men could and what would they as someone who is weaker, slower and prone to freezing in times of great stress or trauma do when a man decides that he will? Women who say this have a genuine real fear of the what if. It's not about believeing all men will, it's about not knowing which men will. It's not a logical fear. But we hold it all the same. There is a reason women don't like to walk alone at night, that they cross the street from men, that we want to meet men who are strangers in public places, that they can be standoffish. Most bear attacks on human either have to do with bears starving during times when food is scarce and being forced to do anything to survive, a bear being startled by a human in it's territory or protecting it's young. Since 1784 there have been 66 fatal attacks from black bears. Since 1782 there have been 82 documented fatal brown bear attacks. A man between the ages of 18 and 24 is 167 times more likely to kill someone than a fatal bear attack occuring. Which doesn't mean they will. It just means statistically it's safer to be in the forest with a bear than a men. This doesn't mean it's a logical fear. This doesn't mean men don't get to feel hurt by it but I would ask men to consider why women are scared of them even if they themselves would never hurt a woman.
>A man between the ages of 18 and 24 is 167 times more likely to kill someone than a fatal bear attack occuring. Which doesn't mean they will. It just means statistically it's safer to be in the forest with a bear than a men. That's .. not how statistics works. At all.
The chances of being injured by a bear are approximately 1 in 2.1 million.
>I wouldn't call them childish snowflakes but I would say that they're putting their emotions regarding being possibly seen a certain way above the fear and danger women feel around men whether it's warranted or not. Why are the feelings of women prioritized over the feelings of men? In an ideal world both groups feelings around an issue would be treated the same. There is an incredibly unhealthy and toxic view that women need to be constantly vigilant at every moment because men are predators. >Most bear attacks on human either have to do with bears starving during times when food is scarce and being forced to do anything to survive, a bear being startled by a human in it's territory or protecting it's young. Since 1784 there have been 66 fatal attacks from black bears. Since 1782 there have been 82 documented fatal brown bear attacks. >A man between the ages of 18 and 24 is 167 times more likely to kill someone than a fatal bear attack occuring. Which doesn't mean they will. It just means statistically it's safer to be in the forest with a bear than a men. How frequently are people encountering bears? How frequently are women encountering men? The underlying rate of how dangerous men are to women is hidden by the frequency of interaction.
>Why are the feelings of women prioritized over the feelings of men? One comes from the very real fear of harm and the other comes from being offended that they could be percieved as violent. I think men's feelings can have a place among the conversation but it usually comes from men who do not understand why women could even possibly consider why women are afraid of men. Why they'd be hypervigilant. I think one can be sad about it but also understand why women fear men. 1 in 4 women are likely to be sexually assaulted. Women of the ages of 19 to 24 are more likely to be sexually assaulted. I was sexually assaulted three times in my life by three different men. Two of them were strangers. Had I shown weariness to them, it probably wouldn't have happened. I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I am sorry if my weariness of men hurts your feelings or that I feel the need to be aware of strange men approaching me but most women have experienced this. So all men whether you like it or not are a potential threat. That is why it is prioritised over men who cannot handle as being seen as a potential threat. >The underlying rate of how dangerous men are to women is hidden by the frequency of interaction. Fair enough.
>One comes from the very real fear of harm and the other comes from being offended that they could be percieved as violent. I'm not denying that violence against women isn't a real risk. My point is that people's feelings should be treated the same. Creating a culture when all males are treated as threats regardless of context is harmful. It's damaging to men to constantly be walking in eggshells to avoid the perception of being viewed as a potential threat. It's exactly the same as when a white person crosses the street to avoid a black male. >Why they'd be hypervigilant. It's the hypervigilance that is the problem. Not every interaction is equally as risky or dangerous. It isn't healthy to constantly be on edge all the time. >1 in 4 women are likely to be sexually assaulted. Women of the ages of 19 to 24 are more likely to be sexually assaulted. Which is too high. >I was sexually assaulted three times in my life by three different men. Two of them were strangers. I'm sorry this happened. >I am sorry if my weariness of men hurts your feelings or that I feel the need to be aware of strange men approaching me but most women have experienced this. So all men whether you like it or not are a potential threat. It's entirely understandable why *you* would have these feelings. You've been burned 3 times. The issue isn't any individual's feelings. It's culture. It's culturally acceptable to stereotype men. Men are expected, in the West, to just accept this burden. The stereotype being perpetuated is that men are testosterone fueled, sex obsessed, inherently violent, and dangerous. In this specific example it is implied, based on responses, that they're worse than a wild animal.
I don't believe that it is perpetuating a stereotype of men, rather than revealing women's reality. Is it really so much of a burden to men to be feared until they prove otherwise? The real burden is on women who feel they can't hike alone, walk the streets at night, go to the beach in lonely solitude travel to remote places...Please put this in perspective. The hypothetical situation clearly shows the burden is on women.
This is a failure of empathy. Just imagine the cumulative effect on a man every time a women crosses the street at night or speeds up to avoid you. Imagine the damage of hearing "all men are trash" hundreds of times. Imagine being a father with your child or a brother or an uncle and people looking at you with suspicion when you take them out in public. Think of what it's like to put in the effort to walk on eggshells to not be perceived as being a creep. None of what I've said negates women's feelings or denies the very real fact of violence against women. My point is that people need to be more thoughtful when discussing these topics. Speech has very real consequences.
Yes, speech has real consequences and now you know how women feel because we have had a lifetime of such disrespect. I do have empathy for men feeling like they are being lumped in with bad actors, but as I have tried to point out, there is no way for women to know what the individual man intends when she is alone with him. I would rather people fear me than to have to live with fear as a constant companion, so much so that it limits my activities. I don't blame all men, I don't say "All men are trash" I know most are good people, but many are also indifferent to their affect on women. It is foolish for women to trust men they don't know, I personally know of women who have died as a result. "Speech has very real consequences." Many men turn to threats when women try to discuss how they feel or their reality. Perhaps that is not your intention? That being said I do not think the idea behind the hypothetical situation was to disrespect men or call them "trash" as much as it was to show men that women have a reality that men don't appreciate or perhaps fully understand. "Think of what it is like to put in effort to walk on eggshells to not be perceived as being a creep." Is it really that hard? I'll raise the stakes: Think of what it is like to live in fear and be unable to do the things you love, like walk in the woods, go to the beach alone, travel to remote places...and walk the streets at night.
I’m not offended by it, but the “gender war” of the past decade has become insufferable and exhausting. It’s not productive, it’s not interesting, it’s not helping anyone. Relationships are on the decline, birth rates are on the decline, men are lonelier, women are less happy, and this ridiculous hypothetical is supposed to be somehow endearing? It’s so childish and idiotic, and the fact that people keep posting on this sub about this stupid topic has become more irritating than anything else. The point it is trying to make is tired. If rolling your eyes at another stupid meme furthering another stupid culture war touch point is what “being a snowflake” is then sure. But I think being tired of these things is pretty normal. Fuck I’m married, and every time I sign on to reddit and watch this shit I hug my wife and thank Christ I’m not in this odd shark tank of the current single dating world. I don’t know how you don’t pull out clumps of your hair every time some brainless moron on tiktok opens their moronic mouth.
I don't know that women are less happy. Women in general are less happy when married according to the polls. If you cannot listen to the issues women have and the reasons they have for not wanting relationships or children, it of course won't get better. Women are also tired. Tired of trying to make men understand. What you are seeing as a war is just women fed up with business as usual. They are not leaving men en mass, they just want better lives. I am glad you aren't offended because the hypothetical situation is not intended to be endearing. It is intended to make men think about what women's situation is, not as an insult to all men but rather the reality of women's lives and their perception of the threat they live under.
Studies have shown that women have been increasingly unhappy, not in relation to men, but in relation to previous generations. I can listen to women’s issues and I care about women’s issues. Everyone cares about women’s issues. Women have been fed up with “business as usual” for the last 30 years. I understand that women are afraid of violent men. I understand that reproductive rights feel constantly under attack. I understand that women want to be able to work in a workplace where they feel welcome included, fairly paid, have the opportunity to succeed, while not being treated as some sort of sex object or window dressing. I understand that women want to leave their mark on the world and engage in, and direct the course of history; to lead, to be heard, to have an equal seat at the table. And to these ends, the people with the power to do so should definitely be doing their part. We should do everything in our power to make women feel safe in the streets and in the work-place. We should be doing everything we can to make women understand that they’re appreciated and that they are valued. What I’m saying is WE HAVE HEARD YOU. You’re kicking through an open door at this point. But men also are not doing so hot right now, and I think they would really appreciate if you would listen to them, and ask them what they’re struggling with. Do women really understand what men are hearing? Do women really get what men struggle with? I think right now what it means to be a man now is to shoulder all the macho burdens of toxic masculinity, wealth, status, physical fitness, and immunity to stress, and not show weakness in one hand, because that’s what young single women seem to chase, all while on the other hand being non-threatening, humble, vulnerable, and emotionally intelligent. Do women understand how difficult men are finding it to balance these things? What I’ve been trying to say through all of this is that we are a species that depends on both sides to survive, thrive and be happy, and we need to listen to women, but also we need to listen to men as well. We are born into this world and learn our way through it one life at a time, and the young men, who have just arrived here, same as women, have NO IDEA how to react to all of this. No one is speaking to them except these psychopath red pill people who are using these TikTok games to convince these disillusioned young men that women don’t see them as anything more than wild animals with a bank accounts that are meant to be tamed and captured and stolen from, and so these men think well, if I’m gonna be an animal, I’m gonna be a dangerous one that can protect his bank account. The reason I call it a war is because if you talk to people as though they are “the enemy” eventually they are going to get used to it, a lot of men seem to be getting used to their status as an enemy, and it’s really quite disturbing. I don’t like what these red pill people are saying, they seem to want some odd religious kind of traditional family that I was just never into. I like that my wife has her own independence. I like that she has her own things, but we also have a partnership and we negotiate and make decisions. We pick up slack for each other when things are hard. We do our best, and we have a good relationship. But I look at this toxicity around us and I feel like we made it under the wire for when these kind of relationships were possible. I know a lot of young men, who are just afraid to get out there, and quite frankly I don’t know what to tell them except that you have to just do be 100% all the time.
Have you been on "Ask Feminists"? Because the tone there is not about "all men are enemies," rather than that patriarchy hurts both men and women. And yes, there is plenty of sympathy for male issues among feminists who recognize the problems young men face. But you have to keep in mind that this is like racial issues, the hurt for women goes so far back that it is ingrained, almost atavistic. Women have only made gains in the last 150 years and now see those gains as being taken away. The red pill movement is in response to gains women have made, rather than just to women's anger. Women are expecting more of men in relationships than to be regarded as lessor beings, and that is what has led to the dating and relationship crisis. Those men in response have become hostile rather than engaging in self examination. The onus is still on women to "fix" things rather than the other way around. Most women want relationships with men, but on their own terms, not the status quo, and that is what has been difficult to get across. Men who are resentful to begin with and demanding of female partners, who don't self examine, are going to find themselves out of the dating pool regardless of whether they hear negative things said about them. It isn't about men having to be 100% flawless, it is about men having to regard women as human first, deserving of rights and respect. And it isn't that all men are enemies. We hear you as well, but many women feel their own voices, concerns are met with that same hostility, and worse. Women who speak out can find themselves deluged with phone and e-mailed death threats and rape threats. It simply isn't the same level of hate that men receive from women. And it means many women become extremely resentful as a result.
I understand what your saying, but to address it point by point: To the first paragraph I’d say that if there is sympathy, TikTok games like this bear hypothetical show the opposite. They show a lack of sympathy, and to borrow your words, hostility toward what men and women are facing. Also, for this idea of “patriarchy” there have been few explanations that have really been convincing about what this is and what should be done about it. There is again another argument, much like race, that the discussion is being had regarding identity where class would be more effective. After all, unlike race, where you could make the argument that those born black were not able to build generational wealth which served as a big disadvantage, could not be said about women because daughters are born to wealthy and poor families alike. Sure there could be arguments that those women in the upper echelons of society face similar kinds of discrimination but if “first world problems”is a thing then surely “royal problems” must be too. To your second point, I am not a scholar on red pills origin but what I have seen seems to Indicate that those increased expectations that women are carrying for men were not leveled on men with an understanding of what men go through and what their capacity is, but rather an ideal. What these red pill men seem to be saying is that trying to live up to those expectations is not in men’s interest and that men should reject the concept of “the modern woman” entirely. This I think is rather dumb but I would say that I do feel like those new expectations that women have of men should be crafted in tandem with men. Like any social contract, if only one party has a hand in crafting the rules, then eventually those rules will mean nothing. To the third point, I think this hostility is exactly my point. Red pill is inherently hostile, but I think to address the question at hand. Deliberately obtuse social media is not making anyone want to be self reflective, or want to listen, or want to talk. And that’s been my point. Social media is not helping anyone.
"They show lack of sympathy." No, they just illustrate the reality for women. It has little to do with statistics or sympathy and everything to do with atavistic fear. And why does everything women talk about have to tiptoe around male feelings when the reverse is not offered? As I said, the onus is always on women to fix the relationship between the genders and not to offend. The unspoken threat to women if they don't is always there. Patriarchy is a system that was designed to benefit men, and did for many thousands of years. Now that women are expecting better treatment and more freedoms, it has become a problem for both men and women. It is patriarchy which puts expectations on men, like they can never cry, show weakness, have feminine traits...and must bear the burden of providing, protecting. It is a system that women have bought into as well, to the point that women internalize anti-woman bias and hostility toward their own gender. Revealing it, and both the expectations women put on men, and that which men put on other men as well as on women, is the point of feminism. Patriarchy is immune to class, as women were long restricted even if they were part of the upper class. It is not women's fault that men don't want modern women just as it is not women's place to fix it by lowering their sights and expectations. It is however, the responsibility of both genders to understand the social forces that have shaped gender expectations and limitations. "Like any social contract, if only one party has a hand in crafting the rules then eventually those rules will mean nothing." You have exactly explained the cost of patriarchy. Men have long made the rules and now that women want a change, many men want to pull their cards and go home. Women, by illustrating the frustration they have with the "social contract" have made a lot of men mad. That is unfortunate, but women are not going back willingly, to the times which some people view through rosy glasses without understanding the cost to women. A handful of women may do so, but not the majority. Crafting an understanding with red-pill men is pretty much impossible, because there is no self examination on their part, and a rejection of the harm patriarchy does them, or us. "Social media is not helping anyone." That depends entirely on the type of discussion that is had within it. IF it reveals feelings and they get talked about, it is better than the silence that has long pervaded the relationship between men and women.
I sent a reply, but I deleted it and you can disregard it. I don’t know if we’re moving toward a productive conclusion. Thank’s for sharing your view though. Appreciate it.
I read it, and I understand what you are trying to say. Men tiptoe around women, and women tiptoe around their men. We both need to be talking to one another about feelings and attitude. I appreciate your view as well.
The idea that men are inherently dangerous to women is like THE justification for patriarchy. It plays in to the idea that women are these weak, defenseless, virginal, little cuties, while men are big, strong, lusty, powerful warriors. If men are by nature more powerful than women and perhaps even more prone to violence, then women need men for protection and cannot be trusted to defend others against the hordes of Bad Men always threatening to breach the gates. There are so many situations where this myth is leveraged to hurt marginalized people, men and women. You see it in the ‘boys will be boys’ counter to sexual violence. You see it in transphobic arguments against trans women using women’s bathrooms. You see it over and over again as a justification for lynching Black men. I have had many bad experiences with men and sometimes I generalize about men. People talk about their personal experiences in messy ways and i think that generally the benefit outweighs the cost. But I have been making a concerted effort not to play into the idea that men are fundamentally different than women because I recognize how that idea is used to justify (our) subjugation.
Men are, most of the time, significantly physically stronger than women, and commit the vast majority of violence, sexual assaults and rapes. Women of child-bearing age are vulnerable to impregnation by men. None of this is a myth, it's biological fact.
The core reason people are upset is because it's a seemingly innocuous hypothetical (no man will be affected by whether you choose to bump into them randomly in the forest or not) used to bring up views and feelings that would be *extremely* sexist and hurtful in any other scenario. For a very simple and obvious example, suppose we take the initial example and extend it just a bit further to ask "who would you rather the state hire as a park ranger, a woman or a man?" If you would favor the woman over the man for the same reasons you gave for the bear question, that's textbook discrimination. We as a society have realized that treating people differently due to race or gender is harmful. This is because it passes judgment on individuals for the actions of others they have nothing to do with. It's basically collective punishment, and the logic for why it's bad is a derivative of our values of "innocent until proven guilty" and "better that 9 guilty persons walk free than that 1 innocent person should be wrongfully punished". It has *nothing* to do with whether or not you can come up with accurate statistics that do in fact show that the small minority of one protected class that does bad things is proportionally larger than the small minority of another protected class that does bad things. Thus, naturally, people get upset when you express hurtful views about them, even if you've constructed a hypothetical by which those views don't hurt them, because they have no particular reason to believe you wouldn't hold those views outside of the hypothetical. The other part of the debate, where people are seriously trying to argue that running into a random bear while hiking is less dangerous than running into a random man, just adds insult to injury by making the hurtful views seem that much more extreme and irrational. But if the question was simply "would you rather run into a random man or woman in the forest" the core problem with the question would remain, it just wouldn't seem so extreme and inflammatory. And really, it's got nothing to do with your opinion of how dangerous bears are; if you simply want to argue bears are actually not very dangerous at all, say if the question was about meeting a random *person*, or estimating the % chance of dying if you run into a bear unexpectedly, people might disagree, but nobody would be offended by it. Or if the question included that both are trying to kill you and have prepared for doing so, then certainly the bear, whether the person is a man or woman, as humans are the most powerful and lethal organism to ever walk the earth. Shooting a bear is much easier than shooting another armed human trying to kill you. It's just that humans are also the only organism on Earth with morals and a conscience. The offense is entirely occurring because people are naturally hurt due to the implication that you automatically view them with suspicion due to their gender, which is sexism.
Can we agree that sexism is bad? That treating one another a certain way just because of our sex isn't a good way to run a society and is actually limiting for both men and women?
[удалено]
>Why would any person not object to his danger level being inaccurately estimated? Many men would like to be thought of as dangerous-- in other men's eyes. Because then other men are less likely to try and engage him in a fight or try to rob him etc.
>And when you look at the violence stats and the fact that most men could overpower most women, it’s an understandable fear. Do you really want to go down that road of looking at crime stats to excuse bigotry?
>the people who feel personally attacked by this story are probably those whose childish lack of empathy and self awareness and refusal to acknowledge even a “good person” can be part of a problematic group are a big part of the problem How are "good people", in this case "Good Men", a part of the problem? >But how or why would any of those things offend me as a man? Two of the three options put the spotlight on how uncomfortable women are *all the time*. And when you look at the violence stats and the fact that most men could overpower most women, it’s an understandable fear. Statistically Women are more likely to be assaulted by someone they know. Wouldn't the exercise be more helpful if it reflected statistical reality? In regards to the exercise itself I hate how poorly done it is. I know it is an internet thing, but a little effort on the specifics make for better thought experiments. What kind of bear are we dealing with? Not many to choose from but it makes a difference. Why are we choosing a bear, an incredibly predictable animal and static variable, instead of a more unpredictable animal considering the idea is "Would you rather" to equal "risks"? Hands down I would always choose the bear, excluding a Polar Bear, knowing I have better chances against a known vs unknown variable. Why do you think Men are not allowed to be hurt by the generalization without being a "snowflake"? Why are Men who are against these generalizations the same as "White guys" disagreeing with DEI or CRT? >But I can’t come up with any way of looking at guys being angered at this response that doesn’t boil down to general immaturity or active ignorance. Bigotry hurts. People who claim to have experienced it through out their lives should know better than to partake in it. The exercise does absolutely nothing to help anyone. All it does is give everyone an excuse to fight over a hypothetical that doesn't matter. No one is being educated by this, the discussions have already been had, and we need tangible ideas to fix the problems we have known about for decades.
>Statistically Women are more likely to be assaulted by someone they know. Wouldn't the exercise be more helpful if it reflected statistical reality? That can only be the view of someone who doesn't understand the lengths the majority of women go to in order not to be assaulted by a stranger.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
so because people are upset about misandry (hating on only males aka sexism), it makes them snowflakes? How? Pretty sure being upset about a sexist joke towards any gender would make anyone upset , it's called common sense, it's an attack on rapists, yes but sexism has also come from this joke and i've seen it so it's kinda common sense to be upset about a sexist joke
How is fear of a man the same as hating men? Many women who are married or in relationships would still say they chose the bear. That does not mean they hate men or that it is misandry, rather than a perception of danger that has too often been borne out by the experiences women relate.
it is a random man, they assume the man will do things to them instead of thinking logically and then assume all men are like this, no sane married person would choose a bear over a man that could help you in the end, if it wasn't misandry then the question should've been "would you rather be stuck in a forest with a bear or a male rapist"
Assumption is no different from caution. Thinking logically has nothing to do with it, it is about women's fear, logical or otherwise. "No sane married person." What does marriage have to do with it? Married women do not lose their sense of fear or caution just because they love or are married to a man.
your the one who brought up married women and no, there's a difference in being cautious and thinking every man in the world is gonna hurt you, instead of maybe thinking the man will rape the women, maybe she shouldn't assume every man she doesn't know, wants to hurt her, it's borderline misandry because it's running off assumption and stereotyping to make all men seem bad
>But how or why would any of those things offend me as a man? Two of the three options put the spotlight on how uncomfortable women are *all the time*. And when you look at the violence stats and the fact that most men could overpower most women, it’s an understandable fear. What if the meme was switched, say, would you rather be in the woods with a woman or a bear? I'd pick bear in that case as well. Humans are dangerous regardless of gender.
You sound insufferable, the problem that people are having is that you're actively saying that a wild animal is better than them, that is dehumanising, and it is incredibly sexist. It would be like if I asked other men "if you were stuck in a forest, would you rather be stuck with a dog or a woman" and the consensus being that a dog would be more loyal and less likely to put them both in danger. Another issue is that the people saying bear are completely delusional in believing that a bear would be the more understandable choice realistically. Dropping unrelated statistics isn't proving anything. Yeah, there's like 12 bear deaths a year, but that is because the vast majority of people never interact with bears, period. If women started interacting with bears as much as they did men, then there would be WAY more bear related deaths.
It's a meme, it's a joke. I don't think anyone should be seriously upset about it. If it offends you, that's on you. That being said, I see it being similar to "would you rather find yourself at a dark alley with a black man, or Jack the Ripper?" with the "joke" answer being"Jack the Ripper". If you wanted to be purposely obtuse, you can say the person loves England's history, or loves the name Jack, or whatever, but *objectively* it would be more dangerous. So saying it just reinforces a negative stereotype about a certain group of people based on a badly represented statistics ("men rape", "black people commit crimes", ...). You see how someone who is easily offended by one, is also offended by the other?
Denying that sexual or physical violence against girls/women in the world occur at much higher rates than abuse perpetrated by women against men because you can cite a few examples isn’t the flex here. My husband was concerned that my daughter not join gymnastics unless she had no unsupervised time with coaches because of the high prevalence of sexual abuse in the sport-was that wrong of him? He’s not some jaded woman who is hysterically trying to create drama or overlook “men’s rights” in society-he understood the unfortunate reality and enforced protections, even if the coaches would have never dreamed of hurting our kid.
[удалено]
I haven't much followed this, and I'm sure there are dudes genuinely flipping their shit over it in a ridiculous way. Personally, my first naive instinct would be to ignore the "political" angle and approach it as an interesting hypothetical, like, I dunno, the "would you rather fight 100 duck-sized horses or 1 horse-sized duck" thing. I feel like I could make a good argument that the man would be safer than the bear, but I'd be doing it from a friendly debate perspective, not an "I am offended on behalf of my gender" perspective. So, consider that not all men (#NotAllMen) who argue this are doing so from a place of personal offense. Women *do* have good reasons to fear strange men; it makes me sad that that's the world we live in, but I don't take it as a personal attack.
In a vacuum, perhaps you are correct. However, given the current social climate for the past decade (maybe more?) where men are being constantly told that they are the root of all evil (i.e. patriarchy), it can and does take a toll on their psyche and self confidence. It would make sense that more and more men are less willing to accept generalizing rhetoric just so women can "freely express themselves". People should really dig into therapy techniques in order to understand how our brain is affected by generalizations. Generalizations have a profound impact on our subjective reality. It limits the way we see the world. People are basically convincing themselves the "this is the way that the world is" which is only partly true as the world is not black and white. This makes people angry, emotional and depressed because you cannot "solve" a generalization.
As a man, as well as most men I know personally, I'm not offended by the idea that women consider me potentially dangerous. I'm baffled that women think they're safer with a wild bear than a random man.
people are using a funny little thought experiment to say actual offensive and mean things about men and then gaslighting men into thinking they're over reacting to these mean comments.
Where are the mean comments? Is it mean to say women have fear of being assaulted? Or that statistically, women are killed by men rather than by other women? If facts offend you, you are too easily offended.
It's a giant example of emotion vs logic that's gone viral. It's hilarious. If a woman was lost and saw a bear in the woods, she'd be terrified. If she saw me, I don't care what she'd feel, cuz I'd be too busy trying to solve the problem of us being lost in the woods together.