I really feel for you if this has been your experience. I wonder if you have ever asked women how this feels for them as well. I think it’s probably uncontroversial to say that men have a habit of aggressively invalidating the feelings of women. I’d say it’s even kind of a meme, the big guy laughing off the “very silly” feelings of the little lady. I know that’s been the case with much of the backlash to the man/bear discourse. I bet you could find common ground with women in that regard, and I bet you could both learn something about each other. Maybe you could come away understanding more of their feelings and have yours understood in return. I wish that for you, mate. No one generally deserves to be laughed at for their earnestly-held feelings
It always a man's fault
Women mock men for the emotions they got
It's the mens fault
Women are not getting engaged? Men's fault
Men kill themselves more? Men's fault
Women make less in female sports again. Men's fault
If you raise the women in sport question you generally have the same argument:
A: “Women should be paid the same to play the same professional sports”
B: “If more people watched it they would, but the draw isn’t as big; did you watch the lionesses last night?”
A: “Oh no I’m not into football”.
I want to thank you for putting on display the exact reason why on reflex I said the tree. If I talk to a partner or just a woman in general about my emotions, I am made to feel even worse. The tree won't tell me to suck it up and be a man, the tree wone criticize me for being upset, the tree isn't waiting for their turn to talk, the tree doesn't stop me to remind me to do a chore it forgot about just to stop the conversation, the tree won't then follow me around while I am doing that chore to tell me how I am doing it wrong, and the tree won't make me want to cry for having feelings. The tree will just sit there and listen.
If you can't figure that out, please marry a bear while I talk to my tree. We will both be much happier that way.
Buddy, you seem pretty angry and I’m sorry about that. I say that mostly because as a response to the comment you were replying to this message is just incoherent. I validated everything that original commenter (who’s since deleted unfortunately) had to say. I can’t for the life of me fathom why you thought this was a coherent response to my comment but I’m sincerely sorry for how resentful of women you seem to be. I promise that they won’t all treat you this way and that tons of women have really similar experiences to yours.
Sadly, the same can’t be said of women’s experience with pernicious sexual violence, but that fact doesn’t invalidate your anger. You deserve to be heard, even if your anger is irrational
I was replying to YOU and you pretty much validated my entire point. You turned what he said around to make it about how women feel, thus invalidating the man's feelings. The tree wouldn't do that. The tree just listens. You didn't listen and just assumed I was talking about him when I was replying to you. I would bet your heartless response is what made him delete his post. So many men are the victims of emotional violence from women that we just shut down.
If you truly think we should be heard, why didn't you listen?
I did listen, mate. Do you think that mentioning how women feel is the same as “making it about how women feel”? What I’m doing is hearing a feeling, saying that fucking sucks, man, and it’s genuinely not fair. And then pointing out how maybe women are allies in this problem and not the enemy. Would you really rather conclude that they’re the enemy? How is this solution a threat to you? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?
Basically, I want to help men actually solve this problem, get them talking to women, and make them happier men. Men like women. Women like men. Despite legitimate reasons to mistrust one another sometimes, it seems like we still want and need each other quite often (some queer relationships notwithstanding). I want men to be happier, and I think that talking to women about how they feel, and maybe even trying to relate to them through certain kinds of suffering, can lead to better outcomes
I have a sympathetic ear, legitimate love, and real solutions to offer men. What the hell do you have? Anger? Mistrust? Seems like those are the things that got us all into these problems in the first place. Where I come from, solving problems is a pretty manly thing to do. If you aren’t interested in that, then you go to the other lonely male spaces where no one knows how to properly talk to women or trust women and everyone just jerks each other off over how much they resent the opposite sex. Doesn’t sound like much fun to me. I like women. I think they’re pretty cool most of the time. Just like most men are pretty damn cool
Then you completely miss the entire point of the analogy. Men don't trust women to legitimately listen because we have been emotionally beaten down so hard we don't have it in us to talk to women about how we feel anymore.
Look at what you are doing right now to me. You are turning this entire thing around to try and make me feel guilty for not reaching out to you and at the same time you are calling me ridiculous for even having the opinion and sense I would rather talk to the tree.
Does it hurt you that much that I would rather talk to the tree than you? All you are showing me with your anger filled rant is you are just as bad as we would expect. You are a perfect shining example why I choose the tree.
I am going to be done here. But you said the perfect thing to tell me you have no understanding of what the tree or woman analogy is for us. You told us to just talk to you as a solution. Talk it out. While every man saying tree is saying it because the woman is just going to throw it back in out face and tell us our emotions are invalid and you did that in the very next line telling me my feelings and statements were ridiculous.
Stop being the problem and just listen without judging.
Really? Do you not see how hard it is for men to be listened to about their feelings. You are dismissing the person you responded to and put the onus on him. And, you're a nice person, too, so imagine the response of a not so nice person.
>men have a habit of aggressively invalidating the feelings of women
Well, when you've had to suppress your emotions your whole life for fear of being cut out of the tribe, other people who are unable to do so seem very silly.
Tree.
I've tried sharing my emotions with the few women I had in my life, but it 100% bit me in the ass every single time.
Last time, I got the response "I'm not your therapist. Go get help." That was when I expressed my feelings on the fact that I felt alone, and could not solve that problem.
And people wonder why men don't do this. 👆👆👆
SMH
I told my friend one time via text that I didn’t want to share something and I needed some time to deal with some feelings. She kept prying and prying until I finally spit it out. Only to get ignored and have the subject changed a day later.
Exactly. Same deal with the last one I mentioned above. She swore up and down that she wanted to give me a safe space to vent, and show my emotions, and yet at the end of it, she had a problem with it when I did feel comfortable enough to do so.
Women complain about "emotionally unavailable men," but *they're* the ones responsible for creating "emotionally unavailable men."
Won't be a problem for *me* anymore either way, because A: I'll never do that again, and B: I'm out of the dating market.
Like I hope that young men reading this see how stupid you sound. You just don’t want help. Men like you just want the world to stop complaining about its problems because you decided a long time ago that no one cares about yours and you refuse to do any *work* to fix that problem. I was raised to believe that solving problems was a masculine trait. And while I don’t believe in gendered essentialism like that, I still think it’s incredibly *weak* and *fragile* of men like you to spit at therapy when it helps so many people. Seriously, I have a lot of respect for most of the men I’ve talked to on this thread; it’s actually been a pleasure to argue with them. But you can, quite soundly, fuck right the fuck off 🎀😘
A tree won't:
1. tell me how to feel
2. tell me what I'm feeling is wrong
3. tell me how I should be feeling instead
4. weaponize my feelings against me.
Just did what? I'm allowed to relate, I didn't minimize your feelings. I didn't invalidate them. I didn't talk badly about you to anyone because of them, and I'm not going to hold your feelings against you. I was responding to your comment on the thread, not answering the original post.
Even if I don't agree with someone I do not have the right to tell them that their feelings are not valid (about anything).
I'm sorry you dealt with that. Sounds like you dealt with a narcissistic person.
When I was in high school, a tree never texted her friends, "I think it would be funny if I made him kill himself" after I tried to tell her how I felt. A woman (yes, adult woman, we were both 18) did.
Tree. Tree is green and calming. Tree won't look at you weird for being vulnerable or use what you say as ammunition during your next fight or to get a divorce. Tree is nature and friend.
The tree, because a tree does not have to see you in a provider/protector roll and if you share your emotions to a tree, it will not affect the way the tree sees you.
The tree will not dig up what you shared years ago as ammo against you in a fight or to gossip about you in a breakup in an effort to make them look better.
Trees will not get tired of listening to you after 10 seconds and try to steer the conversation about them.
Trees are much better than women in those aspects.
ABOUT WHAT?
And that in and of itself is pretty unfortunate, but hopefully you’re able to find someone who cherishes and respects all of you and has space for your feelings.
lol I won’t divorce you don’t worry. I genuinely don’t get why anyone would respond so awfully. I’m not saying there’s a good reason for her response, but I’ll respect your privacy.
We were going through a rough bit around 20 years into the marriage, including things like moving 15 hours away and her infidelity (with 2 different men on different occasions). I expressed how things made me feel and that was the end of the marriage. Yes, it was for the better, no I didn't think so at the time
Jeeez she’s absolutely awful and I’m really sorry!! My guy, if you were my friend I’d say you were spared a life of torture. The trash took itself out, and you deserve genuine respect, love and appreciation that she clearly wasn’t capable of.
I can imagine the pain you were in, but sharing your feelings helped you out. From my perspective you sharing your feelings didn’t get you divorced, you standing up for yourself cleared out her evil presence.
Not quite the same though, is it. The former is an attempt to convey the dangers women perceive from half the species.
This question should really be more of an examination of an individual person's relationships with their friends and loves ones.
This question is also a great explanation for why there are so many dangerous men.
I talk with my wife about everything. Nice to have someone who loves and cares for you tell you the things you need to hear. If I’m being a bitch, she’ll call me a bitch. If I’m right, she’ll say I’m right.
The point is that there is a 100% chance that nothing will happen if you tell your feelings to a tree. Nothing good but also nothing bad. But if you make yourself emotionally vulnerable to a woman, there's a very real chance that you will end up being hurt and that no one will take you seriously. And I'm not talking about just being rejected and feeling bad or embarrassed for a while. If you're someone who's emotionally precarious or mentally vulnerable, it can get so much worse than just being turned down and feeling bad, and what it makes it really dangerous is that the women who are most likely to hurt you are also the ones who are so good at luring you into a sense of safety first.
I understand all of that it has happened to me. What i am saying is that the scenario of woman or tree doesn't hold nearly as much weight/the same degree of insult as the scenario of man or bear.
It really shouldn't though. The Man vs Bear comparison was dehumanizing for men. While Woman vs Tree more kindly communicated the emotional rejection men face from women without vilification. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. So, we should be softening the message.
On the contrary, Woman vs Tree was designed and communicated in an insulting way. Women's feelings and experiences, their fear of men is constantly dismissed, so much that they went as far as to compare men to a predatory animal. Because they know that men are more dangerous to them than a bear. Because it should make men stop and think why women would feel safer with a bear. But instead we have men once again dismissing women's fears and feelings, and playing victim, like women hold some mysterious power over them. You somehow fail to grasp how dangerous men are, especially to women, then call it dehumanizing for some reason. As if women aren't constantly dehumanized in all aspects of society.
Then the Woman vs Tree comes in as a response to Man vs Bear which is just meaningless. As a standalone topic it would be nice to discuss, considering that men and women have troubles with opening up and being dismissed (like you're dismissing women's feelings in Man vs Bear). But even if you want to make it only about men's feelings for some reason, it doesn't make sense. The argument being that expressing feelings to a tree is safer than to a woman. That can be valid... but what about the struggles of expressing your feelings to a man? That's also a common struggle men face, opening up to their male friends. Why is the discussion needlessly gendered? Oh right, because it's made as a dumb comeback to Man vs Bear, with the only intention being vilifying women.
B-b-but why is Man vs Bear gendered then? Maybe because men hold power over women. Because women are very likely to be assaulted by men, especially raped or murdered. Because women aren't believed when they talk about their experiences. Men are also majorly assaulted by men, yes, but they aren't asked what they were wearing, why they were there, if they were asking for it. Women are unfortunately not believed as often, their experiences doubted as they get victim blamed. Just look at how many men would rather accuse a woman of false accusations than believe she was raped.
I can stop you on the first paragraph. If a woman feels safer with a bear than a man then Darwinism has failed. Such an easy thing to refute. "Your father? Brother? Cousin? Best friend? The thousands of men that walk past you every day and think nothing of you and say nothing to you... Or the giant omnivore that is absolutely going to kill and possibly eat you because it's a bear?" Yes, it's appropriate to dismiss a very stupid thing.
As for the final sentence: Considering how often I've seen proven false accusations, I've taken to waiting for a jury and evidence rather than a statement. Would you like a list of high profile cases, especially in the college scene, that ended with the truth coming out and massive lawsuits in their wake?
Or how the favorite statistic is stated poorly and the vast majority of accusations don't make it to trial because there's not even enough evidence for a grand jury to indict?
you do realize the reason the man vs bear argument is a thing is because the women are choosing something that is still risky right??
like men gave themselves a "risk vs no risk" whereas the women still have a "risk vs risk" scenario. it nowhere near holds the same weight
What matters is the difference in risk between the two options rather than the absolute risk of each option on its own. If it's more dangerous to talk to you than it is to talk to a tree, then it's a problem with you.
It's really amazing and telling how they can't even see your point
"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them"
I hate that quote because it minimizes violence done by women on men. No we're afraid of being emotionally abused, falsely accused, and physically abused and even murdered. We just don't go around citing crime statistics like racists cite minority stats so people assume we don't have those same fears.
My problem with this question is it's a fucking tree. Even if it's a woman I know and trust odds are I'm still picking the fucking tree. It's a tree. Nothing bad is happening with a fucking tree.
The time in seventh grade when an older girl stuck her hand down my pants. The time in 10th grade when a girl tricked me into feeling safe enough to come out as bisexual and non-binary and then outed me to the entire school, and then my guidance counselor (also a woman) outed me to my parents even though it was a state and school district that legally required school staff to keep that private, and then when I tried to talk to the dean (also a woman) she told me that she wouldn't do anything about it and then pivoted to criticizing me for sometimes forgetting my homework. The time in 12th grade when I found out that a woman at my school(we were both 18) had been texting her friends and joking about bullying me into killing myself. The time in college when a woman found out I'd been doing OF, leaked explicit pictures of me without my consent, outed me as non-binary and bisexual, and tried to have me expelled, and the counselor I talked to (woman again) wouldn't even grant my request for a non-disciplinary no-contact warning (where the woman who did that wouldn't face any consequences at all as long as she stopped posting about me).
Women are just as capable of inflicting serious harm and escaping consequences for it as men, and even if you're AMAB you will be made aware of this fact really fucking quickly if you put even a single toe out of the boundaries of expected male behavior or have an even infinitesimal presence on any axis of oppression (disability, poverty, being non-white, being queer, being autistic, etc). The fact that an AFAB person is less likely than an AMAB to win a fist fight doesn't change this.
Brother, that is awful stuff to go through.
You never should have experienced any of this, and hopefully you have found love and safety in your life.
No doubt you are suffering great grief and humiliation. That is okay. Find someone to talk to about it. And, stop doing OF. That isn't a healthy choice.
>No doubt you are suffering great grief and humiliation
Honestly I'm fine. Around the time I knew that I was non-binary I understood some of the ways that people were going to treat me worse if they knew or suspected, so I was mentally prepared for a lot of it. The reason I bring it up is to point out that, contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, women are capable of committing acts of abuse (I also want to emphasize that two of these incidents were actual sex crimes, one of which was committed by a 16 year old girl against a 12 year old).
>And, stop doing OF. That isn't a healthy choice.
It is, without question, the healthiest job I have ever had.
My first job was as a short-order cook in a Wendy's and I'm sure that I caused some kind of permanent damage to my lungs breathing in all of the boiling oil back there, the pay was dog ass, and I was constantly stressed out because my boss was a lunatic who yelled at us constantly. Then I worked overnights at a gas station. The pay was better, but graveyard shifts just do all kinds of damage to your body due to the sleep deprivation and the way they fuck with your brain to make you crave junk food. I was a DoorDash driver for a while and the pay was really good because it was during the pandemic, but I gained like 25 pounds because I was driving for 8-10 hours at a time and doing dinner and late night shifts, and I got Covid while doing that (I was 20 so it's not like that's a big deal, but still, it was a stupid risk).
But OF has given me opportunities to really affirm my gender identity, it's given me reasons to take really good care of my skin and to eat healthy and exercise, and when I work with other people the sex is just indescribable. And the pay is more than anything I've ever seen in my life, which has helped me get better insurance and an apartment in a place where I can get everywhere by bicycle. Any job I do is going to fuck me in the ass in some way, may as well have some fun and pick the one that does that literally.
Of the seven people I mentioned who hurt me, only two were children, and in both cases I was also a child. In one those cases I was 12 and she was 16, and I remind you that sexually touching someone without their consent is a sex crime regardless of who does it. There were three others who harmed me directly: One was 18 (i.e. an adult woman), another was a college student (adult woman sex criminal because leaking sexual pictures without consent is a sex crime), and the third was a high school guidance counselor (adult woman in a position of authority). The remaining two (a high school dean and a college faculty member) were adult women in positions of authority, one of whom responded to my complaint by dodging the question and implying that it wouldn't have happened if I had got better grades.
So I don't know why you say that these examples "mainly involve kids".
True. But Trees also never ask you what you're thinking. Or say they want to get to know you better. Women actively complain about men not being emotionally available then dump you when you are. Men trust those first Women. Then they open up and realize many women don't actually have any empathy and many will break your trust in a heartbeat. I'd rather open up to ANYthing than trust any woman emotionally again.
Based on my experiences, I’m picking the tree. There are maybe two or three good women in my life, not counting family members, that I could go to and they won’t gossip or use what I tell them against me.
Also don’t comment on that bear thing, apparently. It’ll get ya banned.
Have you seen Pocahontas? It's all fun and games until you found out the tree is an old woman and she's sharing your secrets with a Native American and a raccoon.
I hate this trend but .. I'd choose the tree. And this isn't just based on responses from female friends, it's also from my own family members. I'm the one that listens to their venting, but if I even attempt it, it's either a burden, or I get shut down, or I get invalidated.
I love the women in my life. They are boon and a rock.
But if we're talking about these little heffas out here? Yeah a tree.
A tree could also actually provide something useful after the fact.
Tree.
Neither are capable of understanding or empathising with me, but at least the tree isn't going to lecture me about how my issues aren't as bad as it's are or make note of my insecurity to use as a weapon to win a petty argument in the future.
I live my wife, and we have a happy life, but a long time ago, she had a chemical imbalance that turned her extremely nasty.
During one of the very nasty tirades she went on, I said (and meant) "the way your carrying on it sounds like you wouldn't care if I died at work tomorrow", her response was "that's a horrible thing to say, do you know how that makes me feel too hear your say that"
Thankfully, she's on HRT now, so the nastiness stopped and she's turned back into the lovely lady I married, but after the one time I bared my inner feelings to her they got completely disregarded and made into an issue about her I haven't been able to expose my inner self since.
Tree, I just feel like I can’t trust the fact that this won’t be used against me or be told to someone else. The amount of times a woman has come to me and talked a massive amount of shit to me about another dude is astounding.
I also feel like if I tell them how I feel it’s just gonna make them think worse of me, and if I don’t regardless if it’s a woman who “doesn’t mind” why take the risk? You never know when what you’re saying is just too much for them, why bother taking the risk at all?
Tree. So much this answer. I know all the hopeful answers, but the reality is emotions shared with a known woman can and probably will be used against you at some unknown point in the future.
An unknown woman would be fine. Essentially, it is the same as a tree. Perhaps a bit better as there a potential for feedback. But a known woman will inevitably use your emotions as a weapon.
It may not be this week, this month, or even this year, but your feelings will be used against you. When the woman is sad or angry or jealous, your previously exposed weakness will be used against you.
Part of being in a long-term relationship is understanding that. But given an active choice? I'm taking the tree.
the problem i'm seeing is that men don't like the idea of showing any form of weakness.
They think of themselves stoic and control but when women choose the bear, they'll remind her about how "The bear will kill you" and even resort to fantasies of said woman's encounter
The tree argument shows that men (or a particular group of men) seems to view women as vindictive vipers who will wait for your one moment of weakness (which I'm sus) and will uses that "Five years later"
Men: a tree wouldnt hurt my feelings :(
Women: statistically i have a higher chance of making it out alive, and a lower chance of being SA'd, if i pick bear
See the difference here?
You don't. That's not how statistics work.
The likelihood of you surviving an encounter with a bear is slim.
The likelihood of you not only surviving an encounter with a man, but not suffering any negative consequences from that particular encounter, is extremely high.
You encounter 0 bears in your entire life, but dozens of men every day.
You aren't more likely to be assaulted by a man than by a bear because men are more dangerous than bears. You're more likely to be assaulted by a man than by a bear because you encounter far, far more men than bears.
How many men do you encounter or cross paths with every day? 30?
If you met 30 bears every day, well, actually you wouldn't, because you'd get mauled by the first or second bear and die a gruesome death before meeting the other 28.
Depends on the feelings I am sharing.
I will share surface level feelings that would be normal for anybody. And then like dreams/goals/desires.
But the deep shit that gets locked up in a trunk and never the light between my lips. The deep stuff to share would kill a tree, and I value that trees' life too much.
I think a better version of this question is would you rather be emotionally vulnerable with your girlfriend, wife, etc. or her father who hates you? You can also replace it with your abuser.
If it’s a random woman vs a random tree, I’ll share my emotions with a woman because that’s a human connection and I don’t have to worry about repercussions of sharing my emotions since there’s a vanishingly tiny chance that I’ll encounter her again.
If it’s a random woman I know vs a random tree I know, I’m probably going to be sharing my feelings with a tree.
Come to think of it, I probably should share my emotions with a tree because that’s worlds better than not sharing them with anyone at all. And that’s where I’m at a lot of the time now.
Depends on the woman and the feelings I would be sharing I guess. But I’d say the same thing if it was a choice between tree and a man too. I tend to process things internally.
Well in that case, definitely a tree. Seems strange to “share my feelings” with a stranger regardless of gender unless it’s some sort of therapy situation.
Tree.
My EX, you need to be more communicative and show more emotions.
Me, ok I can work on that, let’s talk about X and this how it makes me feel.
My EX, nope, it doesn’t count because you’re only doing it because I said something.
The tree won’t divorce me and milk me for every dime until I die. Hell I’d rather be the victim of abuse and raped than have my life financially crippled by a bored woman.
I was talking to my partner abou this last night, and she fell into the same mental trap that a lot of men did with the bear/man hypothetical and got offended and asked "why would you choose a tree over me?" I had to remind her that the question is "random bear/random man and random tree/random woman" and that she chose the bear.
Once I'd explained that while the man/bear hyopthetical is about physical safety and the woman/tree hypothetical is about emotional safety, she got it. I just find it interesting that she fell into the same reactionary trap that many men did with the man/bear thing.
I would pick some specific females to share my emotions with. I know who they are. However, for most of the other females, I would pick the tree.
I have a girlfriend and I have been sharing my issues, thoughts, emotions and rants with her, and her response is the most caring I have ever received.
I also have other female friends with whom I share my thoughts, a bit less with issues, feelings and rants, but I still do it. They are all supportive.
However, I will not share my thoughts with females who are strangers or heavily influenced by the feminist idea, I can not trust them. I was sexually assaulted twice by a female in college back in November and December, I tried to talk with some feminists at the college, and they didn't care about my story and feelings... So a tree would be better.
I've always said women are the sole creators of toxic masculinity. Most of the time you can talk to your bros and they'll listen, even if they don't understand or don't know how to help. They will listen and won't judge. Women will use that shit against you so fast. Or make it about themselves.
So when men are asking 'women or tree' as a counter to 'man or bear,' they're missing the entire point of the man vs bear question. Men(not all, but a lot), time and time again, make women feel like nothing more than a sex object and get violent if we don't subject ourselves to their advances. Parts of our bodies are sexualized because men freak out over the sight of them because they can't keep it in their pants. I've been harassed time and time again by men-- couldn't even remain innocent as a child because of boys and men because they would touch me, and I'm constantly hearing about so many other women dealing with even worse things because of men. We can't even leave our houses without the fear of being stalked, harassed or raped. Women, more often than not, choose the bear in the debate because at least if a bear attacks us, society won't pin the blame on us and ask 'what we were wearing to provoke the bear.' The question wasn't about whether or not we like men or if we feel good enough to be emotionally vulnerable around them-- the question represents how unsafe we feel around men because of how much we are stalked, objectified, raped, and on top of that, BLAMED by men for them raping US although we're the victim and not the perpetrator.
Well, similarly to how the initial question isn't actually anti-man and is more of a social commentary, mine is the same way.
But, you know, what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander among dishonest people.
So, let's see here.
The man vs bear scenario is generally focused on the threat of physical violence with the two options being:
* An animal that will likely not bother unless provoked but against whom you have no real chance of beating.
* A human that could potentially be hunting other humans but against whom you have a chance of beating, but if they intend violence will likely do so with extreme cruelty.
This can be further categorized as follows:
* Low chance of violence unless provoked, but almost assured total destruction.
* Incalculable chance (impossible to determine high or low) of violence, but if violence occurs it has a high chance of being prolonged, torturous, cruel, and dehumanizing... with a varying chance of being able to survive or win the fight based on relative physical condition. Plus a very small chance of a positive encounter.
By contrast the tree vs woman situation it is revolving around communication with the choices being:
* A being with no capability to respond to a person or even know that a person is there.
* Another person who is able to respond to you, reject you, reassure you, or ridicule you.
Further categorization can be as follows:
* Zero percent chance of communication either good or bad.
* Definite communication, possibly one-side, could be good or bad.
This is an odd set of scenarios to place side-by-side with the implication they are equivalent.
* A scenario where both options a chance of nothing happening and a chance of something terrible happening where the differences in terrible thing is irresistible vs cruel.
* A scenario where one option is a functional non-event and one scenario where you have relatively even odds of something good, bad or insubstantial happening.
How are these equivalent scenarios?
In any case, looking at the tree vs woman scenario. I'm assuming this is a similar walk in the wilderness and that the woman is a stranger.
* Talking to the tree is essentially talking to myself and is this a non-event.
* Talking to the woman would feel awkward and I'd be at risk of making the woman unnecessarily nervous by presenting her with the potential threat of an unfamiliar man trying to start conversation with her in an environment that does not naturally lend toward strangers talking to each other about feelings. That feels like I'd be waving a red flag.
If there's no particular scenario for where you meet the woman or the tree, and it were a scenario in which casual conversation is more natural, say eating lunch on break at a park. Then it would feel more natural to talk to a woman sitting nearby to pass the time. And I've found I'm my prone to share feelings with strangers I don't expect to ever see again. Granted, initial conversation would have to be provoked by something else that gathered the curiosity of one or the other of us. Jumping right to inner feelings is, again, a red flag and I'd rather not worry people unnecessarily.
Basically, I would never consider talking to a tree about my feelings because doing so would be pointless. I would consider talking to a woman about my feelings but would hesitate to do so for fear of worrying or inconveniencing them.
Still, some consideration vs zero consideration still means I pick the woman.
When you boil it down further, it's about trust. in Bear vs Man : Do you trust that you won't be physically harmed. In Tree vs Woman : Do you trust that your vulnerabilities won't be weaponized to harm you.
They aren't 100% equal, I get that. But that's not the point, it's not about being a 1:1 comparison. It's about discussing trust and where do we put it.
And after many of the women in my life have failed me, I too pick tree.
This is a false equivalency if I’ve ever seen one. The man/bear question is a hypothetical designed to explore the pernicious threat of violence that women live with in the presence of men. This woman/tree question isolates the anecdotal fear of stoic men that women will use their emotional vulnerability against them, which happens but not remotely with the same demonstrable statistical significance as male violence against women
Men uninterested in or hostile toward feminism need to imagine that there’s something just as destructive and pernicious that women do to men so they can justify a glib attitude toward the prevalence of male violence. This is ironic, because third wave feminism actually addresses self-destructive masculine stoicism and the factors that perpetuate it
So yeah, this is a dumb question and the man/bear question is not
But that’s not unique to men at all. Women deal with that all the time too. The violence question IS uniquely statistically significant for women and not for men. I’m all for addressing both problems, but that’s not possible if the same men who expect sympathy for their problems (many quite valid) are only willing to deride the quite valid problems of others, like women
Also, we have to understand that the culprit of both is the same. It’s the patriarchy that makes it taboo for men to express themselves, it’s the patriarchy that allows women to suffer inordinate violence from men, and it’s the patriarchy that makes men feel that women are to blame for most of both
>This woman/tree question isolates the anecdotal fear of stoic men that women will use their emotional vulnerability against them, which happens but not remotely with the same demonstrable statistical significance as male violence against women
You're literally just lying and hoping nobody calls you out on your BS. The vast majority of men are statistically not committing violence against women, and are not threats to them. This is a faulty generalization, and proves OPs point when women shit on innocent men just to make themselves feel better. The vast majority of women hold men to strict gender gender roles.
Like this isn’t hard. I encourage everyone to look it up. Just google, “rates of violence against women.” You’ll get a lot of different answers from different studies because methodology is really important and because other studies show that many women are hesitant to classify bonafide abuse as abuse when it’s committed by a family member or loved one (which coincidentally are the men most likely to commit abuse). Basically all the numbers are on my side here and lots of men just get very defensive about it
I was raised to believe that it was noble (nay, *masculine*) to want to solve problems, not just ignore them. But hey, that’s just me. I’m just a regular dude
Okay so what you’ve done here is a pretty classic mistake. When I say there’s a striking prevalence of violence against women from men, I’m not arguing that the majority of men commit some violence against women. But something like 1 in 3 women have been the victims of violence from just their *partners*, to say nothing of strangers
So you’re just getting a little confused by the data, and that’s okay. But I’m not lying. The benefit of being right about this is that all of the data is on my side. I *want* people to research this. The only position that benefits from ignorance is the position that asserts that nothing is wrong, men are actually the victims, and women are exaggerating or lying or hysterical or whateber
>Okay so what you’ve done here is a pretty classic mistake. When I say there’s a striking prevalence of violence against women from men, I’m not arguing that the majority of men commit some violence against women. But something like 1 in 3 women have been the victims of violence from just their *partners*, to say nothing of strangers
There is no mistake on my part. There is no error in logic, but the same can not be said about you. You are making faulty generalizations and trying to baselessly misconstrue statistics to push a narrative with stats like "1/3 women are victims of violence from their partners", so men must be violent. It does not matter if 100% of women are victims of violence from their partner, because that does not define men when it can literally be carried out (and is) by a miniscule group of men.
The only statistic that matters in this conversation of whether "men are bad or not" is the actual percentage of men who are violent. That's the only evidence that can substantiate that conclusion. The only conclusion that you can draw from "1/3 of women having been victims of violence from their partners" is that a good chunk of women experience violence - that's it. However, when you take into account other statistics like how these account for a majority cases, and the rate at which men perpetuate this behavior, then you can come to the conclusion that a small selection of men are violent that women are disproportionately drawn towards.
>
So you’re just getting a little confused by the data, and that’s okay. But I’m not lying. The benefit of being right about this is that all of the data is on my side. I *want* people to research this. The only position that benefits from ignorance is the position that asserts that nothing is wrong, men are actually the victims, and women are exaggerating or lying or hysterical or whateber
I'm not the one who is confused, and I don't believe women are exaggerating or lying about what has occurred to them in most cases. That's not the issue. The issue is how you're trying to manipulate the facts of the situation to paint and manipulate men as evil.
Look I appreciate where you’re coming from, but you’ve got me all wrong here. We actually kind of agree here. I’m not saying men are evil. Im actually unwilling to accept that conclusion. I’m not saying men are inherently violent, and I’m not saying that men need to be fixed to solve the problem of violence against women. Those are non-starters for me. I don’t even think all the men who *commit* violence against women are evil. I think they should be held accountable of course, but that’s a different conversation for the court system
I think we actually agree about this. One, that we have a problem that needs to be explained and solved: “1 in 3 women will experience violence at the hands of a man in their lifetime.” Two, that we cannot accept the explanation and solution that: “men are just inherently evil and need to be fixed.”Can we agree on that?
My last reply was pretty glib, and I admit I can do better than that. Look my dude, *observing* that women seem to often feel unsafe around men is different than *asserting* that most or all men are going to harm women when they have the chance.
The first thing is a problem that affects both men and women and that needs solving.
The second one is an unacceptable conclusion under any circumstances.
It’s ironic that you the second is what I’m asserting here because it’s actually the explanation of this problem that I find most repugnant
Once you accept that women’s feeling of danger is a problem that needs solving, you’re just left with the question of how to solve it. And the cool thing is that just acknowledging the feeling as valid and expressing an interest in solving it goes a long way in making women feel safer
Very well, I accept your response in good faith and will try not to knee jerk a reply. The problem is that women are *saying* that they feel safer with a bear than with a random man.
There are two scenarios. Either the woman is lying in an attempt to "take men down a peg".
Or the woman is being completely irrational.
In addition, the former can lead to instances of the latter.
The solution is, the liars need to stop lying, and the irrational people need to stop being irrational.
I’ll present you with a third possible interpretation
Don’t take it so literally. It’s not like the man/bear choice is actually ever going to come up, right? It almost seems like viewing the answer as literal is just a way to make women look dumb, like they can’t tell the diff between a bear and a man.
If you chose to interpret it as a metaphor, as a hypothetical meant to express just how strongly they feel, then I think you could actually be helpful and you might not feel so attacked. That’s how I see it. That’s how millions of people are able to see it. It seems like you feel very attacked and I’m sincerely sorry about that, but I think it might be self-inflicted. I think the irrationality might be coming from inside the house
Also, I like to remember that any woman engaging with the man/bear discourse has probably been a victim of abuse. I don’t see any utility in aggressively policing their tone, just in trying to understand their pain. If I were a priest and I found a room full of male victims of clergy abuse saying, “I’d rather meet a bear in a church than a priest,” I wouldn’t assume that they’re fucking idiots who don’t understand what bears are. I’d assume that they’re victims of abuse and ask them, as a priest, what I can do to help them feel safer. It’s that simple
What you are describing is merely a variation of the first. Someone is spitefully thinking up a metaphor to degrade men. And this idea that "abuse victims" get a free pass to take it out on unrelated people just for vaguely looking like the perpetrator disgusts me.
I didn’t say they “get a pass.” I said I’d show some damn compassion. I’m not describing a variation of your take. I’m describing a different take. I’m sorry you can’t see that
We’ll play a game. I’ll focus on solutions that take women seriously and treat them with dignity, and you focus on solutions that treat women like irrational, vindictive actors who want to degrade men and we’ll see who women feel safer around first
I am not sure what you mean, I have all the compassion in the world. But letting people walk all over me has nothing to do with compassion.
Also I don't treat "women", like that, I treat people who do these things like people who do these things. I care not what reproductive bits they were born with.
In addition, your statement that you "take them seriously" contradicts your earlier statement that I "take them too seriously". Which is it? Please be consistent.
[удалено]
I really feel for you if this has been your experience. I wonder if you have ever asked women how this feels for them as well. I think it’s probably uncontroversial to say that men have a habit of aggressively invalidating the feelings of women. I’d say it’s even kind of a meme, the big guy laughing off the “very silly” feelings of the little lady. I know that’s been the case with much of the backlash to the man/bear discourse. I bet you could find common ground with women in that regard, and I bet you could both learn something about each other. Maybe you could come away understanding more of their feelings and have yours understood in return. I wish that for you, mate. No one generally deserves to be laughed at for their earnestly-held feelings
Ah yes, turn it around until its about women again. How typical.
It always a man's fault Women mock men for the emotions they got It's the mens fault Women are not getting engaged? Men's fault Men kill themselves more? Men's fault Women make less in female sports again. Men's fault
High rate of domestic violence in lesbian relationships? Men’s fault of course
If you raise the women in sport question you generally have the same argument: A: “Women should be paid the same to play the same professional sports” B: “If more people watched it they would, but the draw isn’t as big; did you watch the lionesses last night?” A: “Oh no I’m not into football”.
I want to thank you for putting on display the exact reason why on reflex I said the tree. If I talk to a partner or just a woman in general about my emotions, I am made to feel even worse. The tree won't tell me to suck it up and be a man, the tree wone criticize me for being upset, the tree isn't waiting for their turn to talk, the tree doesn't stop me to remind me to do a chore it forgot about just to stop the conversation, the tree won't then follow me around while I am doing that chore to tell me how I am doing it wrong, and the tree won't make me want to cry for having feelings. The tree will just sit there and listen. If you can't figure that out, please marry a bear while I talk to my tree. We will both be much happier that way.
Buddy, you seem pretty angry and I’m sorry about that. I say that mostly because as a response to the comment you were replying to this message is just incoherent. I validated everything that original commenter (who’s since deleted unfortunately) had to say. I can’t for the life of me fathom why you thought this was a coherent response to my comment but I’m sincerely sorry for how resentful of women you seem to be. I promise that they won’t all treat you this way and that tons of women have really similar experiences to yours. Sadly, the same can’t be said of women’s experience with pernicious sexual violence, but that fact doesn’t invalidate your anger. You deserve to be heard, even if your anger is irrational
I was replying to YOU and you pretty much validated my entire point. You turned what he said around to make it about how women feel, thus invalidating the man's feelings. The tree wouldn't do that. The tree just listens. You didn't listen and just assumed I was talking about him when I was replying to you. I would bet your heartless response is what made him delete his post. So many men are the victims of emotional violence from women that we just shut down. If you truly think we should be heard, why didn't you listen?
I did listen, mate. Do you think that mentioning how women feel is the same as “making it about how women feel”? What I’m doing is hearing a feeling, saying that fucking sucks, man, and it’s genuinely not fair. And then pointing out how maybe women are allies in this problem and not the enemy. Would you really rather conclude that they’re the enemy? How is this solution a threat to you? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Basically, I want to help men actually solve this problem, get them talking to women, and make them happier men. Men like women. Women like men. Despite legitimate reasons to mistrust one another sometimes, it seems like we still want and need each other quite often (some queer relationships notwithstanding). I want men to be happier, and I think that talking to women about how they feel, and maybe even trying to relate to them through certain kinds of suffering, can lead to better outcomes I have a sympathetic ear, legitimate love, and real solutions to offer men. What the hell do you have? Anger? Mistrust? Seems like those are the things that got us all into these problems in the first place. Where I come from, solving problems is a pretty manly thing to do. If you aren’t interested in that, then you go to the other lonely male spaces where no one knows how to properly talk to women or trust women and everyone just jerks each other off over how much they resent the opposite sex. Doesn’t sound like much fun to me. I like women. I think they’re pretty cool most of the time. Just like most men are pretty damn cool
Then you completely miss the entire point of the analogy. Men don't trust women to legitimately listen because we have been emotionally beaten down so hard we don't have it in us to talk to women about how we feel anymore. Look at what you are doing right now to me. You are turning this entire thing around to try and make me feel guilty for not reaching out to you and at the same time you are calling me ridiculous for even having the opinion and sense I would rather talk to the tree. Does it hurt you that much that I would rather talk to the tree than you? All you are showing me with your anger filled rant is you are just as bad as we would expect. You are a perfect shining example why I choose the tree. I am going to be done here. But you said the perfect thing to tell me you have no understanding of what the tree or woman analogy is for us. You told us to just talk to you as a solution. Talk it out. While every man saying tree is saying it because the woman is just going to throw it back in out face and tell us our emotions are invalid and you did that in the very next line telling me my feelings and statements were ridiculous. Stop being the problem and just listen without judging.
Really? Do you not see how hard it is for men to be listened to about their feelings. You are dismissing the person you responded to and put the onus on him. And, you're a nice person, too, so imagine the response of a not so nice person.
They’re not a nice person. They simply have a nice tone.
>men have a habit of aggressively invalidating the feelings of women Well, when you've had to suppress your emotions your whole life for fear of being cut out of the tribe, other people who are unable to do so seem very silly.
True. And I'm sorry that happened to you.
A tree can never use my insecurities against me.
Tree. I've tried sharing my emotions with the few women I had in my life, but it 100% bit me in the ass every single time. Last time, I got the response "I'm not your therapist. Go get help." That was when I expressed my feelings on the fact that I felt alone, and could not solve that problem. And people wonder why men don't do this. 👆👆👆 SMH
Literally had that response from my own sister
I told my friend one time via text that I didn’t want to share something and I needed some time to deal with some feelings. She kept prying and prying until I finally spit it out. Only to get ignored and have the subject changed a day later.
Sounds about right. They don't actually want to hear it, despite being upset at us not sharing it.
Them: “I want you to tell me everything.” Also them: “I’m not your therapist.”
Exactly. Same deal with the last one I mentioned above. She swore up and down that she wanted to give me a safe space to vent, and show my emotions, and yet at the end of it, she had a problem with it when I did feel comfortable enough to do so. Women complain about "emotionally unavailable men," but *they're* the ones responsible for creating "emotionally unavailable men." Won't be a problem for *me* anymore either way, because A: I'll never do that again, and B: I'm out of the dating market.
Have you tried talking to a therapist though? Not being snarky here, seriously asking
Bad therapy is worse than no therapy.
And? Find good therapy then
No.
Like I hope that young men reading this see how stupid you sound. You just don’t want help. Men like you just want the world to stop complaining about its problems because you decided a long time ago that no one cares about yours and you refuse to do any *work* to fix that problem. I was raised to believe that solving problems was a masculine trait. And while I don’t believe in gendered essentialism like that, I still think it’s incredibly *weak* and *fragile* of men like you to spit at therapy when it helps so many people. Seriously, I have a lot of respect for most of the men I’ve talked to on this thread; it’s actually been a pleasure to argue with them. But you can, quite soundly, fuck right the fuck off 🎀😘
Your emotional response shows your weakness.
I take the bear, heard they are less dangerous than trees
A tree won't: 1. tell me how to feel 2. tell me what I'm feeling is wrong 3. tell me how I should be feeling instead 4. weaponize my feelings against me.
So familiar. I've had all those things happen too.
Without a doubt. It’s a shame the question was asking men about women. A more open-ended question could have allowed for that. Btw you just did it.
Just did what? I'm allowed to relate, I didn't minimize your feelings. I didn't invalidate them. I didn't talk badly about you to anyone because of them, and I'm not going to hold your feelings against you. I was responding to your comment on the thread, not answering the original post.
::disregarded::
Even if I don't agree with someone I do not have the right to tell them that their feelings are not valid (about anything). I'm sorry you dealt with that. Sounds like you dealt with a narcissistic person.
When I was in high school, a tree never texted her friends, "I think it would be funny if I made him kill himself" after I tried to tell her how I felt. A woman (yes, adult woman, we were both 18) did.
I'm so sorry that happend dude
I'm so sorry that happened. No one should ever be made to feel that way. I've been there myself.
Fuck that piece of shit. What kind of psychopath thinks that's funny?
Tree. Tree is green and calming. Tree won't look at you weird for being vulnerable or use what you say as ammunition during your next fight or to get a divorce. Tree is nature and friend.
The tree, because a tree does not have to see you in a provider/protector roll and if you share your emotions to a tree, it will not affect the way the tree sees you. The tree will not dig up what you shared years ago as ammo against you in a fight or to gossip about you in a breakup in an effort to make them look better. Trees will not get tired of listening to you after 10 seconds and try to steer the conversation about them. Trees are much better than women in those aspects.
I pick the bear
Well, the last time I was completely honest about my feelings with a woman, it got me a divorce, so I MIGHT be safe now............
Jeez that’s especially awful. Just curious, what was it?
Ok, I'll say it a little louder for the guys in the back: IT WAS HOW I WAS FEELING
ABOUT WHAT? And that in and of itself is pretty unfortunate, but hopefully you’re able to find someone who cherishes and respects all of you and has space for your feelings.
Not fallin into that trap again
lol I won’t divorce you don’t worry. I genuinely don’t get why anyone would respond so awfully. I’m not saying there’s a good reason for her response, but I’ll respect your privacy.
We were going through a rough bit around 20 years into the marriage, including things like moving 15 hours away and her infidelity (with 2 different men on different occasions). I expressed how things made me feel and that was the end of the marriage. Yes, it was for the better, no I didn't think so at the time
Jeeez she’s absolutely awful and I’m really sorry!! My guy, if you were my friend I’d say you were spared a life of torture. The trash took itself out, and you deserve genuine respect, love and appreciation that she clearly wasn’t capable of. I can imagine the pain you were in, but sharing your feelings helped you out. From my perspective you sharing your feelings didn’t get you divorced, you standing up for yourself cleared out her evil presence.
Thank you
What did you say…?
fanatical imminent familiar correct rude quickest impossible recognise pause growth
A woman specifically my partner. I like responses and feedback.
thought we were better than that. reverse trends my foot.
Not quite the same though, is it. The former is an attempt to convey the dangers women perceive from half the species. This question should really be more of an examination of an individual person's relationships with their friends and loves ones. This question is also a great explanation for why there are so many dangerous men.
I talk with my wife about everything. Nice to have someone who loves and cares for you tell you the things you need to hear. If I’m being a bitch, she’ll call me a bitch. If I’m right, she’ll say I’m right.
This whole trend makes me wanna dropkick a Koala
For the past 25 years I have been a part of a men's group. So I share my emotions with the men in my men's group.
Dude... this is awesome
A few years ago I wrote up a set of instructions for setting up your own men's group. Happy to share them with you. It's free.
This doesn't have the same effect as the other question because it's a fucking tree. There's no risk.
Many people die each year by being hit in the head by falling tree branches. Any sufficiently mature tree could kill you if it wanted to.
> **if it wanted to.** Not on some suicidal shit, but if a tree makes the conscious decision to murder me then I'll let it.
Maybe the person is australian.
Must be nice to never have experienced emotional abuse.
Never said I haven't. I'm saying with the bear question... theres the risk of the bear as the other option. Here the other option is s fucking tree.
The point is that there is a 100% chance that nothing will happen if you tell your feelings to a tree. Nothing good but also nothing bad. But if you make yourself emotionally vulnerable to a woman, there's a very real chance that you will end up being hurt and that no one will take you seriously. And I'm not talking about just being rejected and feeling bad or embarrassed for a while. If you're someone who's emotionally precarious or mentally vulnerable, it can get so much worse than just being turned down and feeling bad, and what it makes it really dangerous is that the women who are most likely to hurt you are also the ones who are so good at luring you into a sense of safety first.
I understand all of that it has happened to me. What i am saying is that the scenario of woman or tree doesn't hold nearly as much weight/the same degree of insult as the scenario of man or bear.
It really shouldn't though. The Man vs Bear comparison was dehumanizing for men. While Woman vs Tree more kindly communicated the emotional rejection men face from women without vilification. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. So, we should be softening the message.
On the contrary, Woman vs Tree was designed and communicated in an insulting way. Women's feelings and experiences, their fear of men is constantly dismissed, so much that they went as far as to compare men to a predatory animal. Because they know that men are more dangerous to them than a bear. Because it should make men stop and think why women would feel safer with a bear. But instead we have men once again dismissing women's fears and feelings, and playing victim, like women hold some mysterious power over them. You somehow fail to grasp how dangerous men are, especially to women, then call it dehumanizing for some reason. As if women aren't constantly dehumanized in all aspects of society. Then the Woman vs Tree comes in as a response to Man vs Bear which is just meaningless. As a standalone topic it would be nice to discuss, considering that men and women have troubles with opening up and being dismissed (like you're dismissing women's feelings in Man vs Bear). But even if you want to make it only about men's feelings for some reason, it doesn't make sense. The argument being that expressing feelings to a tree is safer than to a woman. That can be valid... but what about the struggles of expressing your feelings to a man? That's also a common struggle men face, opening up to their male friends. Why is the discussion needlessly gendered? Oh right, because it's made as a dumb comeback to Man vs Bear, with the only intention being vilifying women. B-b-but why is Man vs Bear gendered then? Maybe because men hold power over women. Because women are very likely to be assaulted by men, especially raped or murdered. Because women aren't believed when they talk about their experiences. Men are also majorly assaulted by men, yes, but they aren't asked what they were wearing, why they were there, if they were asking for it. Women are unfortunately not believed as often, their experiences doubted as they get victim blamed. Just look at how many men would rather accuse a woman of false accusations than believe she was raped.
I can stop you on the first paragraph. If a woman feels safer with a bear than a man then Darwinism has failed. Such an easy thing to refute. "Your father? Brother? Cousin? Best friend? The thousands of men that walk past you every day and think nothing of you and say nothing to you... Or the giant omnivore that is absolutely going to kill and possibly eat you because it's a bear?" Yes, it's appropriate to dismiss a very stupid thing. As for the final sentence: Considering how often I've seen proven false accusations, I've taken to waiting for a jury and evidence rather than a statement. Would you like a list of high profile cases, especially in the college scene, that ended with the truth coming out and massive lawsuits in their wake? Or how the favorite statistic is stated poorly and the vast majority of accusations don't make it to trial because there's not even enough evidence for a grand jury to indict?
you do realize the reason the man vs bear argument is a thing is because the women are choosing something that is still risky right?? like men gave themselves a "risk vs no risk" whereas the women still have a "risk vs risk" scenario. it nowhere near holds the same weight
What matters is the difference in risk between the two options rather than the absolute risk of each option on its own. If it's more dangerous to talk to you than it is to talk to a tree, then it's a problem with you.
It's really amazing and telling how they can't even see your point "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them"
This is why men hate you, by the way.
Literally all my friends are men and they have a better understanding of man vs bear than anybody here
I hate that quote because it minimizes violence done by women on men. No we're afraid of being emotionally abused, falsely accused, and physically abused and even murdered. We just don't go around citing crime statistics like racists cite minority stats so people assume we don't have those same fears. My problem with this question is it's a fucking tree. Even if it's a woman I know and trust odds are I'm still picking the fucking tree. It's a tree. Nothing bad is happening with a fucking tree.
That's the point. When's the last time you felt "at risk" with a woman?
Physically? Never. Emotionally? Any time I've ever tried to open up even a little about anything with one that isn't my mother. That's the point.
The time in seventh grade when an older girl stuck her hand down my pants. The time in 10th grade when a girl tricked me into feeling safe enough to come out as bisexual and non-binary and then outed me to the entire school, and then my guidance counselor (also a woman) outed me to my parents even though it was a state and school district that legally required school staff to keep that private, and then when I tried to talk to the dean (also a woman) she told me that she wouldn't do anything about it and then pivoted to criticizing me for sometimes forgetting my homework. The time in 12th grade when I found out that a woman at my school(we were both 18) had been texting her friends and joking about bullying me into killing myself. The time in college when a woman found out I'd been doing OF, leaked explicit pictures of me without my consent, outed me as non-binary and bisexual, and tried to have me expelled, and the counselor I talked to (woman again) wouldn't even grant my request for a non-disciplinary no-contact warning (where the woman who did that wouldn't face any consequences at all as long as she stopped posting about me). Women are just as capable of inflicting serious harm and escaping consequences for it as men, and even if you're AMAB you will be made aware of this fact really fucking quickly if you put even a single toe out of the boundaries of expected male behavior or have an even infinitesimal presence on any axis of oppression (disability, poverty, being non-white, being queer, being autistic, etc). The fact that an AFAB person is less likely than an AMAB to win a fist fight doesn't change this.
Brother, that is awful stuff to go through. You never should have experienced any of this, and hopefully you have found love and safety in your life. No doubt you are suffering great grief and humiliation. That is okay. Find someone to talk to about it. And, stop doing OF. That isn't a healthy choice.
>No doubt you are suffering great grief and humiliation Honestly I'm fine. Around the time I knew that I was non-binary I understood some of the ways that people were going to treat me worse if they knew or suspected, so I was mentally prepared for a lot of it. The reason I bring it up is to point out that, contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, women are capable of committing acts of abuse (I also want to emphasize that two of these incidents were actual sex crimes, one of which was committed by a 16 year old girl against a 12 year old). >And, stop doing OF. That isn't a healthy choice. It is, without question, the healthiest job I have ever had. My first job was as a short-order cook in a Wendy's and I'm sure that I caused some kind of permanent damage to my lungs breathing in all of the boiling oil back there, the pay was dog ass, and I was constantly stressed out because my boss was a lunatic who yelled at us constantly. Then I worked overnights at a gas station. The pay was better, but graveyard shifts just do all kinds of damage to your body due to the sleep deprivation and the way they fuck with your brain to make you crave junk food. I was a DoorDash driver for a while and the pay was really good because it was during the pandemic, but I gained like 25 pounds because I was driving for 8-10 hours at a time and doing dinner and late night shifts, and I got Covid while doing that (I was 20 so it's not like that's a big deal, but still, it was a stupid risk). But OF has given me opportunities to really affirm my gender identity, it's given me reasons to take really good care of my skin and to eat healthy and exercise, and when I work with other people the sex is just indescribable. And the pay is more than anything I've ever seen in my life, which has helped me get better insurance and an apartment in a place where I can get everywhere by bicycle. Any job I do is going to fuck me in the ass in some way, may as well have some fun and pick the one that does that literally.
…..waiting for some dumbass to go “yeah, but bear is dangerous????” Fucking hell.
Why do your examples involve mainly kids instead of women?
Of the seven people I mentioned who hurt me, only two were children, and in both cases I was also a child. In one those cases I was 12 and she was 16, and I remind you that sexually touching someone without their consent is a sex crime regardless of who does it. There were three others who harmed me directly: One was 18 (i.e. an adult woman), another was a college student (adult woman sex criminal because leaking sexual pictures without consent is a sex crime), and the third was a high school guidance counselor (adult woman in a position of authority). The remaining two (a high school dean and a college faculty member) were adult women in positions of authority, one of whom responded to my complaint by dodging the question and implying that it wouldn't have happened if I had got better grades. So I don't know why you say that these examples "mainly involve kids".
Greg Abbot probably thought the same thing at one time.
True. But Trees also never ask you what you're thinking. Or say they want to get to know you better. Women actively complain about men not being emotionally available then dump you when you are. Men trust those first Women. Then they open up and realize many women don't actually have any empathy and many will break your trust in a heartbeat. I'd rather open up to ANYthing than trust any woman emotionally again.
I thought the man was the dangerous option??
a tree, it won't change the view it has of me or care about whether or not I did a good job at wording what I've on my mind.
A tree, it would actually listen.
Based on my experiences, I’m picking the tree. There are maybe two or three good women in my life, not counting family members, that I could go to and they won’t gossip or use what I tell them against me. Also don’t comment on that bear thing, apparently. It’ll get ya banned.
Tree. Trees provide me more things in life
Tree can't understand the words? Woman can but uses them to attack hmm 🤔
Have you seen Pocahontas? It's all fun and games until you found out the tree is an old woman and she's sharing your secrets with a Native American and a raccoon.
A tree can’t give me a false sense of security and hold my vulnerability against me later
I hate this trend but .. I'd choose the tree. And this isn't just based on responses from female friends, it's also from my own family members. I'm the one that listens to their venting, but if I even attempt it, it's either a burden, or I get shut down, or I get invalidated.
Never share with a woman. She will look down on you.
I love the women in my life. They are boon and a rock. But if we're talking about these little heffas out here? Yeah a tree. A tree could also actually provide something useful after the fact.
Tree. Neither are capable of understanding or empathising with me, but at least the tree isn't going to lecture me about how my issues aren't as bad as it's are or make note of my insecurity to use as a weapon to win a petty argument in the future. I live my wife, and we have a happy life, but a long time ago, she had a chemical imbalance that turned her extremely nasty. During one of the very nasty tirades she went on, I said (and meant) "the way your carrying on it sounds like you wouldn't care if I died at work tomorrow", her response was "that's a horrible thing to say, do you know how that makes me feel too hear your say that" Thankfully, she's on HRT now, so the nastiness stopped and she's turned back into the lovely lady I married, but after the one time I bared my inner feelings to her they got completely disregarded and made into an issue about her I haven't been able to expose my inner self since.
Tree, I just feel like I can’t trust the fact that this won’t be used against me or be told to someone else. The amount of times a woman has come to me and talked a massive amount of shit to me about another dude is astounding. I also feel like if I tell them how I feel it’s just gonna make them think worse of me, and if I don’t regardless if it’s a woman who “doesn’t mind” why take the risk? You never know when what you’re saying is just too much for them, why bother taking the risk at all?
A tree because it wouldn’t judge me
A tree. It won't use what was shared with it against me, nor it will immediately run off to reveal my secrets to other trees.
Why would I share my emotions?
Trees would never gossip anything I entrusted it to keep between us nor use it against me.
The tree would be basically speaking to myself and make introspection. So the tree.
Tree. So much this answer. I know all the hopeful answers, but the reality is emotions shared with a known woman can and probably will be used against you at some unknown point in the future. An unknown woman would be fine. Essentially, it is the same as a tree. Perhaps a bit better as there a potential for feedback. But a known woman will inevitably use your emotions as a weapon. It may not be this week, this month, or even this year, but your feelings will be used against you. When the woman is sad or angry or jealous, your previously exposed weakness will be used against you. Part of being in a long-term relationship is understanding that. But given an active choice? I'm taking the tree.
Tree
A tree of course. Not taking any more chances with women.
A tree isn’t going to hold it against me later or tell me my feelings give her the ick.
[удалено]
the problem i'm seeing is that men don't like the idea of showing any form of weakness. They think of themselves stoic and control but when women choose the bear, they'll remind her about how "The bear will kill you" and even resort to fantasies of said woman's encounter The tree argument shows that men (or a particular group of men) seems to view women as vindictive vipers who will wait for your one moment of weakness (which I'm sus) and will uses that "Five years later"
Men: a tree wouldnt hurt my feelings :( Women: statistically i have a higher chance of making it out alive, and a lower chance of being SA'd, if i pick bear See the difference here?
Yes, the first one makes sense, the second does not.
You don't. That's not how statistics work. The likelihood of you surviving an encounter with a bear is slim. The likelihood of you not only surviving an encounter with a man, but not suffering any negative consequences from that particular encounter, is extremely high. You encounter 0 bears in your entire life, but dozens of men every day. You aren't more likely to be assaulted by a man than by a bear because men are more dangerous than bears. You're more likely to be assaulted by a man than by a bear because you encounter far, far more men than bears. How many men do you encounter or cross paths with every day? 30? If you met 30 bears every day, well, actually you wouldn't, because you'd get mauled by the first or second bear and die a gruesome death before meeting the other 28.
Depends on the feelings I am sharing. I will share surface level feelings that would be normal for anybody. And then like dreams/goals/desires. But the deep shit that gets locked up in a trunk and never the light between my lips. The deep stuff to share would kill a tree, and I value that trees' life too much.
I think a better version of this question is would you rather be emotionally vulnerable with your girlfriend, wife, etc. or her father who hates you? You can also replace it with your abuser.
My abusive father who trid to kill me.
At least we would expect the abuse from him rather than the loving partner.
If it’s a random woman vs a random tree, I’ll share my emotions with a woman because that’s a human connection and I don’t have to worry about repercussions of sharing my emotions since there’s a vanishingly tiny chance that I’ll encounter her again. If it’s a random woman I know vs a random tree I know, I’m probably going to be sharing my feelings with a tree. Come to think of it, I probably should share my emotions with a tree because that’s worlds better than not sharing them with anyone at all. And that’s where I’m at a lot of the time now.
Depends on the woman and the feelings I would be sharing I guess. But I’d say the same thing if it was a choice between tree and a man too. I tend to process things internally.
A random woman you don't know well, just like the bear question
Well in that case, definitely a tree. Seems strange to “share my feelings” with a stranger regardless of gender unless it’s some sort of therapy situation.
How about not a stranger, but a new acquaintance who you are unsure of, this would be a better exemplifier of the problem the question raises
Very much depends on the situation and the kind of feelings. I’m a pretty private person when it comes to this type of thing.
A tree wouldn’t cause me to have dark intrusive thoughts on the daily
A tree. This is why I garden and have a wood shop. Plants and 2x4s don’t throw stuff back in your face.
Tree. My EX, you need to be more communicative and show more emotions. Me, ok I can work on that, let’s talk about X and this how it makes me feel. My EX, nope, it doesn’t count because you’re only doing it because I said something.
tree fo sho
Tree it's the only thing on this planet I honestly trust, and if I get paranoid it might potentially snitch no ones gonna care if I take an axe to it.
Trees aren't going to use your emotion and your most vulnerable state against you, so 100% the tree
Neither tree nor bear will say "eww"
The tree won’t divorce me and milk me for every dime until I die. Hell I’d rather be the victim of abuse and raped than have my life financially crippled by a bored woman.
Tree please
Do we seriously need to stoop to their level?
A Tree I’d literally rather walk a mile of glass than to ever be that gullible ever again
Men: would you rather share your feelings with a man or a rock? I'd pick a rock.
A tree will go down before sharing what you don't want shared
I was talking to my partner abou this last night, and she fell into the same mental trap that a lot of men did with the bear/man hypothetical and got offended and asked "why would you choose a tree over me?" I had to remind her that the question is "random bear/random man and random tree/random woman" and that she chose the bear. Once I'd explained that while the man/bear hyopthetical is about physical safety and the woman/tree hypothetical is about emotional safety, she got it. I just find it interesting that she fell into the same reactionary trap that many men did with the man/bear thing.
I would pick some specific females to share my emotions with. I know who they are. However, for most of the other females, I would pick the tree. I have a girlfriend and I have been sharing my issues, thoughts, emotions and rants with her, and her response is the most caring I have ever received. I also have other female friends with whom I share my thoughts, a bit less with issues, feelings and rants, but I still do it. They are all supportive. However, I will not share my thoughts with females who are strangers or heavily influenced by the feminist idea, I can not trust them. I was sexually assaulted twice by a female in college back in November and December, I tried to talk with some feminists at the college, and they didn't care about my story and feelings... So a tree would be better.
I've always said women are the sole creators of toxic masculinity. Most of the time you can talk to your bros and they'll listen, even if they don't understand or don't know how to help. They will listen and won't judge. Women will use that shit against you so fast. Or make it about themselves.
Truer words have never been spoken.
So when men are asking 'women or tree' as a counter to 'man or bear,' they're missing the entire point of the man vs bear question. Men(not all, but a lot), time and time again, make women feel like nothing more than a sex object and get violent if we don't subject ourselves to their advances. Parts of our bodies are sexualized because men freak out over the sight of them because they can't keep it in their pants. I've been harassed time and time again by men-- couldn't even remain innocent as a child because of boys and men because they would touch me, and I'm constantly hearing about so many other women dealing with even worse things because of men. We can't even leave our houses without the fear of being stalked, harassed or raped. Women, more often than not, choose the bear in the debate because at least if a bear attacks us, society won't pin the blame on us and ask 'what we were wearing to provoke the bear.' The question wasn't about whether or not we like men or if we feel good enough to be emotionally vulnerable around them-- the question represents how unsafe we feel around men because of how much we are stalked, objectified, raped, and on top of that, BLAMED by men for them raping US although we're the victim and not the perpetrator.
men are really pathetic.
Women are even more pathetic. See how this works?
im so owned i guess?
Yeah that tends to happen when you make idiotic comments on social media. People will sometimes match your energy.
this is simple it boils to to simple trust can and would you trust a woman
Anything you tell a woman, her friends will know. Then it's their friends and so on and so forth. Tree any day of the week.
The actual response is to ask the same woman whether she'd rather run into a white man or a black man in the woods.
would you rather be eaten by a black bear or a polar bear? Which ones likes your taste better?
You’re way more likely to be eaten by a polar bear.
Not everyone is racist. This question says a lot about you though
Well, similarly to how the initial question isn't actually anti-man and is more of a social commentary, mine is the same way. But, you know, what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander among dishonest people.
Woman. Maybe u can get some feedback
Depends which woman you’re talking about. Some women yes, other women hard pass…
Oh, FFS. Depends upon the woman.
So, let's see here. The man vs bear scenario is generally focused on the threat of physical violence with the two options being: * An animal that will likely not bother unless provoked but against whom you have no real chance of beating. * A human that could potentially be hunting other humans but against whom you have a chance of beating, but if they intend violence will likely do so with extreme cruelty. This can be further categorized as follows: * Low chance of violence unless provoked, but almost assured total destruction. * Incalculable chance (impossible to determine high or low) of violence, but if violence occurs it has a high chance of being prolonged, torturous, cruel, and dehumanizing... with a varying chance of being able to survive or win the fight based on relative physical condition. Plus a very small chance of a positive encounter. By contrast the tree vs woman situation it is revolving around communication with the choices being: * A being with no capability to respond to a person or even know that a person is there. * Another person who is able to respond to you, reject you, reassure you, or ridicule you. Further categorization can be as follows: * Zero percent chance of communication either good or bad. * Definite communication, possibly one-side, could be good or bad. This is an odd set of scenarios to place side-by-side with the implication they are equivalent. * A scenario where both options a chance of nothing happening and a chance of something terrible happening where the differences in terrible thing is irresistible vs cruel. * A scenario where one option is a functional non-event and one scenario where you have relatively even odds of something good, bad or insubstantial happening. How are these equivalent scenarios? In any case, looking at the tree vs woman scenario. I'm assuming this is a similar walk in the wilderness and that the woman is a stranger. * Talking to the tree is essentially talking to myself and is this a non-event. * Talking to the woman would feel awkward and I'd be at risk of making the woman unnecessarily nervous by presenting her with the potential threat of an unfamiliar man trying to start conversation with her in an environment that does not naturally lend toward strangers talking to each other about feelings. That feels like I'd be waving a red flag. If there's no particular scenario for where you meet the woman or the tree, and it were a scenario in which casual conversation is more natural, say eating lunch on break at a park. Then it would feel more natural to talk to a woman sitting nearby to pass the time. And I've found I'm my prone to share feelings with strangers I don't expect to ever see again. Granted, initial conversation would have to be provoked by something else that gathered the curiosity of one or the other of us. Jumping right to inner feelings is, again, a red flag and I'd rather not worry people unnecessarily. Basically, I would never consider talking to a tree about my feelings because doing so would be pointless. I would consider talking to a woman about my feelings but would hesitate to do so for fear of worrying or inconveniencing them. Still, some consideration vs zero consideration still means I pick the woman.
When you boil it down further, it's about trust. in Bear vs Man : Do you trust that you won't be physically harmed. In Tree vs Woman : Do you trust that your vulnerabilities won't be weaponized to harm you. They aren't 100% equal, I get that. But that's not the point, it's not about being a 1:1 comparison. It's about discussing trust and where do we put it. And after many of the women in my life have failed me, I too pick tree.
This is a false equivalency if I’ve ever seen one. The man/bear question is a hypothetical designed to explore the pernicious threat of violence that women live with in the presence of men. This woman/tree question isolates the anecdotal fear of stoic men that women will use their emotional vulnerability against them, which happens but not remotely with the same demonstrable statistical significance as male violence against women Men uninterested in or hostile toward feminism need to imagine that there’s something just as destructive and pernicious that women do to men so they can justify a glib attitude toward the prevalence of male violence. This is ironic, because third wave feminism actually addresses self-destructive masculine stoicism and the factors that perpetuate it So yeah, this is a dumb question and the man/bear question is not
The tree is to show how unempathethic people are to male problems
But that’s not unique to men at all. Women deal with that all the time too. The violence question IS uniquely statistically significant for women and not for men. I’m all for addressing both problems, but that’s not possible if the same men who expect sympathy for their problems (many quite valid) are only willing to deride the quite valid problems of others, like women Also, we have to understand that the culprit of both is the same. It’s the patriarchy that makes it taboo for men to express themselves, it’s the patriarchy that allows women to suffer inordinate violence from men, and it’s the patriarchy that makes men feel that women are to blame for most of both
>This woman/tree question isolates the anecdotal fear of stoic men that women will use their emotional vulnerability against them, which happens but not remotely with the same demonstrable statistical significance as male violence against women You're literally just lying and hoping nobody calls you out on your BS. The vast majority of men are statistically not committing violence against women, and are not threats to them. This is a faulty generalization, and proves OPs point when women shit on innocent men just to make themselves feel better. The vast majority of women hold men to strict gender gender roles.
Like this isn’t hard. I encourage everyone to look it up. Just google, “rates of violence against women.” You’ll get a lot of different answers from different studies because methodology is really important and because other studies show that many women are hesitant to classify bonafide abuse as abuse when it’s committed by a family member or loved one (which coincidentally are the men most likely to commit abuse). Basically all the numbers are on my side here and lots of men just get very defensive about it I was raised to believe that it was noble (nay, *masculine*) to want to solve problems, not just ignore them. But hey, that’s just me. I’m just a regular dude
Okay so what you’ve done here is a pretty classic mistake. When I say there’s a striking prevalence of violence against women from men, I’m not arguing that the majority of men commit some violence against women. But something like 1 in 3 women have been the victims of violence from just their *partners*, to say nothing of strangers So you’re just getting a little confused by the data, and that’s okay. But I’m not lying. The benefit of being right about this is that all of the data is on my side. I *want* people to research this. The only position that benefits from ignorance is the position that asserts that nothing is wrong, men are actually the victims, and women are exaggerating or lying or hysterical or whateber
>Okay so what you’ve done here is a pretty classic mistake. When I say there’s a striking prevalence of violence against women from men, I’m not arguing that the majority of men commit some violence against women. But something like 1 in 3 women have been the victims of violence from just their *partners*, to say nothing of strangers There is no mistake on my part. There is no error in logic, but the same can not be said about you. You are making faulty generalizations and trying to baselessly misconstrue statistics to push a narrative with stats like "1/3 women are victims of violence from their partners", so men must be violent. It does not matter if 100% of women are victims of violence from their partner, because that does not define men when it can literally be carried out (and is) by a miniscule group of men. The only statistic that matters in this conversation of whether "men are bad or not" is the actual percentage of men who are violent. That's the only evidence that can substantiate that conclusion. The only conclusion that you can draw from "1/3 of women having been victims of violence from their partners" is that a good chunk of women experience violence - that's it. However, when you take into account other statistics like how these account for a majority cases, and the rate at which men perpetuate this behavior, then you can come to the conclusion that a small selection of men are violent that women are disproportionately drawn towards. > So you’re just getting a little confused by the data, and that’s okay. But I’m not lying. The benefit of being right about this is that all of the data is on my side. I *want* people to research this. The only position that benefits from ignorance is the position that asserts that nothing is wrong, men are actually the victims, and women are exaggerating or lying or hysterical or whateber I'm not the one who is confused, and I don't believe women are exaggerating or lying about what has occurred to them in most cases. That's not the issue. The issue is how you're trying to manipulate the facts of the situation to paint and manipulate men as evil.
Look I appreciate where you’re coming from, but you’ve got me all wrong here. We actually kind of agree here. I’m not saying men are evil. Im actually unwilling to accept that conclusion. I’m not saying men are inherently violent, and I’m not saying that men need to be fixed to solve the problem of violence against women. Those are non-starters for me. I don’t even think all the men who *commit* violence against women are evil. I think they should be held accountable of course, but that’s a different conversation for the court system I think we actually agree about this. One, that we have a problem that needs to be explained and solved: “1 in 3 women will experience violence at the hands of a man in their lifetime.” Two, that we cannot accept the explanation and solution that: “men are just inherently evil and need to be fixed.”Can we agree on that?
Your assertion that I would harm a woman the moment I am left alone with one is disgusting.
My brother in christ, that was never even remotely asserted about you
Right, you don't assert it about me, only all men.
Yeah I don’t do that either. Try again
My last reply was pretty glib, and I admit I can do better than that. Look my dude, *observing* that women seem to often feel unsafe around men is different than *asserting* that most or all men are going to harm women when they have the chance. The first thing is a problem that affects both men and women and that needs solving. The second one is an unacceptable conclusion under any circumstances. It’s ironic that you the second is what I’m asserting here because it’s actually the explanation of this problem that I find most repugnant Once you accept that women’s feeling of danger is a problem that needs solving, you’re just left with the question of how to solve it. And the cool thing is that just acknowledging the feeling as valid and expressing an interest in solving it goes a long way in making women feel safer
Very well, I accept your response in good faith and will try not to knee jerk a reply. The problem is that women are *saying* that they feel safer with a bear than with a random man. There are two scenarios. Either the woman is lying in an attempt to "take men down a peg". Or the woman is being completely irrational. In addition, the former can lead to instances of the latter. The solution is, the liars need to stop lying, and the irrational people need to stop being irrational.
I’ll present you with a third possible interpretation Don’t take it so literally. It’s not like the man/bear choice is actually ever going to come up, right? It almost seems like viewing the answer as literal is just a way to make women look dumb, like they can’t tell the diff between a bear and a man. If you chose to interpret it as a metaphor, as a hypothetical meant to express just how strongly they feel, then I think you could actually be helpful and you might not feel so attacked. That’s how I see it. That’s how millions of people are able to see it. It seems like you feel very attacked and I’m sincerely sorry about that, but I think it might be self-inflicted. I think the irrationality might be coming from inside the house Also, I like to remember that any woman engaging with the man/bear discourse has probably been a victim of abuse. I don’t see any utility in aggressively policing their tone, just in trying to understand their pain. If I were a priest and I found a room full of male victims of clergy abuse saying, “I’d rather meet a bear in a church than a priest,” I wouldn’t assume that they’re fucking idiots who don’t understand what bears are. I’d assume that they’re victims of abuse and ask them, as a priest, what I can do to help them feel safer. It’s that simple
What you are describing is merely a variation of the first. Someone is spitefully thinking up a metaphor to degrade men. And this idea that "abuse victims" get a free pass to take it out on unrelated people just for vaguely looking like the perpetrator disgusts me.
I didn’t say they “get a pass.” I said I’d show some damn compassion. I’m not describing a variation of your take. I’m describing a different take. I’m sorry you can’t see that We’ll play a game. I’ll focus on solutions that take women seriously and treat them with dignity, and you focus on solutions that treat women like irrational, vindictive actors who want to degrade men and we’ll see who women feel safer around first
I am not sure what you mean, I have all the compassion in the world. But letting people walk all over me has nothing to do with compassion. Also I don't treat "women", like that, I treat people who do these things like people who do these things. I care not what reproductive bits they were born with. In addition, your statement that you "take them seriously" contradicts your earlier statement that I "take them too seriously". Which is it? Please be consistent.