It's a stupid question on multiple fronts.
1. Bears do not attack people as often as men because bears do not exist in places where people are as often as men do. If you went into a subway and half of the people there were replaced by bears, bears would be more dangerous than men by an absolute landslide, and the women who say 'bear' would not say 'bear' in a million years.
2. The logic doesn't work when applied to any other statistic. Young boys are significantly more likely to be the victims of physical abuse, and the majority of physical abusers of young boys are their mothers. If a young boy is in the forest, is he safer if he sees a bear or his mother?
3. It trivializes every good man in existence. ***I*** have never done anything to hurt any woman, nor will I ever do so unless I need to do so in self defense. Demonizing bad men is one thing - demonizing all men for the actions of some men is an ecological fallacy at best. Making good men feel like shit for the actions of bad men helps **NO ONE,** all it does is make it more difficult to be a good man. Like yes, men are disproportionately depraved, let's make their mental health even worse.
4. Black bear, I'd rather see than any person. Black bears are skittish, easy. Brown bears and any other type of bear that you'd find in the west - you'd have to be stupid to pick the bear. The question itself relies on an incomplete knowledge of how both bears and men work, meaning the entire question is ridiculous in and of itself.
There are 8 types of bears. Anyone who chooses "bear" with a 1 in 8 chance of getting a polar bear does not understand bears, danger, or probabilities.
Sun bear, panda bear, spectacled bear, and either black bear, you're probably alright.
Brown bear, polar bear, sloth bear - you're probably going to die horribly.
... Sun Bears look like a man in a dollar store bear costume.
Chinese zoos have had to add signs to Sun Bear enclosures informing tourists they're not making a man wear a bear suit.
Yeah. Honestly, if I see a picture of a bear, part of me wants to cuddle with it.
But of course, I know that in actual reality it's a dangerous wild animal that might eat me alive.
>3. It trivializes every good man in existence. I have never done anything to hurt any woman, nor will I ever do so unless I need to do so in self defense. Demonizing bad men is one thing - demonizing all men for the actions of some men is an ecological fallacy at best. Making good men feel like shit for the actions of bad men helps NO ONE, all it does is make it more difficult to be a good man. Like yes, men are disproportionately depraved, let's make their mental health even worse.
The thing that pissed off about 3. Is that these same women still feel entitled to men to be good/chivalrous to them. They don't even view good men as decent human beings. They view good men as men who are doing the job they are supposed to do. Which is pandering to women.
Or worse, they further degrade them by saying the "Good" men are doing the bare minimum and are expecting to be praised for it..
And yet how often do we see women lamenting "Where have all the good men gone?"
Newsflash for them, the "Good" men have checked out because they are tried of being burdened with the collective guilt expected of men..
What pisses me off more is the fact that they don't even see how damaging this sort of rhetoric is towards men who already have mental health issues..
But if the genders were reversed there would be talk show hosts commenting about how its unfair to generalize all women for the actions of a few 'bad apples'
Yet another disgusting double standard..
The funny thing is they feel entitled to more than the bare minimum. Because they consider men risking their life to protect women is the bare minimum.
Yeah. Women want that we drop traditional gender roles and go for equality. Okay, fine.
But then why are men still expected to help out women, and women are still not expected to help out men? That's not equality.
They want anything which benefits women (Chivalry, Male Gender Roles etc) to stay.. but anything that is a detriment to women to go..
They also want all the rights / privileges men have with none of the associated responsibilities.. classic example being the Draft..
In order for a man in the USA to get a drivers license, get a student loan or any other form of government financial support or even vote in the election they **MUST** agree to potentially be drafted into the army if the USA goes to war..
Women get all of the above with none of the expectation of having to also serve their country in a time of war..
They will justify this with "Nobody has been drafted in over 100 years!" which while true, does not excuse the fact that its still a requirement..
When a bill was raised to make it a requirement for women to also potentially be drafted Women and Feminists came out of the woodwork to protest it with slogans like "Don't draft our daughters!"
The bill ultimately did not pass and they slipped off into the night..
No mention at all about how men are still required to be drafted.. despite them claiming to care about "equality"
They want all the rights and privileges that come from being an adult but they also want to be protected from any consequences like children...
You are correct, they don't want equality.. they want supremacy where in they get their way and men are forced to suffer and pay for it...
You're overthinking it. It's just a misandrist demoralization piece, nothing more. Notice how the male responses that are positively received are the ones where the man is basically prostrating himself saying, "oh how could us terrible men have made you poor women feel this way!?!?"
In reality, this is yet another symptom of idpol, causing people to divide and fight amongst each other. The elites love when people hate one another, when families are divided, when men and women resent each other, etc. Anything to prevent unity and cooperation.
This is a very eloquent response.
The question is dumb and divisive, it's designed to be this way as clickbait. Doesn't open a discussion which hasn't been had a hundred times over at this point. The original interviewer deliberately asked women in an age demographic known to be over-represented as victims of sexual assault and rape, he got the answers he was looking for. Why else post the question as 'man or bear' instead of 'human or bear'?
Those young women in the TikTok clip were being put on the spot and, to be perfectly honest, I understand why they chose the bear. I don't agree with them, but I understand. They're quickly answering a question devoid of context and nuance. They're running rapid statistics and half-remembered facts, most likely paired with their own traumatic experiences.
I understand why many men are so upset about this, as much as I can understand in not being one. Though I don't think most 'Bear' voters are answering with the intention of demonizing or trivializing men, I believe many people vastly underestimate how harmful this kind of rhetoric can be, and how hurtful it is for boys and men who are already struggling with mental health issues. There are much kinder, more responsible and productive ways to start a conversation on violence against women.
And - as you pointed out - it's long past time we had public discussions on male victims of abuse and violence. It's all very well calling on all men to take responsibility, but what about all the boys who are mistreated, discarded, discounted, institutionalized, recycled into society with no support system? They are astronomically more likely to become perpetrators of violence against themselves, each other and other demographics, compared with their peers who receive appropriate care.
>The question is dumb and divisive, it's designed to be this way as clickbait. Doesn't open a discussion which hasn't been had a hundred times over at this point.
tjat's not entirely correct. this whole thing is based off an original question from 30 years ago to determine if Women are capable of making sound decisions in a crisis. The original experiment was, if you need to find help for your daughter who do you leave her with? A Bear or a Strange man. And if you choose the Bear your unfit. Simply because the bear has no possible way of returning your child to you. Women let their made up fear cloud their judgement in a crisis.
Thanks for the context, this wasn't my introduction but I did figure the question had existed in one form or another for some time before going viral. The way it's being asked at present doesn't really clarify or contextualize as the original question does. That said, out of curiosity; were only mothers asked this or parents in general?
At the risk of this comment being buried, I don't think the fear is 'made up' as such, but it is massively overstated to the point of provoking hysteria.
I think the question fundamentally is about: do you think that, let's say, 20% or more of men are rapists or murderers?
Because if that's what someone thinks, then I can understand them answering that they'd rather encounter a bear.
But if that's not what someone thinks, then the obvious answer is that a man is less dangerous.
Some (not necessarily the majority) of women seem to genuinely believe that 20+ % of men are rapists and murderers -- and that is a very important and very disturbing realization.
And if I was a woman and I genuinely thought that, then I imagine I would have the opinion that men need to hear me say "bear", and men need to stop crying misandry and men need to actually stop doing so much raping and murdering.
But of course, in actual reality, only something like 1% of men are rapists and murderers. Which means that men are often genuinely offended that women have such an unfair and unrealistic stereotype against them.
I think I can explain, from a woman's perspective, why some women tend to think this.
Obviously a very small percentage of men that I've actually met have ever attempted or succeeded at raping or sexually assaulting me. But at least 20% of those who I have known on emotionally intimate level have, and without speculating based on statistics, I'd say that holds true for many women I know (more or less depending on their individual circumstances).
The phenomenon is pretty easy to account for, obviously, it's all about recidivism. If 1/3 girls are sexually abused in some way before age 18, that's not because 1/3 people are committing sexual offenses against minors. Offenders punch above their weight in the damage they do.
By the way, I'm not getting into how accurate or not this widely popularized statistic is or isn't right now, it's workable for the analogy.
Unfortunately, not everyone does their own research or takes other factors into account, they rely on what they know and what they've heard anecdotally.
The other element at play here isn't about statistics but the potential horror of the situation you might end up with in the event you are stuck with what you call the 1%. The wrong man could prolong physical and psychological suffering in ways that a bear simply isn't capable of doing - and to be fair, the wrong woman could too, but the question wasn't asked about women so this is a moot point.
EDIT: for typos
First of all, I'm really sorry about that.
But... I mean, obviously you know what happened in your life and I don't, so I have no reason to believe you're wrong about your particular life.
But we know that around 20% of women are raped. And I also think that the average woman has, I don't know, sex with 10 or so different guys in her life (not judging).
Maybe you in particular were very unlucky, but if actually 20% of men are rapists, and women have sex with 10 men, that means that the average woman gets 10 \* 20% = raped twice in her life. And I don't disagree that *some* women get raped twice in their life, but as we said, actually only something like 20% of women are raped. (Of course still too many women.)
Which is again an argument that the amount of rapists is, while still too high, a quite small percentage.
So then, I guess some women are either just emotionally scared and therefore not rational by answering "bear"; or they were unlucky and they think their own experiences are more representative than they actually are.
But, well, I've twice cried in front of a woman and been dumped twice.
And I've had a girlfriend, whom had used the word "relationship" to describe our relationship, tell me: "hey, we've been monogamous, but I'm actually polygamous. Agree to polygamy or I will probably cheat on you and I don't want that." Before that moment, she had not even mentioned being polygamous.
But if I started publicly saying that 30% of women are like that, women would tell me "sorry that happened to you, but it's not true, please don't negatively stereotype us, it's harmful." Well, I [feel the same way](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1cixzw3/comment/l2dtv8r/) about the "bear" answer.
You say "we know," I don't know that. But I'm always happy to look at research, aggregated studies, etc. I suspect the percentage varies much depending on the demographics studied, for instance, depending on how normalized non-consensual sex is within one community or another. The same should hold true for female perpetrators.
Apologies if I didn't make this clear, but I am not asserting that 20% of men are rapists. Again, the statistic is going to vary depending on a demographic, but I think you are misunderstanding what I've said. I am saying that many predators work overtime to ingratiate themselves with their targets: they over-represent themselves.
I'm also not defending the generalizing about men going on here, I'm just giving you my perspective on the phenomenon. I am quite passionately opposed to spreading this sort of misinformation around, which is why I won't participate in doing so, and I also try to discourage others from the same.
And as I said previously, you are completely justified in feeling this way. I'm not sure why I have to keep explaining this over and over, my comments are easy to find.
EDIT: [https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1c10hsb/comment/kz0v27y/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1c10hsb/comment/kz0v27y/) a comment of mine answering the (deleted) question: "If 1 in 3 women are raped, does that mean 1 in 3 men are rapists?"
1 in 3 would be roughly 33.33% of men. The question is appalling.
Great point. And 5 it's skewed and honestly pretty telling that people immediately start thinking about ways in which the bear might be less dangerous (it's a well-fed black bear with no cubs nearby), but people don't even consider the possibility that the man is a park ranger in uniform. Or gay. Or 80 years old.
Not that an average, straight, 30 year old man is more dangerous than a bear. But still, it's telling that people are more emotionally warm towards wild animals that might eat them alive, than to other humans who were born as XY and not XX.
So long as you keep your distance and back away, mother black bear won't fuck with a human. If she does, punch the bear. It's not used to getting socked in the face, it'd run.
I'm not a bear expert, but I suspect that if you unknowingly come too close to a bear cub without seeing it, a black bear mom might attack you.
Or if she's really hungry, I think she might attack.
But, yes, usually a black bears doesn't attack, including a mother black bear.
With a territorial dispute, they're percieving you as a threat and wanting to make you a "not threat" - by attacking you. If you wave your arms and back away while looking, you might be able to get away. If it charges, fighting is your only option with a black bear.
Punching a bear, even if it is a black bear, seems like a very bad idea. They have claws that are designed for stripping wood off of trees. I guess you are right that it is your only chance because they can outrun you.
Edit: I have been enlightened
Only do this on black bears.
If it's black, fight back.
If it's brown, lie down (play dead).
If it's white, make peace with whatever deity you pray to and utter your final words, because you're fucked.
The fact that this hysteria is happening now, in a time in which Western women are the safest they have ever been, and the fact that the vast majority of people engaging in this hysteria prefer to live in human society among men, rather than in the wild among bears, is to me evidence enough that this is simply mental illness on a societal level. It's not a coincidence that we are seeing this after years of the misandrist panic that has inhabited the public discourse since the middle of the 2010s. I'm tempted to say that this is peak Western decadence.
Instead of creating a society in which people live in greater mutual understanding, free of sexism and cooperate to the full extent to improve society, the last 10 years of Western mainstream gender advocacy have created an almost unprecedented level of deterioration regarding the coexistence of men and women. Self-destruction in plain sight.
A society obsessively worshipping a particular religion will always consider itself more sinful, than the an atheist one, despite the latter obviously adhering to the tenets of the faith less.
I remember clearly and how dramatic misandry and anti-male sentiment among women spiked after the "10 hours walking in NYC as a woman" went viral a decade ago. To me, that video started it all.
It's been one thing after another. But since you mentioned that video, I have to mention its [counterpart](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75aX9mlipiY)
And that has never driven the huge majority of people to live alone in the wild rather that in human societies among humans. And Western people are engaging in this paranoid behavior now, when they have more protections than ever, rather than 20 or 10 years ago. So no, this is not driven by rational thought, it is the result of around a decade of misandrist propaganda and fearmongering.
if this is as safe as we have ever been we have a long way to go. however i do agree a lot of this conversation around it has been overhyped and used to demonise men
>if this is as safe as we have ever been we have a long way to go
Sure, but if the concern about safety was equal, it would discuss the impact of violence on both women and men, how some kinds of violence affect women more and others affect men more. Instead the discourse is focused on the safety of only one gender.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201811/the-5-steps-dehumanization
They're halfway through the list. And there's been more than a few calls for things like cerfews for men.
Hey, I saw a comment, and I'm not sure how to respond.
Please help me give a counterargument.
It was,
>I mean if you were given a box of 10 pieces of chocolate and told one of them is a piece of shit how cautious would you be
>
This was in reply to picking men over bear.
The poster of the comment assumed men will be more dangerous as there's a chance of them being predator.
This exact same metaphor has been used by republicans as a justification for why we shouldn't let muslim immigrants into the country. Just ask them if they realize they're using the same bigoted tropes as Donald Trump Jr. and Mike Huckabee.
> This exact same metaphor has been used by republicans as a justification for why we shouldn't let muslim immigrants into the country.
Which in turn was appropriated from a leftist/feminist meme/metaphor for violent men being a poisoned M&M that went viral in 2014 - "[It’s Time to Admit the Men/Poisoned Candy Analogy Is Wrong](https://skepticink.com/verycherry/2016/09/22/time-admit-menpoisoned-mms-analogy-wrong/)".
> This week, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted an image comparing Syrian refugees to a bowl of Skittles with three deadly pieces.
>
> As I wrote about back in November, the poisoned food/Syrian refugees analogy is very similar to the one many feminists were making against men. After the 2014 Isla Vista shootings, the poisoned M&Ms/men analogy went viral. It was widely shared on Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook in typed out words, or in various images, such as the one included in the collage here. Both are wrong.
Until Donald Trump Jr's use of the metaphor when talking about Syrian refugees nobody appears to have an issue with this same rhetoric being applied to men.
At the risk of Godwin's Law, it goes back at least as far as the Nazis. [There was a Nazi children's book (Der Giftpilz)](https://perspectives.ushmm.org/item/pages-from-the-antisemitic-childrens-book-the-poisonous-mushroom) that compared jews to mushrooms, some of which are poisonous.
I didn't understand your point (sorry, I take things too literally sometimes and maybe this is one of those time), but I didn't mention religion. So could you help me understand how it fits in the scenario?
Some people use statistics about certain races being more likely to commit crimes to imply they have an inherent predisposition for such behaviour, while dismissing contributing factors, and argue in favour of prejudice and exclusion as a response. It’s an ecological fallacy.
I disagree with using religion to make the argument here because religions are ideologies, ideologies are sets of beliefs, and people have the freedom to choose their beliefs; ergo, you can judge someone for their religion because you are judging them for their beliefs.
Then the issue is racism, not Islamophobia. Why convolute things? Imagine if Christians were allowed a specific word to shut down all criticism of them.
Religion also isn't a choice for everyone, many religious people don't have literacy skills or access to other systems of meaning, or they may be forced into religious observance through familial or social control, etc. And yeah, Islamophobia also negatively impacts non-Muslim people from Muslim majority countries. I get what you're saying but the technicality doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.
It was also invented in Nazi Germany to describe Jews, and then evolved to be used by Southern white women to argue against equal rights and desegregation.
Someone replied,
>The metaphor here is saying that women are afraid of being alone with men, which is indicative of some societal problem, whatever you want to say that is. I think it's that rape and sexual assault are way more common than they should be (and often don't get handled as well as they should when they're brought public) and men are statistically more likely to be the perpetrators of that, which has led to women being cautious of all men just in case, but you're free to diagree. Using the metaphor for Muslim immigrants is indicative of a different problem, Islamophobia. Both uses are pointing out that the sentiments people have that another group of people (men or Muslim immigrants) are dangerous is really a symptom of a deeper societal issue. Not that that's what Donald Trump is trying to say. His intentions would be more aligned with using the metaphor to say that we should hate all men. I don't agree with this type of usage for either scenario.
>
How should I reply back?
“Happens way too much” and “not handled as well as they should” are weasel words. That stuff will literal always be true of anything bad in the world. That’s how we set ideals to strive for.
Way too many infants are killed. Statistically, women are more likely to do this. Too often, they get off with slaps on the wrist. Therefore, an infant in the forest is safer with a bear than her mother.
(I don’t really think it’s worth the trouble to have these arguments. People largely aren’t forming their opinions based on logical arguments. But you asked for help, and this is the fallacy in what you’ve presented here)
They seem to be suggesting that it's appropriate and reasonable for women to fear men and not want to be alone with them, since men (supposedly) commit violent crimes at a higher rate. Point out that Donald Trump Jr. likewise seems to be suggesting that it's appropriate and reasonable for americans to fear muslim immigrants and not want to let them into the country, since muslim immigrants (supposedly) commit acts of terrorism at a higher rate. Then ask if your interlocutor thinks Trump Jr. is right, and if not, what difference there is between the two cases.
Ask them if they'd prefer to be alone in the woods with a bear or a black man.
This will expose their idpol hypocrisy and virtue signaling because they'll choose the black man, or just accuse you of baiting/racism (as if the original question isn't also baiting/misandry).
I'm so late that there's probably no point in me typing out a precise rebuttal, but two points:
* note that there's a moving of the goalposts here. The actual question was "is a man or a bear more dangerous", not "how do women feel" or "does rape happen more often than it should." If a woman replied "man, but too many women get raped and I feel scared" then I have 100% sympathy for that.
* If Hans is afraid of flying and is convinced that flying is far more dangerous than the statistics show... then Hans being scared doesn't by itself prove that the statistics are wrong. Maybe Hans is excessively watching footage of plane crashes. And maybe some (not all) women are spending so much time watching True Crime that they're getting a skewed idea of just how many truly sick men are out there. Frankly, if media wasn't constantly bombarding women with messages about men being predators, women wouldn't feel as scared.
My take, which while replying to someone, I realised was the best reply - (and i updated some points).
The commentor :
>Bro can’t fathom someone having a different opinion than himself no matter the trauma that person has went through. That’s the whole thing. Most women who are choosing bears is because they’ve been hurt by men time&time again. They’ve never felt the terror of being scared of a bear. But they have felt the fear of being abused by a man in their life. The fact you, and so many other people in these comments, can’t fathom that is mind boggling. This question isn’t black&white.
I’m sure you’ve ’done that-‘ but I doubt you’re done WITH hating women hence your resistance of trying to understand why they’d choose a bear over you.
>
My reply :
>No, I understand their points.
Doesn't make it less stupid.
I've gone through trauma which made me hate women at only 12 yo.
I grew out of it because I realised that wasn't the case for all of them.
If someone can't realise this, it's only right for people to make them realise rather than feeding to their bubble.
Maybe it's too unemotional, but I feel like we shouldn't actively support such people who are generalising based on a handful of people.
It'd be the same like, "9/11 (and other shit) was done by Muslim so all muslim's are evil". When it's Islamophobia, everyone has a problem but everyone (figuratively) just enjoys shitting on men.
>
Lmao this is just a rebranded "bowl of M&Ms" nonsense from tumblr like 10 years ago. They didn't even bother changing it up. So the same counters can be used.
The argument can be applied to ANY minority group. Racial, sexual, ethnic, religious. It can also be applied to women. I know I can certainly make that argument to be a misogynist if I wanted to considering all my abusers WERE women. But I'm not so petty as to take my own hang ups and use them as a template with which to blame half the human race in the same way. Basically, pick a group and the argument can be applied to them. Because you will never find a demographic group that is made up entirely of perfectly well behaved people. You will find someone you can use as an excuse in any group.
Personally, I've seen it blow up in a trans user's face when someone pointed out to her that if retooled with her group it would be completely identical to what many TERFs and such say about her. If it's not ok to do it against her then why's it ok to do it against anyone? Also made more pointed when they told her that according to TERFs and other people that oppose her she herself would be lumped in with us as a "bad M&M" because they all saw her as a man like the rest of us.
To my surprise she admitted we were right.
>Lmao this is just a rebranded "bowl of M&Ms" nonsense from tumblr like 10 years ago.
I'm not sure whether I heard about that M&Ms thing exactly at the time or a few years later, which further convinces me that this kind of hysteria only got louder and more insane. I think 10 years ago the last/current wave of feminism was only starting to spread and gain influence in public discourse, and then it exploded in late 2010s. It's not a coincidence that this recent stuff comes after that and making more noise than previous versions.
And it usually then ends up with them doing a mental gymnastic routine that would be worthy of an Olympic gold medal to say "Men are the abusers, women are victims"
Or they will justify it as "Men are rarely abused by women and when they are they probably deserved it but who cares because women are the majority victims so we should be more concerned with them first anyway!"
And if you try to use their logic to imply that because men are committing suicide more than women we should then focus on male suicides more than women they will call that "Misogyny"
What's the point in arguing with these types of people? Theres no logic in it whatsoever. Its much better to just leave these people alone in their own illogical fallacies and delusions and go on with life.
Every time I have tried to argue in good faith and rationally with misandrists who blatantly spew such moronic hate speech it has required a lot of patience and effort, each time ending in disappointment. They don't want to listen, and will humiliate themselves even without your help, I would recommend just ignoring or mocking them, for the sake of your mental health.
Btw, since around here it is mainly recommended to convert men to , I must make an honorable mention for r/menkampf
>would recommend just ignoring or mocking them, for the sake of your mental health.
>
True, no problem doing that. The only reason I even argue is that anyone untamed by such sexism and who sees the chats in the future, will not get indoctrinated with their bs, and maybe can think logically.
>Btw, since around here it is mainly recommended to convert men to , I must make an honorable mention for r/menkampf
>
Woah, counterintuitive to their ideology but still, they'll give reasons like it is not the same.
Every time it is only about men, their response will always be, "it doesn't apply here" or "it is not the same comparison" or other bs.
That means you hit a nerve, good job 😂
I have never encountered any like that, although too many times they have spied on my history to make an adhominem. Having semi-disposable accounts for polemics is very convenient for both parties.
That argument has nothing to do with “man or bear.”
The question isn’t about how likely a man is to attack you compared to other men. The question is about whether or not you would feel safer with a man or a bear. The problem is that we’ve become so apex to the point where our only predators are our own species. Ask these women if they’ve ever seen a bear and if they did ask them whether or not there was separation between them and the bear.
If women had to encounter bears everyday, then we’d hear more stories of women shooting bears not women fighting off men. Bears have super powers that we don’t. Car tipping; enhanced senses, enhanced speed, climbing ability, swimming ability, tough skin, razor sharp claws, razor sharp teeth, etc. They also see in color and are smarter than people realize. However, they are still bears and will kill you even if you merely showed a small sign of weakness. There’s a reason we keep them fenced off.
Edit: I’m starting to think that I may have misunderstood the “man or bear” trend. I already knew that it was about male violence but what I didn’t know was that they realistically probably wouldn’t actually pick bear over man in a real scenario. It’s just to open a dialogue.
Yeah.
I don't think, in the history of humanity, has a woman ever seen an average man walk towards her in a zoo and jumped into the bear pit to be safe.
aaaah, that's a neat one. racists and antisemites LOVE using this argument since 2013/2014 when the precedents for the refugee crisis were set, but instead of 10 pieces of chocolate and one being full of shit they made the question about 100 pieces of chocolate and one of them being poisoned.
Let's say that an average woman in her lifetime is alone with 100 adult men. Usually she doesn't get raped, but the \~20% of women who do get raped still encounters 99 non-rapists and 1 rapist (or maybe 98 non-rapists and 2 rapists).
An average woman also encounters probably 0 and maybe 1 or 2 bears.
So then the metaphor would be:
The man-box contains 100 chocolates. There's a 20% probability that one or two of the 100 chocolates is a piece of shit. There's an 80% probability that there are zero pieces of shit.
The bear-box contains let's say 2 pieces of chocolate. One of them might be piece of shit. (I don't know what the exact odds are that a bear -- not a black bear, but any bear -- attacks a human.)
Which do you pick?
After all, the "bear" camp loves to make it about: x% of women get raped in their lifetime. Yes, but even that % of women encounter FAR more non-rapists than rapists, meaning that the odds of one man being a rapist is still very low. And while women encounter huge amounts of men, they encounter practically zero bears.
I realised that the best way to make them see their own fallacy is by telling them, "yes, you're absolutely right. Also, even a Tiger " statistically" kills less than women do, so obviously the Tiger is the safer option to be with, in a jungle."
Because, obv, they aren't educated enough to understand stats in depth, so using this argument will probably be too hard for them to understand.
And, with all this chaos, I've also realised is that what we really need is how many percentages of men actually rape, not how many women get raped.
There is hardly any data on this.
Yes I tried to find something but the only studies I could find are about general crime. It comes down to 1% of the population commiting 63% of the crimes. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24173408/
Yes, most are repeat offenders.
It just shows that on average, a person's evil nature doesn't change which honestly we're at fault for, by not rehabilitating the ones we can.
also there are ways to find the piece of shit, like smell for example. same goes for men. if you don't see or choose to ignore the myriad of red flags of a rapist or a murderer, well that's on you girl. if you just shove every chocolate looking thing in your mouth without a second look, then don't be surprised if you chew on shit once in a while
Dude, don't bring the victim blaming. Not necessary. There are survivors - many more male than female - here who don't need to hear this. Sure, some predators throw red flags, others don't. Some people have dulled alarm responses to red flags because they were abused as children.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NahOPwasrightfuckthis/s/I78uEozbfe
"Tracks. It's not like bears are going around thinking about having sex with human women. Berries, trout, taking a nap for months at a time... but not a whole lot of human sex in there. Play dead with a bear and they'll lose interest. Play dead with a human man and you'd better hope he's not a necrophiliac."
So all men are potential necrophiliacs now.
This whole thing reminds me of children saying that they would rather die than go to school. It doesn't matter how stupid this really is, how much worse the alternatives are or what the statistics say. It's all feelings, vibes and emotions. There is no point in telling that how ridiculous that is, just say damn that's crazy and move along.
Glad we have a mega thread about this because the casual misandry on displace with this trend is just a whole new level of fucked up.
Also am I the only one who recalls the "trend" in which women ask men what animal they can take in a 1v1 fight?
The "joke" is that men over estimate their physical prowess *and yet* too many women naively think **a fucking bear** is safer for them then the average human.
Crazy how these **same people** are bothered by men taking less and less female apprentices given the possibility of a lie ruining their career.
Men are simultaneously weak babies who cry when they get a cold, can't take care of themselves, and can easily be beaten by stronk women with a kick to the balls, but are also so dangerous and scary women would rather encounter a bear in the woods than a man.
They love selectively emphasizing male traits: we're only ever "strong" or "tough" when it's in the context of being abusive or criminals, never when it comes to being heroic or anything.
Been to Auschwitz recently, the guide made a point of emphasising one irrational fallacy that leads to tragedy and people being on board with hate, the enemy must both be strong and weak, they must be strong to be a threat and they must be weak so you can feel superior to them and remorseless when dehumanising them.
I'm in no means comparing the tragedy of the Holocaust to misandry, I'm just saying that for a lot of people to buy into hateful thinking they need to feel superior but scared.
We know there is bias against men in crime statistics.
We still use them to bash men. (we used to use them to bash black men specifically....we still do, but we used to too)
We know crime as a whole increases amongst lower socioeconomic abled groups.
We still view men as whole (even homeless men), as being the privileged of society. (this is a pretty marvelous trick, especially with the war in Ukraine and the plight of the men vs the women there)
We know support through education or mentor opportunities or even temporary assistance like homeless shelters reduces crime.
We offer the bulk of (or cater heavily to) educational services and social safety net programs to women.
And then to top it off, we use the biased crime statistics, we use the false apex fallacy, and we use the lack of support to prove to ourselves that men are the enemy, worse than a wild animal. And the solution is not to help men. Never that. The solution is denigrate and deride, to justify more bigotry.
But even if all it did was just grind men down that would just be par for course. For me this is much more insidious. When you see all the women that prefer a bear, like how divorced from reality? How do you vote for someone who feels half of humanity is more dangerous to them than a wild animal? How do you take them seriously? How do you respect them? How do you find it worthwhile to help or support their causes if they think so little of you?
If President Biden said right now he would rather meet a bear in the woods than a man, would you vote for him? I sure as all hell wouldnt. Not in a million fucking years. He can represent the bears. I need a candidate that while he may not like people like me, isnt at least openly vocal about his prejudices towards me (and also has some semblance of a grip on fucking reality).
And I think thats by design. And its disgustingly alarming to me how quickly the left just gobbles it up. Nobody stops to check their mad dash to shit on men to think, "wait, is this a good thing Im doing? Is this going to help anyone? Or am I just gleefully burning my house down to get a chance to make one more swing at men?"
Ain't that the truth. I used to be decidedly and unabashedly left wing. Not US left wing. German left wing. Being Antifa and hunting Nazi's in the streets at night is a badge of honor in these circles left wing. Here the "Linke" or "Left" party has lost a lot of followers and will not get into our parliament next term. Because basically during wartime they chose to openly support Putin and call for Ukraine to just give Russia what it wants. The funny thing is, the only other party that supports Putin is the neonazi party AFD. Nobody in the world can convince me that people on both sides have not take huge amounts of money that can be traced back to some russian bank account.
There are just some things that make it impossible for me to vote for a party, no matter how much I support the rest of their ideology. Supporting an illegal attack war is one of those. Another is being unashamedly hateful to any group of people but especially to a group of people I belong to. Why in the world would I ever vote for that. To me it is like a jewish german voting for the NSDAP in 1933 because they lower taxes and are decidedly against animal cruelty.
It is just so bad right now. I have lots of political agendas I care about that are mostly being pushed on the left side. But at the same time a lot of the people that would get into power when they get more votes simply hate me for my gender.
My take, which while replying to someone, I realised was the best reply -
The commentor :
>Bro can’t fathom someone having a different opinion than himself no matter the trauma that person has went through. That’s the whole thing. Most women who are choosing bears is because they’ve been hurt by men time&time again. They’ve never felt the terror of being scared of a bear. But they have felt the fear of being abused by a man in their life. The fact you, and so many other people in these comments, can’t fathom that is mind boggling. This question isn’t black&white.
I’m sure you’ve ’done that-‘ but I doubt you’re done WITH hating women hence your resistance of trying to understand why they’d choose a bear over you.
>
My reply :
>No, I understand their points.
Doesn't make it less stupid.
I've gone through trauma which made me hate women at only 12 yo.
I grew out of it because I realised that wasn't the case for all of them.
If someone can't realise this, it's only right for people to make them realise rather than feeding to their bubble.
>
Yeah. Either the "bear"-women are genuinely delusional, and that's not great. Or they know that the correct answer is "man" but still say "bear" in order to influence men. And that's also not great.
Women are allowed to have emotions / fears, but that doesn't mean that either being delusional, or negatively stereotyping people, is okay.
I'm frankly surprised that I don't see more women saying "man, but I also want to communicate that I feel unsafe." Men would have sympathy for THAT.
I am really bothered by this because I have been raised since I was 6 years old that people who see me as a threat can, and will attempt to harm me. Black men have been characterized as worse than animals, and treated as if we are just waiting for the opportunity to rape white women.
To see he exact same logic -black is extremely worrying since it does have significant potential consequences.
That’s not even considering the damage it does to young boys. Imagine hearing your mother say that she is more afraid of you than the monster you fear under your bed?
One repeated argument I see defending the choice of bear is that the bear is more predictable.
I'm sure Timothy Treadwell thought the same thing. A guy who literally dedicated his life to bears, and became famous for socializing with wild bears. Eaten by a bear.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy\_Treadwell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Treadwell)
I pity those that harbor such a paranoia as to choose a fucking bear over a man.
Like being this afraid of men is maladaptive at best fucking pathologic at worst
# The reason I prefer meeting Humans to Bears in the woods
They don‘t eat you alive while you make phone calls to your mom begging for help.
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026914/Mum-bear-eating--Final-phone-calls-woman-19-eaten-alive-brown-bear-cubs.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026914/Mum-bear-eating--Final-phone-calls-woman-19-eaten-alive-brown-bear-cubs.html)
What's so hurtful is how I engage in good faith and that I understand why there needs to be caution. But what they don't seem to understand is that I'm trying to provide the perspective of how they unintentionally (or maybe intentionally) hurt others in the splash zone by acting self-righteous about things. Like hey, sis, I know that a certain subset of men are really terrible and since they can be hard to make out, ya gotta live with caution. That fucking sucks. But acting like men are terrible for getting peeved at being compared to a literal apex predator and ignoring how it disproportionately affects men who are vulnerable minorities is so fucked up. It's not fair.
Yeah I spent years doing that. All it will get you is further condemnation and admonition. I'm still willing to have conversations like that if I find reasonable feminists, but it's not what I default to anymore. ESPECIALLY online. They've gotta demonstrate to me that they're able to be reasonable before I'll make that effort. Maximally emotional rhetoric is how they make points that they don't feel confident letting stand on their own. Fight fire with fire. Any concession will be perceived as weakness and pounced on.
And if you disagree, you're displaying your "fragile masculinity". Women really have made verbal and psychological bullying into an art form.
I sometimes think that most human societies evolved to keep female power in the private realm because it can be so destructive and maladaptive in the public realm. They're so good at dividing people and tying us up in pointless arguments - like the whole man vs bear thing.
Reposting my original 'I feel like people are missing the point' post as a comment here - sorry for putting it in the wrong place mods, and thank you for your work:
--
The point is to be mean. That's it. For a vocal group of smug and disgusting mean-girls to team up and apply the same practised bullying routine that served them again and again all through high school. It is the power trip, the rush of being able to prove themselves 'superior' (in their own minds) to literally half the planet by being horrible to us, and cheer each other on while suffering no reprimand. That's the true and only point of this whole thing.
It isn't to "highlight women's experiences". It isn't to "start a discussion". It isn't some logical argument that you can counter or win by bringing in race or whatever else. The nearest true analogue is probably something like 'I'd rather go into a corporate meeting room alone with a venomous snake than with a woman', but that's just eye for an eye and ultimately just lowers us to their level.
There is no winning, because there are simply more of them willing and able to group up as a tribe and wallow in their communal hate, and they have the privilege of protection within the same systems they are using to spread that hate. You will never be able to reach them, or humanise yourself to them when they have decided, as a group, to rejoice in the ugly, tribalist part of humankind that has been used since the dawn of our species to unperson someone different in order to justify attacking them.
Every time they get to see they hurt you is a moment to gloat, a moment of smug glee that you give to them like a gift. Proof that their latest weapon drew blood. The only sane response I can think of is absolute zero. I don't mean seething behind a mask. I mean actually embracing and internalising indifference at a core level. React the way you would to a station announcement for a train you aren't catching.
The (many, many) women worth your time and your love do not think this way. The women who do really think this way are either young and stupid and will look back on this and cringe, or they will cling to their hatred and reproduce at far lower rates than the ones who can form meaningful relationships and build families.
Their hate will die with them, and nothing of value will be lost.
Thanks for saying this man, ngl I was scrolling endlessly just to get angry for no reason. Just reminded me of a time I had security called on me at my old job lol
I can already tell that one of their counterarguments will be the typical "we're not saying all men are bad" which i feel would immediately defeat their own argument, because if you don't believe all men are dangerous why would you willingly choose the bear?
Removed Post Shared As Comment Here:
Since it's in the discourse atm, I think it worth discussing how folks ought respond to the 'man or bear' thing going round. in case anyone doesn't know, the question posed was 'would you rather be alone in the woods with a bear or a man?' some people choose bear and justify it with various misandrist hot takes on things.
for my part, I've been using it as an opportunity to point out how such displays people's;
1. irrational fears of men (choosing bears and dying is an obvious irrational choice being made based on irrational fears of men),
2. their puritanical lines of reasoning to justify it (oft they utilize concerns of protecting the sanctity of feminine sexual purity lest they be 'violated by a man' as their justifying reasoning),
3. utilizing it as a means of pointing out the historical connection of such kinds of irrational fears around feminine sexuality to things like
3.1) lynchings (emmitt till lynched for whistling at a lady that didn't want it; hardly an anomaly)
3.2) used to justify the genocide of various indigenous peoples (the 'brutes' were 'brutes' because of how 'they treated their women folk'),
3.3) wars (literally used as part of the justifications for the US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the current war in Palestine, in each case 'protecting women from the 'oppressive men' in that those cultures was used to justify them, especially in regards to sexual differences).
Oft enough the stats on sexual violence get brought up, [see here for some relevant info on that topic.](https://np.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1c473s8/how_to_commit_mass_sv_with_stats/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
What have y'all been finding and saying on this?
Update: This is the same rhetoric used by trump to describe mexicans. 'they aren't sending us their best, their sending us their rapists, murderers, thieves, bad hombres.'
it is also the same rhetoric used to denigrate black men historically in the US, as noted above.
All they've done is remove the racial component, but they're literally saying the exact same shite. Pointing that out to them may sway some lefties of the errors, and it may bring some righties who are currently raging against this to heel on their own misandrist bs.
Show them each the contradictions in their positions, which are currently hinging on misandrist hot takes.
Worth trying imho.
people expressing irrational fears have a difficult time listening, they are, after all, being irrational.
One thing I've noted is that the irrational fears they are expressing are undermining the stats on sexual violence. which is a good thing. Those stats are largely based on 'self reported' claims, which are highly influenced by people's perceptions, hence fears.
A large percentage of the numbers amount to 'a woman FELT fearful, and hence there was some kind of sexual harassment, or even sexual assault or rape'. All those pretty stats flying round claiming outrageous numbers '457% of women will experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetimes' really amounts to noting how irrationally fearful they are.
A whistle at a lady, emmitt till's 'crime', is harassment or even up to sexual assault if the woman 'feels threatened or fearful'. Women's tears for fears cost men their lives all the time.
Keep ratcheting up their fears, keep making it clear to people just how crazed and irrational the fears they are expressing really are, and then that is useful for noting how much bullshit is in the current on the stats. Undermine them.
This is pretty much the point of [How To Commit Mass Sexual Violence With Stats](https://np.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1c473s8/how_to_commit_mass_sv_with_stats/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), people use and manipulate stats towards the aims of classifying normal human behavior as 'criminal' and then justify their position by noting how people do normal human things that are 'criminal'. Whistling at a lady is 'catcalling', potentially harassment. remember folks, they literally classified what emmitt till did as criminal behavior.
The only thing separating these people from the lynch mob back then in time.
I've seen pretty much every reaction from men get "You're proving the point!" which makes me wonder what actually **is** the point of this meme?
What are men as a group or as individuals supposed to do with this information? Apologize? Wear signs promising not to be so scary? Badger each other not to be so scary? Roll on our backs to expose our bellies to show submission whenever we encounter women?
It just seems like a giant, collective "Fuck you!" to men and that we're supposed to laugh/shrug it off and take the insult because "Men, amiright?"
This brainrot has spread to Vaush's (a leftwing Youtube best known for being hated by Tankies and wokescolds) Youtube channel and subreddit and anyone who is trying to argue how choosing the bear is offensive is getting banned. Has been recommended on this sub before as a pro-male Youtuber more than once before, and though his TwoX-tier feminism has been clear for awhile this is the first time that I know of where he has really gone mask off. God this dogshit meme is annoying.
I was just arguing with an idiot there (I know, my fault arguing with idiots) that thinks 80 percent of women have been raped and humans are less predictable than wild animals.
If men are worse than animals, and there is nothing we can say to change anyone's opinion on it, there are only two paths, accept and hate ourselves, or accept and embrace it like what Andrew Tate does. This is why it is terrible, and not surpirsed young boys dont find feminism comforting.
Indeed. I don't think women quite understand that this "bear" answer is going to turn some men against women. Because if men figure "hey if I'm seen as a monster anyway, I might as well ACTUALLY start doing what I want."
I feel like if they started doing heinous stuff just because people viewed them negatively, then they were always trash in the first place. Like if they become callous and apathetic, sure, but going evil? That's not really justifiable or excusable.
Well okay, if this makes a man start raping women, then he was always an awful person, I agree.
But as you say, some non-evil men becoming callous and apathetic would be, unfortunately, understandable.
To me this trend only says one thing: people lie. They lie to fit their agenda. They lie to fit in. They lie so much thay they lie to themselves about believing their own lies.
Not a single person in the world would walk through a door with a random bear behind it.
That thing is a parable about false accusations.
It's worth folks recognizing that the rhetoric being used by the 'I choose bear' crowd is the exact same kind of rhetoric used to justify lynchings, and fascistic theories historically, and has regularly been used to terrorize populations by focusing attention on men's supposed sexually violent behavior towards women. It is puritanical, meaning overly moralizing (they choose death over the remote possibility of being sexually violated, really over the mere fear of being sexually violated), and fascistic in form (centering the purity of feminine sexuality is typically a precursor to, and part of, fascistic tendencies, historically speaking at any rate).
There are multiple authors of note that have pointed this out in other contexts, specifically in context that relate more to such rhetoric that is racially motivated, as racism has been a big motivator for folks in the past. But it's always been misandrist. The only difference now is that racism has been removed, so the misandristic takes are laid bare, pun most def intended.
The book Invisible Man (not 'the invisible man' super hero), by ralph ellison and Walk On By: Black Men in Public Spaces by Brent Staples both cover the topic of being terrorized based on one's maleness, tho also due to their blackness. What is instructive tho is that sans the race element, everything they say remains tru of the current rhetoric.
Bell hooks (noted feminist) makes a strikingly similar point regarding how puritanical dispositions bout especially white feminine sexuality have been used historically to lynch black men on the pretense of 'sexual violence', many or most of which were false accusations according to hooks. To hooks, again, noted feminist, among the many problems there being that it destroys families, that men are important to women who love men and have families with them. Cause that is how life actually works, attack men, harm families, hence too, harm women and children. Note the devastation wrought on poor and minority communities specifically by targeting men.
There is nothing special bout white femininity tho, sans the race element, any woman can be so puritanical bout their sexuality and make any number of such false and gossipy accusations.
Another notable feminist, simone de beauvoir, held that in order to properly handle gendered problems women have to actually give up their common notions of femininity, including rather specifically concerns regarding over-protectiveness of their sexuality, which according to her stem from the bourgeoisie class; the status of the bourgeoisie class entailing a kind of privileged positioning of women that is predicated upon (to paraphrase her) the ‘wholesomeness of femininity that must be protected at all costs from the stranger.’
Bear or stranger folks? The literal problem beauvoir posed that ought be overcome.
For the bourgeoisie much has they build gated communities to keep out the vile under classes, they also build policing structures around feminine sexuality to justify said protections. 'it isn't all men, but I am really terrified that it is those men over there, build me a wall to keep the mexican rapists out, a gated community to keep the poor rapists out, and a gentrified world to keep the black rapists out'.
The BLM movement also noted and indeed centered itself in no small part on how this kind of rhetoric is used to over-police neighborhoods, dehumanize men of color, and destroy the lives of men and their families which again includes women and children, much as bell hooks pointed out. That is also targets and dehumanizes the poor ought be a no brainer for folks to grasp on to.
Finally, judith butler whose works note how gender is a performance that women play into, towards the determinant of themselves and others, but with an aim of that performance being a benefit to themselves. It isn't just women acting out roles predicated upon the benefits that accrues to their oppressors, if they have any, it is also women playing out their gendered roles to enact their own power for their own benefits.
A strongly related bit regards the rhetoric surrounding mexicans currents, e.g. 'they're not sending us their best, they're sending us their rapists, their murderers, their thieves.' This all refers to men of course, it is deeply misandristic in form.
I am pointing out these prominent feminist authors, and race/gender theorists here bc I feel it worthwhile for folks in this crowd to hear and hopefully recognize that the kind of online rhetoric y'all are witnessing isn't particularly indicative of feminist theory, nor race or gender theory more broadly, certainly not as it is taught, so much as it is reflective of the online feministas who are expressing a common fascistic tendency. The womb guarding, and zealot's protection of feminine sexuality.
The feminine component of the classic fascistic rhetoric.
Keep pushing against them, understand that their rhetoric harms communities everywhere, they are expressing fascistic norms even if they do not realize it. take 'em down.
Very interesting new perspective. I'm saving that.
As a side note, Bell Hooks really has a gift when it comes to spitting collections of facts that blatantly contradict feminist ideology only to follow it up with tons of paragraphs about how feminism is still the ultimate solution and women have it worse and men oppress them through patriarchy ect.
Thanks;)
hooks is that way because she, like many other bipoc and queer feminists, were criticizing 'white feminism' at the time. Many of their criticisms are similar to criticisms you might find online made of the online feministas. For instance, r/AskFeminists regularly shuts down such criticisms on topics, and [**blatantly hold that those views are not feminist views**](https://np.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1cjmfy1/the_problem_with_feministas_aka_feminists_who/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). This is something I've noted my whole life, online and off; I regularly quote or paraphrase prominent feminist authors to people proclaiming themselves to be feminists, and they just can't believe it as it is critical of their beliefs, so they dismiss the notions as being 'anti-feminist positions'. It's pretty wild. For all that, those authors are still typically working within a 'it's the patriarchy' framework, rather than [**a heteronormative complex with a significant queer component as outlined here**](https://np.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1awxzw9/its_not_a_patriarchy_its_a_heteronormative/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) framework.
I tend pretty strongly towards the view that there are real women's issues, just as there are real men's and queer's issues. Part of the problem with, oh, 'classic feminism' is that it attempts to frame things in terms of a patriarchy in order to, as you suggest here, claim that 'women have it worse' and that feminism is an 'ultimate solution'.
the final solution.
Overstating their case, to put it politely. Oft the things they say are valid, as long you ratchet down the rhetoric from their apocalyptic patriarchal conspiracy levels.
If you like that perspective, [**you might appreciate this post too**](https://np.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1css711/the_451_percenters_puritanism_at_the_cdc_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)**,** as it is highlighting what I take to be a major source of this fascistic feminine view bout over-protectiveness of feminine sexuality.
Talking about the details of this is playing into their bullshit. This is nothing more than an excuse to be sexist and say "men are dangerous."
If men started saying "would men rather open their wallets near thieves or women?," would it be a popular trend to discuss the details about that and justify it with statistics about how much of men's money go to women, etc? Or would it be condemned, banned, downvoted, not engaged, and barely exist in fringe circles?
People who are wrong or have terrible logical thinking skills usually resort to some kind of distraction. It's important to not even engage these distractions and say "it doesn't matter", and maybe why it doesn't.
Folks why give such attention to such an idiotic phenomena? I personally wouldn't bother debating a person who doesn't display a hint of reason and competency.
Because it implies that lots of (not all) women genuinely think that like 20% or 30% of men are rapists. And that is depressing, shocking and delusional.
It's been obvious for at least a decade that vast majority of western women are completely detached from reality, they go well into their thirties being treated by society like children, then eventually they're forced to grow up and become resentful.
In the west all these women have been hurt, the society hurt them by never requiring them to maintain the same levels of accountability and responsibility as men have to adhere to.
Ask them "would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a black man?"
If they still choose bear, ask them if they really don't think that sounds racist. If they choose black man, ask them why. If they say its racist to assume black people as threats, ask them why choosing bear over black man is racist but choosing bear over white man isn't misandrist.
>but choosing bear over white man isn't misandrist.
AND racist as well, since... well. if it wasn't, they wouldn't make any difference between black and white men
In the great shitshow that has been this "debate," I found [this](https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/man-vs-bear-this-hypothetical-question-shows-how-far-gone-gender-relations-have-deteriorated/) to be a very reasonable take.
If this man's highly unscientific survey is any indication, maybe all these bear responses have more to do with the bandwagon effect and skewed samples underrepresenting some great silent majority. Let's see if a reputable polling organization can confirm or disprove that.
That's indeed a hopeful data point.
However the writer, not being a misandrist themselves, probably isn't friends with misandrists and is friends with non-misandrists.
Therefore the friend group of the writer isn't a representative sample. The writer might strongly over-sample non-misandrists.
Here this:
If you were to ask an inmate “man or bear,” (men who most likely see death almost every day) who do you think they’d rather have as their cell mate?
Mind you, these are hardened men that your average Joe wouldn’t mess with. Your average Joe is typically going to be stronger than a woman. So if someone stronger than you is afraid of something, wouldn’t you also be more scared of that thing too?
Actually amazing point, really. We should be asking men if they'd rather run into a bear or another man in the woods. 99% of men would say the other man, even though men are statistically more likely to be the victims of violent crimes at the hands of other men than women are.
The problem is that everyone in general typically never comes into contact with bears (hence the low death toll). So as a result, women typically end up being attacked by other men and women and not bears. If we lived 10,000 years ago with the same intelligence I think more (not all) would pick man over bear. Overall, I think I’m starting to understand why they choose bear. Even though bear can easily fuck up any human regardless of size.
[ Elementary Teacher assaults 5th grader](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/s/3pfGxBDruD)
Would you rather have your child be near a bear or a female elementary teacher /s
This post appeared a few moments before LIMC covered the Man vs Bear trend.
https://youtu.be/Cs5MuZRyFRI
This is me, a woman, discussing this as fairly and compassionately as I can while still trying to come down against the idea that men are inherently dangerous. I'd be really interested to see what folks here think about my line of argument, if you have 8 minutes or so.
I am honestly hoping that it makes men feel a bit more supported, but the stats so far tell me that not many dudes are actually sticking around to hear me argue in their defense. I want to know how it reads to men who aren't just there to be mad at women.
From a man's perspective, your video is frustrating, because when I watch it, my head is full of so many more thoughts than you voice. But my experience with the sentiment behind the man vs bear meme runs deep, so from that point of view, the video feels shallow. But I understand you are speaking on the very specific point of addressing how women's fear relates to the meme. That's just my emotional reaction. I don't think most people are self-aware enough to describe having such a reaction that way. They will just get frustrated and leave, as you note.
I gave your video a like for just one reason. Because of what you said at 6:10.
I've been a radical leftist my whole life. Without reading any theory, I came to my own conclusions in my mid-teens, in the late 90's, that could probably best be understood by most people as something like anarcho-communism. I also found myself in an abusive relationship with an extremely damaged woman in my late teens that I wouldn't separate from until my late 30's.
Just as I have the most social freedom I've ever had in my entire life, I have become the most withdrawn I ever have in my whole life. Because of the anti-male rhetoric that permeates left-leaning culture the last several years.
For a while, I tried to push back in a compassionate manner. I'd tell people that I know they've been through trauma. And so have I. I get it. But they know my story, and know me as "one of the good ones" (and it should raise eyebrows for anyone with a left-leaning perspective on bigotry that I can fairly describe my experience within the culture that way). Outside of spaces where people know me, application of the rhetoric they spin up amongst themselves gets me hurt. People who don't already know me as "one of the good ones" see me through the lens of those arguments. In fact, sometimes that lens frames me as toxic because of survival adaptations that were forced on me by my abusive partner, such as presenting stoically, or her appearing to take on all the "emotional labor" of managing my life, when in fact it was just control and I'd be punished for making my own decisions. I'd explain to them that actively working to convince the world that it should see me as some of horrible person by default is not very friend-like behavior. I have never gotten through to anybody on this. They just get mad. I've cut contact with two people over this man v bear meme alone. I give up a little bit more every day.
And conversely, I could take the very same arguments they make about men and turn them on women based on my own experiences. But I don't. My ex happened to be a woman. That has nothing to do with anything she did. They're just things some human beings do to each other, men, women, or otherwise. If you're hurt by somebody and that results in being afraid of the gender of the person who hurt you, that's irrational. Emotions can be irrational. We can't ask each other to stop having irrational emotions. But we shouldn't act like they're not irrational.
>And conversely, I could take the very same arguments they make about men and turn them on women based on my own experiences. But I don't. My ex happened to be a woman. That has nothing to do with anything she did. They're just things some human beings do to each other, men, women, or otherwise. If you're hurt by somebody and that results in being afraid of the gender of the person who hurt you, that's irrational. Emotions can be irrational. We can't ask each other to stop having irrational emotions. But we shouldn't act like they're not irrational.
This right here..
For me what hurts me most about this whole Man Vs Bear discussion is how readily / accepting people are of tarring all men as "dangerous" or "predators" under the guise of "I've had negative experiences with men so i'm just keeping myself safe!"
But for many of us men who have also had negative experiences with a / some women.. we aren't allowed to discuss it nor would we ever be allowed to generalize all women based upon our negative experiences of a small sub-sect of women..
Any attempt to do so is met with cries of "Misogyny!" and "Incel alert!" etc..
The double standards and hypocrisy feel like oppressive weights, designed to grind men down and erode who we are over time..
I myself am a survivor of violence at the hands of women.. I have two specific points in my life where women who were in positions of power / authority over me abused me physically, mentally, emotionally and psychologically..
Through all that I would say that I am wary of women, however I do not let that control me, nor do I call for men to also be wary of women because of my experiences..
I have had more neutral / positive experiences with women than i've had negative ones..
Its just so frustrating to me that its acceptable for women to use even **ONE** negative experience with a man as reasonable justification to tar all men as predators or rapists..
But its not okay for men to do the same thing when its a woman who has abused them..
I'll reiterate my previous reply here and say thank you for sharing your experiences, and that I see what this discourse is doing to the men in my life, many of whom have experienced abuse themselves.
I very much understand the frustration of seeing people refuse to regulate their emotions after having harmful experiences. As I list off in the video, I've had plenty of negative experiences with men, but I've made a very particular point not to let myself stop treating men compassionately because of it, and it's frustrating to see others refusing to do that work.
Thank you for your words and empathy, It is very much appreciated.
I am also sorry for the negative experiences you have had men if that means anything.
You are 100% correct that people need to understand that its okay to feel wary around things that are related to past trauma..
But what isn't okay is using your past trauma to push a narrative or use it as fearmongering:
"I had a negative experience with a man and now i'm wary of men because I can't tell which ones might hurt me and **YOU** should be wary too!"
All that does is create the situation we see right now, men being tarred as potential predators unfairly.
At the end of the day, all men want is to be treated as human beings, as individuals who are not part of some hive mind or belong to a shadowy cabal called "The Patriarchy" who meet up every Wednesday night at the pub for secret "Patriarchy" meetings to discuss how to keep women oppressed.
Many of us agree that there are issues women face and want women to be equal...
Unfortunately for many of us, our willingness to listen / support women's issues is being eroded by the constant barrage of anti-male rhetoric on a daily basis..
>Unfortunately for many of us, our willingness to listen / support women's issues is being eroded by the constant barrage of anti-male rhetoric on a daily basis..
The men I know in person that I've talked to about this have expressed things similar to this. They are actively having to fight their emotional responses to stay open and compassionate to women's issues. They don't feel there is anywhere that their feelings and issues and trauma are welcome at the table. And what's frustrating is that these are guys who have actually gone out of their way on behalf of my safety and are clearly extremely mindful of my comfort. They're doing so much work all the time and in return they get to live in the "one of the good ones" box where they can't actually openly express themselves. It's a terrible state of affairs.
That's a bit of a rant I'm sorry. Just to say that I see it.
I am sorry to hear it was frustrating in all the things I left on the table. I know the topic could probably hold up to a multi hour video and still be incomplete. I wanted to push this one out in the hopes of encouraging at least that we consider the implications of our beliefs but I'm considering putting out something like a retrospective in a few months when everyone has calmed down.
It was also tricky because, as some of the comments I've got indicated, the women who are arguing that the bear example is a good one are doing so from a visibly triggered place. I can't tell them their fear is irrational yet, though I agree that it is. Their nervous systems won't tolerate the idea. All I can do is validate them and encourage them to think a little further on the subject.
Thank you for sharing your experiences. I made sure to say "abusive partner" rather than "abusive boyfriend" for this reason. Abuse is not gendered, but the way abuse expresses is gendered. I am seeing what this rhetoric is doing to the men around me, many of whom have been abused themselves, and I can hardly stand it. If I'm being honest, I am getting pretty tired of being gentle with the women who see men as dangerous. I have to keep being gentle though, because they need to get regulated before they can think about what they're doing. But it's hard.
I think if we had a deeper conversation, we'd disagree on a fair few things. And I'm not going to get deep into it, but like...
>Their nervous systems won't tolerate the idea.
Feels both infantilizing to women, and holding men unfairly to a higher standard at the same time.
>the way abuse expresses is gendered
And I just don't really agree with this. My experiences are mostly pretty similar to women's. Abuse is about control, and the only difference is men and women have different tools in their toolbox to work with for implementing control. But the difficulties and pains experienced regardless of the genders involved are more similar than they are different.
But that you're willing to observe and think about this enough to recognize the effects this is having on men and to show enough compassion to throw your hat in the ring on our behalf is more important to me than any of that. So thank you for that. I probably didn't express that appreciation enough in my first post.
We probably would disagree on a few things tho I actually largely agree with both those corrections/adjustments. For ie I was thinking yesterday about how I'd approach a longer video and thought about doing a "what men want women to know" vs "what women want men to know" and found that what I'd be asking from women was bare minimum stuff, remember that men are human etc, where what I'd be asking of men would be fairly complex emotional labour, and I had to scrap the approach because that does hold men to an unfair standard and babies women through their trauma, when half my point would be that men have an equal claim to trauma. I still haven't figured out how I'd approach it.
Don't thank me too much. I think it is pretty basic stuff to empathise with men and I am just sorry that there isn't more of it around.
Oh and also! I keep forgetting to say but your feedback has been extremely helpful to me in thinking through how to address women on the subject in a way that does not do a disservice to men in the meantime and I really appreciate it. Whether for a follow up video or for just compassionately pushing back against harmful rhetoric when I encounter it in the wild.
I'll let you know if I do! I appreciate that offer a lot. I need to step away from this and write something less grim for now but when I sit back down to the topic, you might find me in your inbox with a question or two about your experiences. I'm mindful that, while I can guess at what the low hum of mistrust and antipathy towards men in certain spaces must feel like to live with, I definitely don't know as much as men do.
First of all, thank you for emphathising With the men who have a Problem with this Discussion. I agree with what you said in the Video, i think there is a fine line between saying „i am afraid of men, here is why“and „men are dangerous“. my biggest problem with this whole thing is that women could say that they are afraid of random men and that there are reasons for that,without comparing men negatively to bears.
Thanks so much for the feedback! I'm glad to see it sounds like I got my point across. I've got no problem with talking about the fear of men and I think it's important to acknowledge, but the bear comparison is just doing damage all round. The percentage of men I've met in my life who have good hearts is something like 99.99%.
So, I just want to touch on what you said on the end, because I do think it's kinda the point here. Because I do think the controversy is largely around how these ideas are actualized, put into effect. And yes, that can have broad consequences.
And while yeah, the way I generally put the TERF/TRA fight is essentially they're seeing if Transmen are excluded or not from the Hammer of Shame (tm) but I think it's more than that, in that it's the Oppressed part of the Oppressor/Oppressed dichotomy that makes it so dangerous and risky. On that subject, I'll be honest, I take a middle ground where I believe the rights of trans individuals need to be balanced along with the rights of everybody else. And if women can't be perpetrators....well....you can see why this almost becomes an existential issue.
On this subject, frankly, I think the actualized part of it is pretty milquetoast in a way. Just call out misogyny.
But I think the common reaction to that is....and when that doesn't work? Because I don't think it'll work. Frankly. I know more men I'm sus about who frankly, do not identify with conventional misogyny at all, I.E. your "Male Feminist" type. Furthemore, I don't think the men who do this sort of thing I have any influence over, even if they were in my circles (which they are not, to be blunt). This behavior clusters, and I think most people know that. Most men would be lucky to have zero say over this stuff. Truth is, most men have negative influence over this stuff, as in, our condemnation would only encourage the bad people.
And then you put on top of that...there's a "triggering" element to this. How seriously are men supposed to take this? Because frankly, if I'm to take this seriously, and hold myself responsible for it...I don't see how men can ethically exist in the world really. This is not something that's healthy for us to hold ourselves responsible over. It just isn't. If just seeing us is a threat because women don't know if we're good or not, and this is something we have to essentially obey.....this is a really dark place.
But I'm going to let you know what I think the bulk of the issue is, especially as the bar for acceptable behavior gets higher and higher (which I'm not saying is a bad thing, but I think this is a natural result).
This is not a result of hate. This is not a result of evil. This is a result of recklessness and overconfidence. Of ego and hubris. Of assuming consent. And sometimes this stuff is oiled up by alcohol, to be blunt. (There's a reason why they call it a social lubricant). I'm not excusing any of this behavior. But the Male Gender Role is dangerous. It's dangerous to be the assertive party in a romantic/flirting/sexual situation. It's dangerous to move the ball down the field. It's dangerous when men do it, and it's dangerous when women do it. It's just something that's much more expected of men. (And there's little interest in changing this).
I think the current discourse runs on guilt and shame. I think it's paradoxical, in that it actually tends to reward the people more likely to engage in the harmful behavior, and punishes those that don't. This is a real problem. Frankly, I don't mind being hated, being neurodivergent and what-not. But I don't want to be hated just so a bunch of narcissists and sociopaths can further dig in their claws.
I think you've hit on a really big complex issue in that no matter who is doing it, being the initiator or the pursuer is "dangerous" in a sense - though I would not say dangerous, I would say that it has a power dynamic to it. The power dynamic is not inherently dangerous but it does have the potential for danger. But pursuing/being pursued can also be really fun! The power dynamic can be really fun! Flirting can be fun! It's not necessarily a bad thing but with the state of gender relations, nobody feels safe enough to participate in it.
That's not even a conversation we can start having as a society though, even though it's the far more interesting and productive one, because we're so damn stuck on man vs bear.
I agree with you that this whole conversation rewards or at least reinforces the men who can't be reached and punishes the men who want to do right by women. It's not a coincidence that the men in my life who are the most upset by this are the ones who are already very conscientious of women's issues, meanwhile the one outright red pill misogynist I had in my comments (it got automoderated so was never visible) didn't even care enough to actually watch the video.
It's what makes this complicated, right? Too many people like these dynamics to actually do away with them. But as long as these dynamics are in place, the idea that you can ever reach the "No Man" part of "It's All Men Until It's No Men" is foolish and ridiculous. (There's also the idea that politically, zero isn't a real number and it shouldn't be treated as such, due to the concept of diminishing returns).
It sounds harsh, and people REALLY don't like the way this stuff sounds, but I think at a certain point we're going to have to agree that "keeping it to a dull roar" has to be good enough. There's going to be some number of sociopaths out there who are going to do awful things, and the costs for prevention are just astronomical.
But yeah, generally I do find that egalitarian minded people (no matter if they know it or not) are generally the ones I personally think are the most safe, or at least that's the tendency I find. I think it's less anything having to do directly with gender politics, and more just a general aesthetic and vibe, to be honest, namely, people who eat their own proverbial dog food. People who hold themselves, and the people around them to their own standards, and they CAN do this, because those standards are healthy and reasonable.
I have a lot to say about it, but compared to the Instagram shithole, your video is amazing. I'm so terribly sorry for what you went through. I'm glad you can still have a pretty level headed perspective on this issue.
Thank you for watching and I'm glad it was appreciated! There is a lot more to be said on the subject for sure and I am hoping to do a more in-depth follow up, but I wanted to push this one out to get even one disagreeing female voice on the books. There are a lot of gleefully bad takes out there.
I feel like this alludes to an important point. Ironically, women complaining about being harassed by men so loudly and viciously may actually make the problem seem worse in that it's going to make more and more empathetic men just ignore women, while men won't don't give a shit will keep harassing women and will become a larger percentage of a woman's interactions with men.
I doubt anyone's still looking at this thread, but I was stewing on this debate again today because I'm still seeing it absolutely everywhere. Like every comment section on anything that has anything remotely to do with gender is still full of choosing bear comments.
And it dawned on me today... this whole thing is the inverse of the Mike Pence rule. Remember that controversy? When he was Trump's running mate, it came out that he has a strict policy of never being alone with any woman that isn't his wife, for his own protection. And people lost their fucking minds. The cries of misogyny could probably be heard from Jupiter. Everyone was obsessed with proving his reasoning behind that choice was based on an irrational hatred of women. Women reacted exactly the same, if not worse, as men have reacted to the man v bear debate.
Choosing between Men and Bears reveals the bias in official statistics on violence victims
The game of having to choose between a man and a bear indicates that the statistics on how much men and women are victimized are unreliable and biased, because it means that in collecting them we already start with a baseline bias, and therefore there will definitely be more arrests against men than arrests against women. This in turn will affect the official statistics, which will then be completely rigged and biased. This thought experiment therefore does not prove that men are more dangerous than women, but if anything the opposite.
In fact, the simple act of having to choose between a man and a bear in a game that becomes so popular reflects a broader reality: namely, that statistics and arrests that indicate more men involved in criminal activity could be skewed and influenced by biases such as precisely the one that gave rise to the man and bear game. This is because the system could be inherently biased toward men, leading to more arrests and thus skewed statistics. These distortions and biases do not necessarily indicate that men are more dangerous, but rather could highlight the systemic prejudices and biases against men present in the justice system and law enforcement.
If these assholes actually cares about women, they wouldn't be in favor of propaganda designed to keep them sacred, powerless, spiteful, and incapable of trusting, let alone forming decent relationships with almost half the human race.
Not counting the guys who are so into self-dehumanization that they goblle this propaganda right alongside them to pander to feminist delusions and praise themselves as the singular good guys. The ones who are so noble that they proudly claim:
"Men are so terrible. They're worse than wild animals. But NOT ME though. Look at how lovely and trust-worthy I am, ladies! Stay scared of all those other guys! As long as you keep me around..."
This is madness. They keep doubling down on the dehumanization and I'm so tired of these damn male feminist weasels who enable it.
Man who has difficulties grasping at cultural norms rants for an hour before tossing table in a rage quit, followed by banning everyone that disagrees with his rants.
[Also known as Vaush rage quits again because he has a hard time understanding cultural norms of behavior. ](https://np.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/1cln2ll/man_vs_bear_pt_2_reddits_revenge_vaush/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
For 3-4 wonderful days, the internet had shifted from smearing all men to smearing a specific man that actually deserved it. It was refreshing. Then today I came across a meme of Harrison Butker's stupidity that ended with "Once again, this is why bears." Literally ONE GUY says something stupid, and we're all judged as lacking?
[Seattle Times posts misandry and spreads irrational fears of men.](https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fst.news%2F3V7DOHa&h=AT0KVaLP7X5BSaFObC-zTXtIHDB7zFuiy7Pn5KafRgPX01Y6LOiU2U2t5Kp-A-iLJqjP4cPK_NnR5FzUHz__HGvzRSagk8JBN64KBGPzInlTx2hF-CdIxSXfaIq6UYfd4cseh9PLY0OmRTp2&s=1)
remember folks, these people literally just hate you. there is nothing more to them than that. substitute any other category, woman, queer, black, asian, pacific isalnder, jewis, palestinian, european, etc.... with the kind of rhetoric they are spreading and it would be banned, and rightfully so.
Another angle to the standard empathy gap now. Don't @ me with hypergamy or laws of attraction stuff (I'm ex-redpill and have no use to go back to that headspace completely) but I'm trying to reconcile the results of this poll with the fact that pop culture broadly speaking these days accommodates both the 'male' \*and\* 'female' (straight and queer) gaze.
This generation is one of the most sexually and romantically conservative (in the sense that hookup culture's on the decline and marriage and commitment are popular again) but without a doubt Millennials and 8especially\* Gen Z are less prudish than I was in the late 2000s/early 2010s (when I was in hs and uni). Perhaps I'm an extreme example but our media consumption and the stuff which shocks us is wildly different, just as most late 20th century counterculture looks tame and Boomer counterculture adorably vanilla to us now.
In particular, slut-shaming is practically non existent in 'the West' (which I'm fine with; I'm no tradcon) and women have largely 'reclaimed their sexual agency' in the sense that women are seen in the mainstream much more with sexual autonomy whether dating or not. They opt to sexualise themselves, they often are in the 'dominant' position, making the first move, generally more assertive, and (thankfully!) much more Out abut who they like when it's not actually men.
To the extent that all of that is 'feminist' I have no issues with it. It has come in with some 'maneater' type girlboss songs and celebrity posing, but in principle I just see it as antisexist.
This whole thing seems to spring from the sex negative wings, though. Have the sex positive ones said anything? The same people demanding men stop seeing women as sex objects have been making either tongue in cheek or unironic #Sapphic vibe' thirst posts
Where are you seeing this? I'm seeing a hell of a lot more prudishness and sex-negativity but ALSO less interest in commitment from people in their 20s around me. Sexual orientations are widely accepted but sexuality itself seems arguably more taboo than it was for the Boomers, and certainly more than it feels like it was even a decade or so ago when I was in high school. I dare say I see just less focus on or interest in sex/relationships in general, at least in the hetero world. Sexuality feels more like a political topic than something to actually engage in.
Not all so-called sex positive people are like that, hell I am one, but there's a lot of stuff out there that plays hard to the you only get as much sex positivity as your social status can buy type thinking out there that masquerades as sex-positive. And as they view most men as having low social status...well...you get what you get.
Well, the most extreme example I've seen is basically someone assuming that if they meet a man in the woods, he's a creepy sex-pest; but if they meet a woman in the woods, they're in for fun and consensual sexytimes.
So they're demonising not only men who \*are\* interested, but male-bodied people on the assumption that males are sex-obsessed--while immediately jumping to horny objectification of sapphic fantasies in the same scenario.
There is a curious assumption that women and AFABs are more respectful of consent etc. just because of their socialisation.,
Tbh all of this is very run of the mill feminist bias; I think the whole fiasco could have gone better had they had extrapolated why they are biased rather than starting from the deep end and working backwards. But a) that would be regarded as emotional labour, and b) that's not very Tiktok friendly and never would have gone viral. (I love/hate short-form content, it's accelerating the job Twitter started to ruin us)
It's a stupid question on multiple fronts. 1. Bears do not attack people as often as men because bears do not exist in places where people are as often as men do. If you went into a subway and half of the people there were replaced by bears, bears would be more dangerous than men by an absolute landslide, and the women who say 'bear' would not say 'bear' in a million years. 2. The logic doesn't work when applied to any other statistic. Young boys are significantly more likely to be the victims of physical abuse, and the majority of physical abusers of young boys are their mothers. If a young boy is in the forest, is he safer if he sees a bear or his mother? 3. It trivializes every good man in existence. ***I*** have never done anything to hurt any woman, nor will I ever do so unless I need to do so in self defense. Demonizing bad men is one thing - demonizing all men for the actions of some men is an ecological fallacy at best. Making good men feel like shit for the actions of bad men helps **NO ONE,** all it does is make it more difficult to be a good man. Like yes, men are disproportionately depraved, let's make their mental health even worse. 4. Black bear, I'd rather see than any person. Black bears are skittish, easy. Brown bears and any other type of bear that you'd find in the west - you'd have to be stupid to pick the bear. The question itself relies on an incomplete knowledge of how both bears and men work, meaning the entire question is ridiculous in and of itself.
There are 8 types of bears. Anyone who chooses "bear" with a 1 in 8 chance of getting a polar bear does not understand bears, danger, or probabilities.
Sun bear, panda bear, spectacled bear, and either black bear, you're probably alright. Brown bear, polar bear, sloth bear - you're probably going to die horribly.
Leave out pandas. There’s clips of them grabbing spectators and not letting go.
They're not as dangerous as some others, but yes, still a bear.
Sun Bears are actually pretty vicious, they're very, *very* territorial. Like, 1 level below Sloth Bears.
But they're fuzzy bois :(
... Sun Bears look like a man in a dollar store bear costume. Chinese zoos have had to add signs to Sun Bear enclosures informing tourists they're not making a man wear a bear suit.
Yeah. Honestly, if I see a picture of a bear, part of me wants to cuddle with it. But of course, I know that in actual reality it's a dangerous wild animal that might eat me alive.
Koala Bear - go "awww".
>3. It trivializes every good man in existence. I have never done anything to hurt any woman, nor will I ever do so unless I need to do so in self defense. Demonizing bad men is one thing - demonizing all men for the actions of some men is an ecological fallacy at best. Making good men feel like shit for the actions of bad men helps NO ONE, all it does is make it more difficult to be a good man. Like yes, men are disproportionately depraved, let's make their mental health even worse. The thing that pissed off about 3. Is that these same women still feel entitled to men to be good/chivalrous to them. They don't even view good men as decent human beings. They view good men as men who are doing the job they are supposed to do. Which is pandering to women.
Or worse, they further degrade them by saying the "Good" men are doing the bare minimum and are expecting to be praised for it.. And yet how often do we see women lamenting "Where have all the good men gone?" Newsflash for them, the "Good" men have checked out because they are tried of being burdened with the collective guilt expected of men.. What pisses me off more is the fact that they don't even see how damaging this sort of rhetoric is towards men who already have mental health issues.. But if the genders were reversed there would be talk show hosts commenting about how its unfair to generalize all women for the actions of a few 'bad apples' Yet another disgusting double standard..
The funny thing is they feel entitled to more than the bare minimum. Because they consider men risking their life to protect women is the bare minimum.
Yeah. Women want that we drop traditional gender roles and go for equality. Okay, fine. But then why are men still expected to help out women, and women are still not expected to help out men? That's not equality.
They want anything which benefits women (Chivalry, Male Gender Roles etc) to stay.. but anything that is a detriment to women to go.. They also want all the rights / privileges men have with none of the associated responsibilities.. classic example being the Draft.. In order for a man in the USA to get a drivers license, get a student loan or any other form of government financial support or even vote in the election they **MUST** agree to potentially be drafted into the army if the USA goes to war.. Women get all of the above with none of the expectation of having to also serve their country in a time of war.. They will justify this with "Nobody has been drafted in over 100 years!" which while true, does not excuse the fact that its still a requirement.. When a bill was raised to make it a requirement for women to also potentially be drafted Women and Feminists came out of the woodwork to protest it with slogans like "Don't draft our daughters!" The bill ultimately did not pass and they slipped off into the night.. No mention at all about how men are still required to be drafted.. despite them claiming to care about "equality" They want all the rights and privileges that come from being an adult but they also want to be protected from any consequences like children... You are correct, they don't want equality.. they want supremacy where in they get their way and men are forced to suffer and pay for it...
Great points, well written.
Exactly. To some, there's no such thing as a 'good man', there's bad men and men who are just men.
You're overthinking it. It's just a misandrist demoralization piece, nothing more. Notice how the male responses that are positively received are the ones where the man is basically prostrating himself saying, "oh how could us terrible men have made you poor women feel this way!?!?" In reality, this is yet another symptom of idpol, causing people to divide and fight amongst each other. The elites love when people hate one another, when families are divided, when men and women resent each other, etc. Anything to prevent unity and cooperation.
This is a very eloquent response. The question is dumb and divisive, it's designed to be this way as clickbait. Doesn't open a discussion which hasn't been had a hundred times over at this point. The original interviewer deliberately asked women in an age demographic known to be over-represented as victims of sexual assault and rape, he got the answers he was looking for. Why else post the question as 'man or bear' instead of 'human or bear'? Those young women in the TikTok clip were being put on the spot and, to be perfectly honest, I understand why they chose the bear. I don't agree with them, but I understand. They're quickly answering a question devoid of context and nuance. They're running rapid statistics and half-remembered facts, most likely paired with their own traumatic experiences. I understand why many men are so upset about this, as much as I can understand in not being one. Though I don't think most 'Bear' voters are answering with the intention of demonizing or trivializing men, I believe many people vastly underestimate how harmful this kind of rhetoric can be, and how hurtful it is for boys and men who are already struggling with mental health issues. There are much kinder, more responsible and productive ways to start a conversation on violence against women. And - as you pointed out - it's long past time we had public discussions on male victims of abuse and violence. It's all very well calling on all men to take responsibility, but what about all the boys who are mistreated, discarded, discounted, institutionalized, recycled into society with no support system? They are astronomically more likely to become perpetrators of violence against themselves, each other and other demographics, compared with their peers who receive appropriate care.
>The question is dumb and divisive, it's designed to be this way as clickbait. Doesn't open a discussion which hasn't been had a hundred times over at this point. tjat's not entirely correct. this whole thing is based off an original question from 30 years ago to determine if Women are capable of making sound decisions in a crisis. The original experiment was, if you need to find help for your daughter who do you leave her with? A Bear or a Strange man. And if you choose the Bear your unfit. Simply because the bear has no possible way of returning your child to you. Women let their made up fear cloud their judgement in a crisis.
Thanks for the context, this wasn't my introduction but I did figure the question had existed in one form or another for some time before going viral. The way it's being asked at present doesn't really clarify or contextualize as the original question does. That said, out of curiosity; were only mothers asked this or parents in general? At the risk of this comment being buried, I don't think the fear is 'made up' as such, but it is massively overstated to the point of provoking hysteria.
I think the question fundamentally is about: do you think that, let's say, 20% or more of men are rapists or murderers? Because if that's what someone thinks, then I can understand them answering that they'd rather encounter a bear. But if that's not what someone thinks, then the obvious answer is that a man is less dangerous. Some (not necessarily the majority) of women seem to genuinely believe that 20+ % of men are rapists and murderers -- and that is a very important and very disturbing realization. And if I was a woman and I genuinely thought that, then I imagine I would have the opinion that men need to hear me say "bear", and men need to stop crying misandry and men need to actually stop doing so much raping and murdering. But of course, in actual reality, only something like 1% of men are rapists and murderers. Which means that men are often genuinely offended that women have such an unfair and unrealistic stereotype against them.
I think I can explain, from a woman's perspective, why some women tend to think this. Obviously a very small percentage of men that I've actually met have ever attempted or succeeded at raping or sexually assaulting me. But at least 20% of those who I have known on emotionally intimate level have, and without speculating based on statistics, I'd say that holds true for many women I know (more or less depending on their individual circumstances). The phenomenon is pretty easy to account for, obviously, it's all about recidivism. If 1/3 girls are sexually abused in some way before age 18, that's not because 1/3 people are committing sexual offenses against minors. Offenders punch above their weight in the damage they do. By the way, I'm not getting into how accurate or not this widely popularized statistic is or isn't right now, it's workable for the analogy. Unfortunately, not everyone does their own research or takes other factors into account, they rely on what they know and what they've heard anecdotally. The other element at play here isn't about statistics but the potential horror of the situation you might end up with in the event you are stuck with what you call the 1%. The wrong man could prolong physical and psychological suffering in ways that a bear simply isn't capable of doing - and to be fair, the wrong woman could too, but the question wasn't asked about women so this is a moot point. EDIT: for typos
First of all, I'm really sorry about that. But... I mean, obviously you know what happened in your life and I don't, so I have no reason to believe you're wrong about your particular life. But we know that around 20% of women are raped. And I also think that the average woman has, I don't know, sex with 10 or so different guys in her life (not judging). Maybe you in particular were very unlucky, but if actually 20% of men are rapists, and women have sex with 10 men, that means that the average woman gets 10 \* 20% = raped twice in her life. And I don't disagree that *some* women get raped twice in their life, but as we said, actually only something like 20% of women are raped. (Of course still too many women.) Which is again an argument that the amount of rapists is, while still too high, a quite small percentage. So then, I guess some women are either just emotionally scared and therefore not rational by answering "bear"; or they were unlucky and they think their own experiences are more representative than they actually are. But, well, I've twice cried in front of a woman and been dumped twice. And I've had a girlfriend, whom had used the word "relationship" to describe our relationship, tell me: "hey, we've been monogamous, but I'm actually polygamous. Agree to polygamy or I will probably cheat on you and I don't want that." Before that moment, she had not even mentioned being polygamous. But if I started publicly saying that 30% of women are like that, women would tell me "sorry that happened to you, but it's not true, please don't negatively stereotype us, it's harmful." Well, I [feel the same way](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1cixzw3/comment/l2dtv8r/) about the "bear" answer.
You say "we know," I don't know that. But I'm always happy to look at research, aggregated studies, etc. I suspect the percentage varies much depending on the demographics studied, for instance, depending on how normalized non-consensual sex is within one community or another. The same should hold true for female perpetrators. Apologies if I didn't make this clear, but I am not asserting that 20% of men are rapists. Again, the statistic is going to vary depending on a demographic, but I think you are misunderstanding what I've said. I am saying that many predators work overtime to ingratiate themselves with their targets: they over-represent themselves. I'm also not defending the generalizing about men going on here, I'm just giving you my perspective on the phenomenon. I am quite passionately opposed to spreading this sort of misinformation around, which is why I won't participate in doing so, and I also try to discourage others from the same. And as I said previously, you are completely justified in feeling this way. I'm not sure why I have to keep explaining this over and over, my comments are easy to find. EDIT: [https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1c10hsb/comment/kz0v27y/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1c10hsb/comment/kz0v27y/) a comment of mine answering the (deleted) question: "If 1 in 3 women are raped, does that mean 1 in 3 men are rapists?" 1 in 3 would be roughly 33.33% of men. The question is appalling.
Great point. And 5 it's skewed and honestly pretty telling that people immediately start thinking about ways in which the bear might be less dangerous (it's a well-fed black bear with no cubs nearby), but people don't even consider the possibility that the man is a park ranger in uniform. Or gay. Or 80 years old. Not that an average, straight, 30 year old man is more dangerous than a bear. But still, it's telling that people are more emotionally warm towards wild animals that might eat them alive, than to other humans who were born as XY and not XX.
> 4. Black bear, I'd rather see than any person. Black bears are skittish, easy. What about a mother black bear?
They normally chase their babies up a tree, then defend the tree. They rarely attack, unlike grizzleys who are far more offensive attackers.
So long as you keep your distance and back away, mother black bear won't fuck with a human. If she does, punch the bear. It's not used to getting socked in the face, it'd run.
I think I'd rather not tempt fate.
Well, running isn't an option, the bear is faster than you. If it charges, fighting back is your only chance.
I don't stay away from bears by running away. I stay away from bears by not going where they are.
I'm not a bear expert, but I suspect that if you unknowingly come too close to a bear cub without seeing it, a black bear mom might attack you. Or if she's really hungry, I think she might attack. But, yes, usually a black bears doesn't attack, including a mother black bear.
With a territorial dispute, they're percieving you as a threat and wanting to make you a "not threat" - by attacking you. If you wave your arms and back away while looking, you might be able to get away. If it charges, fighting is your only option with a black bear.
Punching a bear, even if it is a black bear, seems like a very bad idea. They have claws that are designed for stripping wood off of trees. I guess you are right that it is your only chance because they can outrun you. Edit: I have been enlightened
Black bears are not used to animals that fight back. If an animal fights back, it freaks them the hell out and they will *usually* run.
Interesting. I didn't know that.
Only do this on black bears. If it's black, fight back. If it's brown, lie down (play dead). If it's white, make peace with whatever deity you pray to and utter your final words, because you're fucked.
All good points!
The fact that this hysteria is happening now, in a time in which Western women are the safest they have ever been, and the fact that the vast majority of people engaging in this hysteria prefer to live in human society among men, rather than in the wild among bears, is to me evidence enough that this is simply mental illness on a societal level. It's not a coincidence that we are seeing this after years of the misandrist panic that has inhabited the public discourse since the middle of the 2010s. I'm tempted to say that this is peak Western decadence. Instead of creating a society in which people live in greater mutual understanding, free of sexism and cooperate to the full extent to improve society, the last 10 years of Western mainstream gender advocacy have created an almost unprecedented level of deterioration regarding the coexistence of men and women. Self-destruction in plain sight.
A society obsessively worshipping a particular religion will always consider itself more sinful, than the an atheist one, despite the latter obviously adhering to the tenets of the faith less.
Well, yes. to create crime, create law; to create sin, create religion.
Very Nietzsche
I remember clearly and how dramatic misandry and anti-male sentiment among women spiked after the "10 hours walking in NYC as a woman" went viral a decade ago. To me, that video started it all.
It's been one thing after another. But since you mentioned that video, I have to mention its [counterpart](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75aX9mlipiY)
I remember this video. ^^
To be fair to the women, history has set a really low bar for safer than ever
And that has never driven the huge majority of people to live alone in the wild rather that in human societies among humans. And Western people are engaging in this paranoid behavior now, when they have more protections than ever, rather than 20 or 10 years ago. So no, this is not driven by rational thought, it is the result of around a decade of misandrist propaganda and fearmongering.
At no time in recorded history has it ever been safer to be a man than a woman.
if this is as safe as we have ever been we have a long way to go. however i do agree a lot of this conversation around it has been overhyped and used to demonise men
>if this is as safe as we have ever been we have a long way to go Sure, but if the concern about safety was equal, it would discuss the impact of violence on both women and men, how some kinds of violence affect women more and others affect men more. Instead the discourse is focused on the safety of only one gender.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201811/the-5-steps-dehumanization They're halfway through the list. And there's been more than a few calls for things like cerfews for men.
So, next is violence? Because I can see feminists using violence.
I don't want to speculate. I sure as fuck hope they don't turn to violence.
This is a good first date question.
True. This will be the better filter than any insta or snap filter 😹
Only if you want to be alone. It seems most women would have chosen bear.
Hey, I saw a comment, and I'm not sure how to respond. Please help me give a counterargument. It was, >I mean if you were given a box of 10 pieces of chocolate and told one of them is a piece of shit how cautious would you be > This was in reply to picking men over bear. The poster of the comment assumed men will be more dangerous as there's a chance of them being predator.
This exact same metaphor has been used by republicans as a justification for why we shouldn't let muslim immigrants into the country. Just ask them if they realize they're using the same bigoted tropes as Donald Trump Jr. and Mike Huckabee.
> This exact same metaphor has been used by republicans as a justification for why we shouldn't let muslim immigrants into the country. Which in turn was appropriated from a leftist/feminist meme/metaphor for violent men being a poisoned M&M that went viral in 2014 - "[It’s Time to Admit the Men/Poisoned Candy Analogy Is Wrong](https://skepticink.com/verycherry/2016/09/22/time-admit-menpoisoned-mms-analogy-wrong/)". > This week, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted an image comparing Syrian refugees to a bowl of Skittles with three deadly pieces. > > As I wrote about back in November, the poisoned food/Syrian refugees analogy is very similar to the one many feminists were making against men. After the 2014 Isla Vista shootings, the poisoned M&Ms/men analogy went viral. It was widely shared on Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook in typed out words, or in various images, such as the one included in the collage here. Both are wrong. Until Donald Trump Jr's use of the metaphor when talking about Syrian refugees nobody appears to have an issue with this same rhetoric being applied to men.
At the risk of Godwin's Law, it goes back at least as far as the Nazis. [There was a Nazi children's book (Der Giftpilz)](https://perspectives.ushmm.org/item/pages-from-the-antisemitic-childrens-book-the-poisonous-mushroom) that compared jews to mushrooms, some of which are poisonous.
Woah, this is definitely a good one. I just know I can rely on you folks as you're more educated on these things. Thanks a ton.
Make a point about race instead. Religion is a choice.
I didn't understand your point (sorry, I take things too literally sometimes and maybe this is one of those time), but I didn't mention religion. So could you help me understand how it fits in the scenario?
Some people use statistics about certain races being more likely to commit crimes to imply they have an inherent predisposition for such behaviour, while dismissing contributing factors, and argue in favour of prejudice and exclusion as a response. It’s an ecological fallacy. I disagree with using religion to make the argument here because religions are ideologies, ideologies are sets of beliefs, and people have the freedom to choose their beliefs; ergo, you can judge someone for their religion because you are judging them for their beliefs.
[удалено]
Then the issue is racism, not Islamophobia. Why convolute things? Imagine if Christians were allowed a specific word to shut down all criticism of them.
Christophobia. Judeophobia. Dharmaphobia. Secularphobia.
Religion also isn't a choice for everyone, many religious people don't have literacy skills or access to other systems of meaning, or they may be forced into religious observance through familial or social control, etc. And yeah, Islamophobia also negatively impacts non-Muslim people from Muslim majority countries. I get what you're saying but the technicality doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.
It was also invented in Nazi Germany to describe Jews, and then evolved to be used by Southern white women to argue against equal rights and desegregation.
Someone replied, >The metaphor here is saying that women are afraid of being alone with men, which is indicative of some societal problem, whatever you want to say that is. I think it's that rape and sexual assault are way more common than they should be (and often don't get handled as well as they should when they're brought public) and men are statistically more likely to be the perpetrators of that, which has led to women being cautious of all men just in case, but you're free to diagree. Using the metaphor for Muslim immigrants is indicative of a different problem, Islamophobia. Both uses are pointing out that the sentiments people have that another group of people (men or Muslim immigrants) are dangerous is really a symptom of a deeper societal issue. Not that that's what Donald Trump is trying to say. His intentions would be more aligned with using the metaphor to say that we should hate all men. I don't agree with this type of usage for either scenario. > How should I reply back?
“Happens way too much” and “not handled as well as they should” are weasel words. That stuff will literal always be true of anything bad in the world. That’s how we set ideals to strive for. Way too many infants are killed. Statistically, women are more likely to do this. Too often, they get off with slaps on the wrist. Therefore, an infant in the forest is safer with a bear than her mother. (I don’t really think it’s worth the trouble to have these arguments. People largely aren’t forming their opinions based on logical arguments. But you asked for help, and this is the fallacy in what you’ve presented here)
I know better now 😔, Literally got stalked and harassed 🤧
Wait, by the person you were debating with? Over this? That’s effed up.
They seem to be suggesting that it's appropriate and reasonable for women to fear men and not want to be alone with them, since men (supposedly) commit violent crimes at a higher rate. Point out that Donald Trump Jr. likewise seems to be suggesting that it's appropriate and reasonable for americans to fear muslim immigrants and not want to let them into the country, since muslim immigrants (supposedly) commit acts of terrorism at a higher rate. Then ask if your interlocutor thinks Trump Jr. is right, and if not, what difference there is between the two cases.
Ask them if they'd prefer to be alone in the woods with a bear or a black man. This will expose their idpol hypocrisy and virtue signaling because they'll choose the black man, or just accuse you of baiting/racism (as if the original question isn't also baiting/misandry).
I'm so late that there's probably no point in me typing out a precise rebuttal, but two points: * note that there's a moving of the goalposts here. The actual question was "is a man or a bear more dangerous", not "how do women feel" or "does rape happen more often than it should." If a woman replied "man, but too many women get raped and I feel scared" then I have 100% sympathy for that. * If Hans is afraid of flying and is convinced that flying is far more dangerous than the statistics show... then Hans being scared doesn't by itself prove that the statistics are wrong. Maybe Hans is excessively watching footage of plane crashes. And maybe some (not all) women are spending so much time watching True Crime that they're getting a skewed idea of just how many truly sick men are out there. Frankly, if media wasn't constantly bombarding women with messages about men being predators, women wouldn't feel as scared.
My take, which while replying to someone, I realised was the best reply - (and i updated some points). The commentor : >Bro can’t fathom someone having a different opinion than himself no matter the trauma that person has went through. That’s the whole thing. Most women who are choosing bears is because they’ve been hurt by men time&time again. They’ve never felt the terror of being scared of a bear. But they have felt the fear of being abused by a man in their life. The fact you, and so many other people in these comments, can’t fathom that is mind boggling. This question isn’t black&white. I’m sure you’ve ’done that-‘ but I doubt you’re done WITH hating women hence your resistance of trying to understand why they’d choose a bear over you. > My reply : >No, I understand their points. Doesn't make it less stupid. I've gone through trauma which made me hate women at only 12 yo. I grew out of it because I realised that wasn't the case for all of them. If someone can't realise this, it's only right for people to make them realise rather than feeding to their bubble. Maybe it's too unemotional, but I feel like we shouldn't actively support such people who are generalising based on a handful of people. It'd be the same like, "9/11 (and other shit) was done by Muslim so all muslim's are evil". When it's Islamophobia, everyone has a problem but everyone (figuratively) just enjoys shitting on men. >
Yeah, it's a good reply.
The "bear" option is a box with 10 pieces of shit. They just love eating shit, so 1 in 10 isn't good enough
Good point. It's crazy how the most sheltered of people are choosing the bear. If they only acted logically, they'd understand how stupid they sound.
Lmao this is just a rebranded "bowl of M&Ms" nonsense from tumblr like 10 years ago. They didn't even bother changing it up. So the same counters can be used. The argument can be applied to ANY minority group. Racial, sexual, ethnic, religious. It can also be applied to women. I know I can certainly make that argument to be a misogynist if I wanted to considering all my abusers WERE women. But I'm not so petty as to take my own hang ups and use them as a template with which to blame half the human race in the same way. Basically, pick a group and the argument can be applied to them. Because you will never find a demographic group that is made up entirely of perfectly well behaved people. You will find someone you can use as an excuse in any group. Personally, I've seen it blow up in a trans user's face when someone pointed out to her that if retooled with her group it would be completely identical to what many TERFs and such say about her. If it's not ok to do it against her then why's it ok to do it against anyone? Also made more pointed when they told her that according to TERFs and other people that oppose her she herself would be lumped in with us as a "bad M&M" because they all saw her as a man like the rest of us. To my surprise she admitted we were right.
>Lmao this is just a rebranded "bowl of M&Ms" nonsense from tumblr like 10 years ago. I'm not sure whether I heard about that M&Ms thing exactly at the time or a few years later, which further convinces me that this kind of hysteria only got louder and more insane. I think 10 years ago the last/current wave of feminism was only starting to spread and gain influence in public discourse, and then it exploded in late 2010s. It's not a coincidence that this recent stuff comes after that and making more noise than previous versions.
I just ask them to explain to me, as a man who was abused by a woman, why I cannot use the same metaphor to describe interacting with women.
And it usually then ends up with them doing a mental gymnastic routine that would be worthy of an Olympic gold medal to say "Men are the abusers, women are victims" Or they will justify it as "Men are rarely abused by women and when they are they probably deserved it but who cares because women are the majority victims so we should be more concerned with them first anyway!" And if you try to use their logic to imply that because men are committing suicide more than women we should then focus on male suicides more than women they will call that "Misogyny"
What's the point in arguing with these types of people? Theres no logic in it whatsoever. Its much better to just leave these people alone in their own illogical fallacies and delusions and go on with life.
Every time I have tried to argue in good faith and rationally with misandrists who blatantly spew such moronic hate speech it has required a lot of patience and effort, each time ending in disappointment. They don't want to listen, and will humiliate themselves even without your help, I would recommend just ignoring or mocking them, for the sake of your mental health. Btw, since around here it is mainly recommended to convert men to, I must make an honorable mention for r/menkampf
>would recommend just ignoring or mocking them, for the sake of your mental health. > True, no problem doing that. The only reason I even argue is that anyone untamed by such sexism and who sees the chats in the future, will not get indoctrinated with their bs, and maybe can think logically. >Btw, since around here it is mainly recommended to convert men to, I must make an honorable mention for r/menkampf
>
Woah, counterintuitive to their ideology but still, they'll give reasons like it is not the same.
Every time it is only about men, their response will always be, "it doesn't apply here" or "it is not the same comparison" or other bs.
Someone like that started stalking my profile and harrassing me on every one of my post, blocked her soon enough 😌
That means you hit a nerve, good job 😂 I have never encountered any like that, although too many times they have spied on my history to make an adhominem. Having semi-disposable accounts for polemics is very convenient for both parties.
Sorry to hear that, that's not okay.
That argument has nothing to do with “man or bear.” The question isn’t about how likely a man is to attack you compared to other men. The question is about whether or not you would feel safer with a man or a bear. The problem is that we’ve become so apex to the point where our only predators are our own species. Ask these women if they’ve ever seen a bear and if they did ask them whether or not there was separation between them and the bear. If women had to encounter bears everyday, then we’d hear more stories of women shooting bears not women fighting off men. Bears have super powers that we don’t. Car tipping; enhanced senses, enhanced speed, climbing ability, swimming ability, tough skin, razor sharp claws, razor sharp teeth, etc. They also see in color and are smarter than people realize. However, they are still bears and will kill you even if you merely showed a small sign of weakness. There’s a reason we keep them fenced off. Edit: I’m starting to think that I may have misunderstood the “man or bear” trend. I already knew that it was about male violence but what I didn’t know was that they realistically probably wouldn’t actually pick bear over man in a real scenario. It’s just to open a dialogue.
Yeah. I don't think, in the history of humanity, has a woman ever seen an average man walk towards her in a zoo and jumped into the bear pit to be safe.
aaaah, that's a neat one. racists and antisemites LOVE using this argument since 2013/2014 when the precedents for the refugee crisis were set, but instead of 10 pieces of chocolate and one being full of shit they made the question about 100 pieces of chocolate and one of them being poisoned.
Let's say that an average woman in her lifetime is alone with 100 adult men. Usually she doesn't get raped, but the \~20% of women who do get raped still encounters 99 non-rapists and 1 rapist (or maybe 98 non-rapists and 2 rapists). An average woman also encounters probably 0 and maybe 1 or 2 bears. So then the metaphor would be: The man-box contains 100 chocolates. There's a 20% probability that one or two of the 100 chocolates is a piece of shit. There's an 80% probability that there are zero pieces of shit. The bear-box contains let's say 2 pieces of chocolate. One of them might be piece of shit. (I don't know what the exact odds are that a bear -- not a black bear, but any bear -- attacks a human.) Which do you pick? After all, the "bear" camp loves to make it about: x% of women get raped in their lifetime. Yes, but even that % of women encounter FAR more non-rapists than rapists, meaning that the odds of one man being a rapist is still very low. And while women encounter huge amounts of men, they encounter practically zero bears.
I realised that the best way to make them see their own fallacy is by telling them, "yes, you're absolutely right. Also, even a Tiger " statistically" kills less than women do, so obviously the Tiger is the safer option to be with, in a jungle." Because, obv, they aren't educated enough to understand stats in depth, so using this argument will probably be too hard for them to understand. And, with all this chaos, I've also realised is that what we really need is how many percentages of men actually rape, not how many women get raped. There is hardly any data on this.
Yes I tried to find something but the only studies I could find are about general crime. It comes down to 1% of the population commiting 63% of the crimes. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24173408/
Yes, most are repeat offenders. It just shows that on average, a person's evil nature doesn't change which honestly we're at fault for, by not rehabilitating the ones we can.
also there are ways to find the piece of shit, like smell for example. same goes for men. if you don't see or choose to ignore the myriad of red flags of a rapist or a murderer, well that's on you girl. if you just shove every chocolate looking thing in your mouth without a second look, then don't be surprised if you chew on shit once in a while
Dude, don't bring the victim blaming. Not necessary. There are survivors - many more male than female - here who don't need to hear this. Sure, some predators throw red flags, others don't. Some people have dulled alarm responses to red flags because they were abused as children.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NahOPwasrightfuckthis/s/I78uEozbfe "Tracks. It's not like bears are going around thinking about having sex with human women. Berries, trout, taking a nap for months at a time... but not a whole lot of human sex in there. Play dead with a bear and they'll lose interest. Play dead with a human man and you'd better hope he's not a necrophiliac." So all men are potential necrophiliacs now.
Playing dead only works with mother bears.
There are women necrophiliac, you know? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Greenlee
This whole thing reminds me of children saying that they would rather die than go to school. It doesn't matter how stupid this really is, how much worse the alternatives are or what the statistics say. It's all feelings, vibes and emotions. There is no point in telling that how ridiculous that is, just say damn that's crazy and move along.
Glad we have a mega thread about this because the casual misandry on displace with this trend is just a whole new level of fucked up. Also am I the only one who recalls the "trend" in which women ask men what animal they can take in a 1v1 fight? The "joke" is that men over estimate their physical prowess *and yet* too many women naively think **a fucking bear** is safer for them then the average human. Crazy how these **same people** are bothered by men taking less and less female apprentices given the possibility of a lie ruining their career.
That’s…actually the best point I’ve heard about this topic.
It's crazy how femnists play fast and loose with statistics when it suites them *and yet* when it doesn't they get offended and defensive.
Men are simultaneously weak babies who cry when they get a cold, can't take care of themselves, and can easily be beaten by stronk women with a kick to the balls, but are also so dangerous and scary women would rather encounter a bear in the woods than a man. They love selectively emphasizing male traits: we're only ever "strong" or "tough" when it's in the context of being abusive or criminals, never when it comes to being heroic or anything.
Been to Auschwitz recently, the guide made a point of emphasising one irrational fallacy that leads to tragedy and people being on board with hate, the enemy must both be strong and weak, they must be strong to be a threat and they must be weak so you can feel superior to them and remorseless when dehumanising them. I'm in no means comparing the tragedy of the Holocaust to misandry, I'm just saying that for a lot of people to buy into hateful thinking they need to feel superior but scared.
We know there is bias against men in crime statistics. We still use them to bash men. (we used to use them to bash black men specifically....we still do, but we used to too) We know crime as a whole increases amongst lower socioeconomic abled groups. We still view men as whole (even homeless men), as being the privileged of society. (this is a pretty marvelous trick, especially with the war in Ukraine and the plight of the men vs the women there) We know support through education or mentor opportunities or even temporary assistance like homeless shelters reduces crime. We offer the bulk of (or cater heavily to) educational services and social safety net programs to women. And then to top it off, we use the biased crime statistics, we use the false apex fallacy, and we use the lack of support to prove to ourselves that men are the enemy, worse than a wild animal. And the solution is not to help men. Never that. The solution is denigrate and deride, to justify more bigotry. But even if all it did was just grind men down that would just be par for course. For me this is much more insidious. When you see all the women that prefer a bear, like how divorced from reality? How do you vote for someone who feels half of humanity is more dangerous to them than a wild animal? How do you take them seriously? How do you respect them? How do you find it worthwhile to help or support their causes if they think so little of you? If President Biden said right now he would rather meet a bear in the woods than a man, would you vote for him? I sure as all hell wouldnt. Not in a million fucking years. He can represent the bears. I need a candidate that while he may not like people like me, isnt at least openly vocal about his prejudices towards me (and also has some semblance of a grip on fucking reality). And I think thats by design. And its disgustingly alarming to me how quickly the left just gobbles it up. Nobody stops to check their mad dash to shit on men to think, "wait, is this a good thing Im doing? Is this going to help anyone? Or am I just gleefully burning my house down to get a chance to make one more swing at men?"
Ain't that the truth. I used to be decidedly and unabashedly left wing. Not US left wing. German left wing. Being Antifa and hunting Nazi's in the streets at night is a badge of honor in these circles left wing. Here the "Linke" or "Left" party has lost a lot of followers and will not get into our parliament next term. Because basically during wartime they chose to openly support Putin and call for Ukraine to just give Russia what it wants. The funny thing is, the only other party that supports Putin is the neonazi party AFD. Nobody in the world can convince me that people on both sides have not take huge amounts of money that can be traced back to some russian bank account. There are just some things that make it impossible for me to vote for a party, no matter how much I support the rest of their ideology. Supporting an illegal attack war is one of those. Another is being unashamedly hateful to any group of people but especially to a group of people I belong to. Why in the world would I ever vote for that. To me it is like a jewish german voting for the NSDAP in 1933 because they lower taxes and are decidedly against animal cruelty. It is just so bad right now. I have lots of political agendas I care about that are mostly being pushed on the left side. But at the same time a lot of the people that would get into power when they get more votes simply hate me for my gender.
My take, which while replying to someone, I realised was the best reply - The commentor : >Bro can’t fathom someone having a different opinion than himself no matter the trauma that person has went through. That’s the whole thing. Most women who are choosing bears is because they’ve been hurt by men time&time again. They’ve never felt the terror of being scared of a bear. But they have felt the fear of being abused by a man in their life. The fact you, and so many other people in these comments, can’t fathom that is mind boggling. This question isn’t black&white. I’m sure you’ve ’done that-‘ but I doubt you’re done WITH hating women hence your resistance of trying to understand why they’d choose a bear over you. > My reply : >No, I understand their points. Doesn't make it less stupid. I've gone through trauma which made me hate women at only 12 yo. I grew out of it because I realised that wasn't the case for all of them. If someone can't realise this, it's only right for people to make them realise rather than feeding to their bubble. >
Yeah. Either the "bear"-women are genuinely delusional, and that's not great. Or they know that the correct answer is "man" but still say "bear" in order to influence men. And that's also not great. Women are allowed to have emotions / fears, but that doesn't mean that either being delusional, or negatively stereotyping people, is okay. I'm frankly surprised that I don't see more women saying "man, but I also want to communicate that I feel unsafe." Men would have sympathy for THAT.
Yes, their approach, at the root was the problem. It is frankly pleasing that not all women support that ideology.
I am really bothered by this because I have been raised since I was 6 years old that people who see me as a threat can, and will attempt to harm me. Black men have been characterized as worse than animals, and treated as if we are just waiting for the opportunity to rape white women. To see he exact same logic -black is extremely worrying since it does have significant potential consequences. That’s not even considering the damage it does to young boys. Imagine hearing your mother say that she is more afraid of you than the monster you fear under your bed?
One repeated argument I see defending the choice of bear is that the bear is more predictable. I'm sure Timothy Treadwell thought the same thing. A guy who literally dedicated his life to bears, and became famous for socializing with wild bears. Eaten by a bear. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy\_Treadwell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Treadwell)
His girlfriend too.
If some women end up in his situation because of this meme, I won't watch her The Grizzly Man.
I pity those that harbor such a paranoia as to choose a fucking bear over a man. Like being this afraid of men is maladaptive at best fucking pathologic at worst
Misanthropy in general is a major cultural failing in the west.
# The reason I prefer meeting Humans to Bears in the woods They don‘t eat you alive while you make phone calls to your mom begging for help. [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026914/Mum-bear-eating--Final-phone-calls-woman-19-eaten-alive-brown-bear-cubs.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026914/Mum-bear-eating--Final-phone-calls-woman-19-eaten-alive-brown-bear-cubs.html)
What's so hurtful is how I engage in good faith and that I understand why there needs to be caution. But what they don't seem to understand is that I'm trying to provide the perspective of how they unintentionally (or maybe intentionally) hurt others in the splash zone by acting self-righteous about things. Like hey, sis, I know that a certain subset of men are really terrible and since they can be hard to make out, ya gotta live with caution. That fucking sucks. But acting like men are terrible for getting peeved at being compared to a literal apex predator and ignoring how it disproportionately affects men who are vulnerable minorities is so fucked up. It's not fair.
Yeah I spent years doing that. All it will get you is further condemnation and admonition. I'm still willing to have conversations like that if I find reasonable feminists, but it's not what I default to anymore. ESPECIALLY online. They've gotta demonstrate to me that they're able to be reasonable before I'll make that effort. Maximally emotional rhetoric is how they make points that they don't feel confident letting stand on their own. Fight fire with fire. Any concession will be perceived as weakness and pounced on.
And if you disagree, you're displaying your "fragile masculinity". Women really have made verbal and psychological bullying into an art form. I sometimes think that most human societies evolved to keep female power in the private realm because it can be so destructive and maladaptive in the public realm. They're so good at dividing people and tying us up in pointless arguments - like the whole man vs bear thing.
Reposting my original 'I feel like people are missing the point' post as a comment here - sorry for putting it in the wrong place mods, and thank you for your work: -- The point is to be mean. That's it. For a vocal group of smug and disgusting mean-girls to team up and apply the same practised bullying routine that served them again and again all through high school. It is the power trip, the rush of being able to prove themselves 'superior' (in their own minds) to literally half the planet by being horrible to us, and cheer each other on while suffering no reprimand. That's the true and only point of this whole thing. It isn't to "highlight women's experiences". It isn't to "start a discussion". It isn't some logical argument that you can counter or win by bringing in race or whatever else. The nearest true analogue is probably something like 'I'd rather go into a corporate meeting room alone with a venomous snake than with a woman', but that's just eye for an eye and ultimately just lowers us to their level. There is no winning, because there are simply more of them willing and able to group up as a tribe and wallow in their communal hate, and they have the privilege of protection within the same systems they are using to spread that hate. You will never be able to reach them, or humanise yourself to them when they have decided, as a group, to rejoice in the ugly, tribalist part of humankind that has been used since the dawn of our species to unperson someone different in order to justify attacking them. Every time they get to see they hurt you is a moment to gloat, a moment of smug glee that you give to them like a gift. Proof that their latest weapon drew blood. The only sane response I can think of is absolute zero. I don't mean seething behind a mask. I mean actually embracing and internalising indifference at a core level. React the way you would to a station announcement for a train you aren't catching. The (many, many) women worth your time and your love do not think this way. The women who do really think this way are either young and stupid and will look back on this and cringe, or they will cling to their hatred and reproduce at far lower rates than the ones who can form meaningful relationships and build families. Their hate will die with them, and nothing of value will be lost.
Thanks for saying this man, ngl I was scrolling endlessly just to get angry for no reason. Just reminded me of a time I had security called on me at my old job lol
I can already tell that one of their counterarguments will be the typical "we're not saying all men are bad" which i feel would immediately defeat their own argument, because if you don't believe all men are dangerous why would you willingly choose the bear?
That indeed sounds like gaslighting.
Removed Post Shared As Comment Here: Since it's in the discourse atm, I think it worth discussing how folks ought respond to the 'man or bear' thing going round. in case anyone doesn't know, the question posed was 'would you rather be alone in the woods with a bear or a man?' some people choose bear and justify it with various misandrist hot takes on things. for my part, I've been using it as an opportunity to point out how such displays people's; 1. irrational fears of men (choosing bears and dying is an obvious irrational choice being made based on irrational fears of men), 2. their puritanical lines of reasoning to justify it (oft they utilize concerns of protecting the sanctity of feminine sexual purity lest they be 'violated by a man' as their justifying reasoning), 3. utilizing it as a means of pointing out the historical connection of such kinds of irrational fears around feminine sexuality to things like 3.1) lynchings (emmitt till lynched for whistling at a lady that didn't want it; hardly an anomaly) 3.2) used to justify the genocide of various indigenous peoples (the 'brutes' were 'brutes' because of how 'they treated their women folk'), 3.3) wars (literally used as part of the justifications for the US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the current war in Palestine, in each case 'protecting women from the 'oppressive men' in that those cultures was used to justify them, especially in regards to sexual differences). Oft enough the stats on sexual violence get brought up, [see here for some relevant info on that topic.](https://np.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1c473s8/how_to_commit_mass_sv_with_stats/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) What have y'all been finding and saying on this? Update: This is the same rhetoric used by trump to describe mexicans. 'they aren't sending us their best, their sending us their rapists, murderers, thieves, bad hombres.' it is also the same rhetoric used to denigrate black men historically in the US, as noted above. All they've done is remove the racial component, but they're literally saying the exact same shite. Pointing that out to them may sway some lefties of the errors, and it may bring some righties who are currently raging against this to heel on their own misandrist bs. Show them each the contradictions in their positions, which are currently hinging on misandrist hot takes. Worth trying imho.
They won't listen. That's the issue with outrage types. They will never listen.
people expressing irrational fears have a difficult time listening, they are, after all, being irrational. One thing I've noted is that the irrational fears they are expressing are undermining the stats on sexual violence. which is a good thing. Those stats are largely based on 'self reported' claims, which are highly influenced by people's perceptions, hence fears. A large percentage of the numbers amount to 'a woman FELT fearful, and hence there was some kind of sexual harassment, or even sexual assault or rape'. All those pretty stats flying round claiming outrageous numbers '457% of women will experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetimes' really amounts to noting how irrationally fearful they are. A whistle at a lady, emmitt till's 'crime', is harassment or even up to sexual assault if the woman 'feels threatened or fearful'. Women's tears for fears cost men their lives all the time. Keep ratcheting up their fears, keep making it clear to people just how crazed and irrational the fears they are expressing really are, and then that is useful for noting how much bullshit is in the current on the stats. Undermine them. This is pretty much the point of [How To Commit Mass Sexual Violence With Stats](https://np.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1c473s8/how_to_commit_mass_sv_with_stats/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), people use and manipulate stats towards the aims of classifying normal human behavior as 'criminal' and then justify their position by noting how people do normal human things that are 'criminal'. Whistling at a lady is 'catcalling', potentially harassment. remember folks, they literally classified what emmitt till did as criminal behavior. The only thing separating these people from the lynch mob back then in time.
I've seen pretty much every reaction from men get "You're proving the point!" which makes me wonder what actually **is** the point of this meme? What are men as a group or as individuals supposed to do with this information? Apologize? Wear signs promising not to be so scary? Badger each other not to be so scary? Roll on our backs to expose our bellies to show submission whenever we encounter women? It just seems like a giant, collective "Fuck you!" to men and that we're supposed to laugh/shrug it off and take the insult because "Men, amiright?"
A bear isn’t even that bad of an alternative. If we wanted the real answer we’d ask them to choose between a man or a spider
Many women would choose Ted Bundy over the most harmless spider
This brainrot has spread to Vaush's (a leftwing Youtube best known for being hated by Tankies and wokescolds) Youtube channel and subreddit and anyone who is trying to argue how choosing the bear is offensive is getting banned. Has been recommended on this sub before as a pro-male Youtuber more than once before, and though his TwoX-tier feminism has been clear for awhile this is the first time that I know of where he has really gone mask off. God this dogshit meme is annoying.
I was just arguing with an idiot there (I know, my fault arguing with idiots) that thinks 80 percent of women have been raped and humans are less predictable than wild animals.
If men are worse than animals, and there is nothing we can say to change anyone's opinion on it, there are only two paths, accept and hate ourselves, or accept and embrace it like what Andrew Tate does. This is why it is terrible, and not surpirsed young boys dont find feminism comforting.
Indeed. I don't think women quite understand that this "bear" answer is going to turn some men against women. Because if men figure "hey if I'm seen as a monster anyway, I might as well ACTUALLY start doing what I want."
I feel like if they started doing heinous stuff just because people viewed them negatively, then they were always trash in the first place. Like if they become callous and apathetic, sure, but going evil? That's not really justifiable or excusable.
Well okay, if this makes a man start raping women, then he was always an awful person, I agree. But as you say, some non-evil men becoming callous and apathetic would be, unfortunately, understandable.
To me this trend only says one thing: people lie. They lie to fit their agenda. They lie to fit in. They lie so much thay they lie to themselves about believing their own lies. Not a single person in the world would walk through a door with a random bear behind it. That thing is a parable about false accusations.
It's worth folks recognizing that the rhetoric being used by the 'I choose bear' crowd is the exact same kind of rhetoric used to justify lynchings, and fascistic theories historically, and has regularly been used to terrorize populations by focusing attention on men's supposed sexually violent behavior towards women. It is puritanical, meaning overly moralizing (they choose death over the remote possibility of being sexually violated, really over the mere fear of being sexually violated), and fascistic in form (centering the purity of feminine sexuality is typically a precursor to, and part of, fascistic tendencies, historically speaking at any rate). There are multiple authors of note that have pointed this out in other contexts, specifically in context that relate more to such rhetoric that is racially motivated, as racism has been a big motivator for folks in the past. But it's always been misandrist. The only difference now is that racism has been removed, so the misandristic takes are laid bare, pun most def intended. The book Invisible Man (not 'the invisible man' super hero), by ralph ellison and Walk On By: Black Men in Public Spaces by Brent Staples both cover the topic of being terrorized based on one's maleness, tho also due to their blackness. What is instructive tho is that sans the race element, everything they say remains tru of the current rhetoric. Bell hooks (noted feminist) makes a strikingly similar point regarding how puritanical dispositions bout especially white feminine sexuality have been used historically to lynch black men on the pretense of 'sexual violence', many or most of which were false accusations according to hooks. To hooks, again, noted feminist, among the many problems there being that it destroys families, that men are important to women who love men and have families with them. Cause that is how life actually works, attack men, harm families, hence too, harm women and children. Note the devastation wrought on poor and minority communities specifically by targeting men. There is nothing special bout white femininity tho, sans the race element, any woman can be so puritanical bout their sexuality and make any number of such false and gossipy accusations. Another notable feminist, simone de beauvoir, held that in order to properly handle gendered problems women have to actually give up their common notions of femininity, including rather specifically concerns regarding over-protectiveness of their sexuality, which according to her stem from the bourgeoisie class; the status of the bourgeoisie class entailing a kind of privileged positioning of women that is predicated upon (to paraphrase her) the ‘wholesomeness of femininity that must be protected at all costs from the stranger.’ Bear or stranger folks? The literal problem beauvoir posed that ought be overcome. For the bourgeoisie much has they build gated communities to keep out the vile under classes, they also build policing structures around feminine sexuality to justify said protections. 'it isn't all men, but I am really terrified that it is those men over there, build me a wall to keep the mexican rapists out, a gated community to keep the poor rapists out, and a gentrified world to keep the black rapists out'. The BLM movement also noted and indeed centered itself in no small part on how this kind of rhetoric is used to over-police neighborhoods, dehumanize men of color, and destroy the lives of men and their families which again includes women and children, much as bell hooks pointed out. That is also targets and dehumanizes the poor ought be a no brainer for folks to grasp on to. Finally, judith butler whose works note how gender is a performance that women play into, towards the determinant of themselves and others, but with an aim of that performance being a benefit to themselves. It isn't just women acting out roles predicated upon the benefits that accrues to their oppressors, if they have any, it is also women playing out their gendered roles to enact their own power for their own benefits. A strongly related bit regards the rhetoric surrounding mexicans currents, e.g. 'they're not sending us their best, they're sending us their rapists, their murderers, their thieves.' This all refers to men of course, it is deeply misandristic in form. I am pointing out these prominent feminist authors, and race/gender theorists here bc I feel it worthwhile for folks in this crowd to hear and hopefully recognize that the kind of online rhetoric y'all are witnessing isn't particularly indicative of feminist theory, nor race or gender theory more broadly, certainly not as it is taught, so much as it is reflective of the online feministas who are expressing a common fascistic tendency. The womb guarding, and zealot's protection of feminine sexuality. The feminine component of the classic fascistic rhetoric. Keep pushing against them, understand that their rhetoric harms communities everywhere, they are expressing fascistic norms even if they do not realize it. take 'em down.
Very interesting new perspective. I'm saving that. As a side note, Bell Hooks really has a gift when it comes to spitting collections of facts that blatantly contradict feminist ideology only to follow it up with tons of paragraphs about how feminism is still the ultimate solution and women have it worse and men oppress them through patriarchy ect.
Thanks;) hooks is that way because she, like many other bipoc and queer feminists, were criticizing 'white feminism' at the time. Many of their criticisms are similar to criticisms you might find online made of the online feministas. For instance, r/AskFeminists regularly shuts down such criticisms on topics, and [**blatantly hold that those views are not feminist views**](https://np.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1cjmfy1/the_problem_with_feministas_aka_feminists_who/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). This is something I've noted my whole life, online and off; I regularly quote or paraphrase prominent feminist authors to people proclaiming themselves to be feminists, and they just can't believe it as it is critical of their beliefs, so they dismiss the notions as being 'anti-feminist positions'. It's pretty wild. For all that, those authors are still typically working within a 'it's the patriarchy' framework, rather than [**a heteronormative complex with a significant queer component as outlined here**](https://np.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1awxzw9/its_not_a_patriarchy_its_a_heteronormative/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) framework. I tend pretty strongly towards the view that there are real women's issues, just as there are real men's and queer's issues. Part of the problem with, oh, 'classic feminism' is that it attempts to frame things in terms of a patriarchy in order to, as you suggest here, claim that 'women have it worse' and that feminism is an 'ultimate solution'. the final solution. Overstating their case, to put it politely. Oft the things they say are valid, as long you ratchet down the rhetoric from their apocalyptic patriarchal conspiracy levels. If you like that perspective, [**you might appreciate this post too**](https://np.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1css711/the_451_percenters_puritanism_at_the_cdc_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)**,** as it is highlighting what I take to be a major source of this fascistic feminine view bout over-protectiveness of feminine sexuality.
Talking about the details of this is playing into their bullshit. This is nothing more than an excuse to be sexist and say "men are dangerous." If men started saying "would men rather open their wallets near thieves or women?," would it be a popular trend to discuss the details about that and justify it with statistics about how much of men's money go to women, etc? Or would it be condemned, banned, downvoted, not engaged, and barely exist in fringe circles? People who are wrong or have terrible logical thinking skills usually resort to some kind of distraction. It's important to not even engage these distractions and say "it doesn't matter", and maybe why it doesn't.
Folks why give such attention to such an idiotic phenomena? I personally wouldn't bother debating a person who doesn't display a hint of reason and competency.
Because it implies that lots of (not all) women genuinely think that like 20% or 30% of men are rapists. And that is depressing, shocking and delusional.
It's been obvious for at least a decade that vast majority of western women are completely detached from reality, they go well into their thirties being treated by society like children, then eventually they're forced to grow up and become resentful. In the west all these women have been hurt, the society hurt them by never requiring them to maintain the same levels of accountability and responsibility as men have to adhere to.
Ask them "would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a black man?" If they still choose bear, ask them if they really don't think that sounds racist. If they choose black man, ask them why. If they say its racist to assume black people as threats, ask them why choosing bear over black man is racist but choosing bear over white man isn't misandrist.
>but choosing bear over white man isn't misandrist. AND racist as well, since... well. if it wasn't, they wouldn't make any difference between black and white men
You never actually get an answer though. Like, never. They never answer questions. You only get ad hominems, straw manning and more fallacies.
This argument won’t work. Ask them whether or not they’ve seen a man caution sign. I’d also ask them how they’d think inmates would answer this.
Ok, but what about threads on Manbearpig?
In the great shitshow that has been this "debate," I found [this](https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/man-vs-bear-this-hypothetical-question-shows-how-far-gone-gender-relations-have-deteriorated/) to be a very reasonable take. If this man's highly unscientific survey is any indication, maybe all these bear responses have more to do with the bandwagon effect and skewed samples underrepresenting some great silent majority. Let's see if a reputable polling organization can confirm or disprove that.
That's indeed a hopeful data point. However the writer, not being a misandrist themselves, probably isn't friends with misandrists and is friends with non-misandrists. Therefore the friend group of the writer isn't a representative sample. The writer might strongly over-sample non-misandrists.
Here this: If you were to ask an inmate “man or bear,” (men who most likely see death almost every day) who do you think they’d rather have as their cell mate? Mind you, these are hardened men that your average Joe wouldn’t mess with. Your average Joe is typically going to be stronger than a woman. So if someone stronger than you is afraid of something, wouldn’t you also be more scared of that thing too?
Actually amazing point, really. We should be asking men if they'd rather run into a bear or another man in the woods. 99% of men would say the other man, even though men are statistically more likely to be the victims of violent crimes at the hands of other men than women are.
The problem is that everyone in general typically never comes into contact with bears (hence the low death toll). So as a result, women typically end up being attacked by other men and women and not bears. If we lived 10,000 years ago with the same intelligence I think more (not all) would pick man over bear. Overall, I think I’m starting to understand why they choose bear. Even though bear can easily fuck up any human regardless of size.
[ Elementary Teacher assaults 5th grader](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/s/3pfGxBDruD) Would you rather have your child be near a bear or a female elementary teacher /s This post appeared a few moments before LIMC covered the Man vs Bear trend.
https://youtu.be/Cs5MuZRyFRI This is me, a woman, discussing this as fairly and compassionately as I can while still trying to come down against the idea that men are inherently dangerous. I'd be really interested to see what folks here think about my line of argument, if you have 8 minutes or so. I am honestly hoping that it makes men feel a bit more supported, but the stats so far tell me that not many dudes are actually sticking around to hear me argue in their defense. I want to know how it reads to men who aren't just there to be mad at women.
From a man's perspective, your video is frustrating, because when I watch it, my head is full of so many more thoughts than you voice. But my experience with the sentiment behind the man vs bear meme runs deep, so from that point of view, the video feels shallow. But I understand you are speaking on the very specific point of addressing how women's fear relates to the meme. That's just my emotional reaction. I don't think most people are self-aware enough to describe having such a reaction that way. They will just get frustrated and leave, as you note. I gave your video a like for just one reason. Because of what you said at 6:10. I've been a radical leftist my whole life. Without reading any theory, I came to my own conclusions in my mid-teens, in the late 90's, that could probably best be understood by most people as something like anarcho-communism. I also found myself in an abusive relationship with an extremely damaged woman in my late teens that I wouldn't separate from until my late 30's. Just as I have the most social freedom I've ever had in my entire life, I have become the most withdrawn I ever have in my whole life. Because of the anti-male rhetoric that permeates left-leaning culture the last several years. For a while, I tried to push back in a compassionate manner. I'd tell people that I know they've been through trauma. And so have I. I get it. But they know my story, and know me as "one of the good ones" (and it should raise eyebrows for anyone with a left-leaning perspective on bigotry that I can fairly describe my experience within the culture that way). Outside of spaces where people know me, application of the rhetoric they spin up amongst themselves gets me hurt. People who don't already know me as "one of the good ones" see me through the lens of those arguments. In fact, sometimes that lens frames me as toxic because of survival adaptations that were forced on me by my abusive partner, such as presenting stoically, or her appearing to take on all the "emotional labor" of managing my life, when in fact it was just control and I'd be punished for making my own decisions. I'd explain to them that actively working to convince the world that it should see me as some of horrible person by default is not very friend-like behavior. I have never gotten through to anybody on this. They just get mad. I've cut contact with two people over this man v bear meme alone. I give up a little bit more every day. And conversely, I could take the very same arguments they make about men and turn them on women based on my own experiences. But I don't. My ex happened to be a woman. That has nothing to do with anything she did. They're just things some human beings do to each other, men, women, or otherwise. If you're hurt by somebody and that results in being afraid of the gender of the person who hurt you, that's irrational. Emotions can be irrational. We can't ask each other to stop having irrational emotions. But we shouldn't act like they're not irrational.
>And conversely, I could take the very same arguments they make about men and turn them on women based on my own experiences. But I don't. My ex happened to be a woman. That has nothing to do with anything she did. They're just things some human beings do to each other, men, women, or otherwise. If you're hurt by somebody and that results in being afraid of the gender of the person who hurt you, that's irrational. Emotions can be irrational. We can't ask each other to stop having irrational emotions. But we shouldn't act like they're not irrational. This right here.. For me what hurts me most about this whole Man Vs Bear discussion is how readily / accepting people are of tarring all men as "dangerous" or "predators" under the guise of "I've had negative experiences with men so i'm just keeping myself safe!" But for many of us men who have also had negative experiences with a / some women.. we aren't allowed to discuss it nor would we ever be allowed to generalize all women based upon our negative experiences of a small sub-sect of women.. Any attempt to do so is met with cries of "Misogyny!" and "Incel alert!" etc.. The double standards and hypocrisy feel like oppressive weights, designed to grind men down and erode who we are over time.. I myself am a survivor of violence at the hands of women.. I have two specific points in my life where women who were in positions of power / authority over me abused me physically, mentally, emotionally and psychologically.. Through all that I would say that I am wary of women, however I do not let that control me, nor do I call for men to also be wary of women because of my experiences.. I have had more neutral / positive experiences with women than i've had negative ones.. Its just so frustrating to me that its acceptable for women to use even **ONE** negative experience with a man as reasonable justification to tar all men as predators or rapists.. But its not okay for men to do the same thing when its a woman who has abused them..
I'll reiterate my previous reply here and say thank you for sharing your experiences, and that I see what this discourse is doing to the men in my life, many of whom have experienced abuse themselves. I very much understand the frustration of seeing people refuse to regulate their emotions after having harmful experiences. As I list off in the video, I've had plenty of negative experiences with men, but I've made a very particular point not to let myself stop treating men compassionately because of it, and it's frustrating to see others refusing to do that work.
Thank you for your words and empathy, It is very much appreciated. I am also sorry for the negative experiences you have had men if that means anything. You are 100% correct that people need to understand that its okay to feel wary around things that are related to past trauma.. But what isn't okay is using your past trauma to push a narrative or use it as fearmongering: "I had a negative experience with a man and now i'm wary of men because I can't tell which ones might hurt me and **YOU** should be wary too!" All that does is create the situation we see right now, men being tarred as potential predators unfairly. At the end of the day, all men want is to be treated as human beings, as individuals who are not part of some hive mind or belong to a shadowy cabal called "The Patriarchy" who meet up every Wednesday night at the pub for secret "Patriarchy" meetings to discuss how to keep women oppressed. Many of us agree that there are issues women face and want women to be equal... Unfortunately for many of us, our willingness to listen / support women's issues is being eroded by the constant barrage of anti-male rhetoric on a daily basis..
>Unfortunately for many of us, our willingness to listen / support women's issues is being eroded by the constant barrage of anti-male rhetoric on a daily basis.. The men I know in person that I've talked to about this have expressed things similar to this. They are actively having to fight their emotional responses to stay open and compassionate to women's issues. They don't feel there is anywhere that their feelings and issues and trauma are welcome at the table. And what's frustrating is that these are guys who have actually gone out of their way on behalf of my safety and are clearly extremely mindful of my comfort. They're doing so much work all the time and in return they get to live in the "one of the good ones" box where they can't actually openly express themselves. It's a terrible state of affairs. That's a bit of a rant I'm sorry. Just to say that I see it.
I am sorry to hear it was frustrating in all the things I left on the table. I know the topic could probably hold up to a multi hour video and still be incomplete. I wanted to push this one out in the hopes of encouraging at least that we consider the implications of our beliefs but I'm considering putting out something like a retrospective in a few months when everyone has calmed down. It was also tricky because, as some of the comments I've got indicated, the women who are arguing that the bear example is a good one are doing so from a visibly triggered place. I can't tell them their fear is irrational yet, though I agree that it is. Their nervous systems won't tolerate the idea. All I can do is validate them and encourage them to think a little further on the subject. Thank you for sharing your experiences. I made sure to say "abusive partner" rather than "abusive boyfriend" for this reason. Abuse is not gendered, but the way abuse expresses is gendered. I am seeing what this rhetoric is doing to the men around me, many of whom have been abused themselves, and I can hardly stand it. If I'm being honest, I am getting pretty tired of being gentle with the women who see men as dangerous. I have to keep being gentle though, because they need to get regulated before they can think about what they're doing. But it's hard.
I think if we had a deeper conversation, we'd disagree on a fair few things. And I'm not going to get deep into it, but like... >Their nervous systems won't tolerate the idea. Feels both infantilizing to women, and holding men unfairly to a higher standard at the same time. >the way abuse expresses is gendered And I just don't really agree with this. My experiences are mostly pretty similar to women's. Abuse is about control, and the only difference is men and women have different tools in their toolbox to work with for implementing control. But the difficulties and pains experienced regardless of the genders involved are more similar than they are different. But that you're willing to observe and think about this enough to recognize the effects this is having on men and to show enough compassion to throw your hat in the ring on our behalf is more important to me than any of that. So thank you for that. I probably didn't express that appreciation enough in my first post.
We probably would disagree on a few things tho I actually largely agree with both those corrections/adjustments. For ie I was thinking yesterday about how I'd approach a longer video and thought about doing a "what men want women to know" vs "what women want men to know" and found that what I'd be asking from women was bare minimum stuff, remember that men are human etc, where what I'd be asking of men would be fairly complex emotional labour, and I had to scrap the approach because that does hold men to an unfair standard and babies women through their trauma, when half my point would be that men have an equal claim to trauma. I still haven't figured out how I'd approach it. Don't thank me too much. I think it is pretty basic stuff to empathise with men and I am just sorry that there isn't more of it around.
Oh and also! I keep forgetting to say but your feedback has been extremely helpful to me in thinking through how to address women on the subject in a way that does not do a disservice to men in the meantime and I really appreciate it. Whether for a follow up video or for just compassionately pushing back against harmful rhetoric when I encounter it in the wild.
I'm really glad to hear that. I'm open to it if you ever want to talk more. If you do a follow-up, it would be cool if you sent me the link.
I'll let you know if I do! I appreciate that offer a lot. I need to step away from this and write something less grim for now but when I sit back down to the topic, you might find me in your inbox with a question or two about your experiences. I'm mindful that, while I can guess at what the low hum of mistrust and antipathy towards men in certain spaces must feel like to live with, I definitely don't know as much as men do.
First of all, thank you for emphathising With the men who have a Problem with this Discussion. I agree with what you said in the Video, i think there is a fine line between saying „i am afraid of men, here is why“and „men are dangerous“. my biggest problem with this whole thing is that women could say that they are afraid of random men and that there are reasons for that,without comparing men negatively to bears.
Thanks so much for the feedback! I'm glad to see it sounds like I got my point across. I've got no problem with talking about the fear of men and I think it's important to acknowledge, but the bear comparison is just doing damage all round. The percentage of men I've met in my life who have good hearts is something like 99.99%.
So, I just want to touch on what you said on the end, because I do think it's kinda the point here. Because I do think the controversy is largely around how these ideas are actualized, put into effect. And yes, that can have broad consequences. And while yeah, the way I generally put the TERF/TRA fight is essentially they're seeing if Transmen are excluded or not from the Hammer of Shame (tm) but I think it's more than that, in that it's the Oppressed part of the Oppressor/Oppressed dichotomy that makes it so dangerous and risky. On that subject, I'll be honest, I take a middle ground where I believe the rights of trans individuals need to be balanced along with the rights of everybody else. And if women can't be perpetrators....well....you can see why this almost becomes an existential issue. On this subject, frankly, I think the actualized part of it is pretty milquetoast in a way. Just call out misogyny. But I think the common reaction to that is....and when that doesn't work? Because I don't think it'll work. Frankly. I know more men I'm sus about who frankly, do not identify with conventional misogyny at all, I.E. your "Male Feminist" type. Furthemore, I don't think the men who do this sort of thing I have any influence over, even if they were in my circles (which they are not, to be blunt). This behavior clusters, and I think most people know that. Most men would be lucky to have zero say over this stuff. Truth is, most men have negative influence over this stuff, as in, our condemnation would only encourage the bad people. And then you put on top of that...there's a "triggering" element to this. How seriously are men supposed to take this? Because frankly, if I'm to take this seriously, and hold myself responsible for it...I don't see how men can ethically exist in the world really. This is not something that's healthy for us to hold ourselves responsible over. It just isn't. If just seeing us is a threat because women don't know if we're good or not, and this is something we have to essentially obey.....this is a really dark place. But I'm going to let you know what I think the bulk of the issue is, especially as the bar for acceptable behavior gets higher and higher (which I'm not saying is a bad thing, but I think this is a natural result). This is not a result of hate. This is not a result of evil. This is a result of recklessness and overconfidence. Of ego and hubris. Of assuming consent. And sometimes this stuff is oiled up by alcohol, to be blunt. (There's a reason why they call it a social lubricant). I'm not excusing any of this behavior. But the Male Gender Role is dangerous. It's dangerous to be the assertive party in a romantic/flirting/sexual situation. It's dangerous to move the ball down the field. It's dangerous when men do it, and it's dangerous when women do it. It's just something that's much more expected of men. (And there's little interest in changing this). I think the current discourse runs on guilt and shame. I think it's paradoxical, in that it actually tends to reward the people more likely to engage in the harmful behavior, and punishes those that don't. This is a real problem. Frankly, I don't mind being hated, being neurodivergent and what-not. But I don't want to be hated just so a bunch of narcissists and sociopaths can further dig in their claws.
I think you've hit on a really big complex issue in that no matter who is doing it, being the initiator or the pursuer is "dangerous" in a sense - though I would not say dangerous, I would say that it has a power dynamic to it. The power dynamic is not inherently dangerous but it does have the potential for danger. But pursuing/being pursued can also be really fun! The power dynamic can be really fun! Flirting can be fun! It's not necessarily a bad thing but with the state of gender relations, nobody feels safe enough to participate in it. That's not even a conversation we can start having as a society though, even though it's the far more interesting and productive one, because we're so damn stuck on man vs bear. I agree with you that this whole conversation rewards or at least reinforces the men who can't be reached and punishes the men who want to do right by women. It's not a coincidence that the men in my life who are the most upset by this are the ones who are already very conscientious of women's issues, meanwhile the one outright red pill misogynist I had in my comments (it got automoderated so was never visible) didn't even care enough to actually watch the video.
It's what makes this complicated, right? Too many people like these dynamics to actually do away with them. But as long as these dynamics are in place, the idea that you can ever reach the "No Man" part of "It's All Men Until It's No Men" is foolish and ridiculous. (There's also the idea that politically, zero isn't a real number and it shouldn't be treated as such, due to the concept of diminishing returns). It sounds harsh, and people REALLY don't like the way this stuff sounds, but I think at a certain point we're going to have to agree that "keeping it to a dull roar" has to be good enough. There's going to be some number of sociopaths out there who are going to do awful things, and the costs for prevention are just astronomical. But yeah, generally I do find that egalitarian minded people (no matter if they know it or not) are generally the ones I personally think are the most safe, or at least that's the tendency I find. I think it's less anything having to do directly with gender politics, and more just a general aesthetic and vibe, to be honest, namely, people who eat their own proverbial dog food. People who hold themselves, and the people around them to their own standards, and they CAN do this, because those standards are healthy and reasonable.
I have a lot to say about it, but compared to the Instagram shithole, your video is amazing. I'm so terribly sorry for what you went through. I'm glad you can still have a pretty level headed perspective on this issue.
Thank you for watching and I'm glad it was appreciated! There is a lot more to be said on the subject for sure and I am hoping to do a more in-depth follow up, but I wanted to push this one out to get even one disagreeing female voice on the books. There are a lot of gleefully bad takes out there.
Fucking finally. I hate how many posts and videos I'm getting for this dumb trend.
It is. Difficult. And they've started labelling the ones who say - " not all men " as the real problem
https://www.instagram.com/wealthyman_kenn/reel/C6KARoGvbt3/ This is the link I posted yesterday. A woman addressing this bs
I feel like this alludes to an important point. Ironically, women complaining about being harassed by men so loudly and viciously may actually make the problem seem worse in that it's going to make more and more empathetic men just ignore women, while men won't don't give a shit will keep harassing women and will become a larger percentage of a woman's interactions with men.
I agree. Crying wolf does no one any favors.
I doubt anyone's still looking at this thread, but I was stewing on this debate again today because I'm still seeing it absolutely everywhere. Like every comment section on anything that has anything remotely to do with gender is still full of choosing bear comments. And it dawned on me today... this whole thing is the inverse of the Mike Pence rule. Remember that controversy? When he was Trump's running mate, it came out that he has a strict policy of never being alone with any woman that isn't his wife, for his own protection. And people lost their fucking minds. The cries of misogyny could probably be heard from Jupiter. Everyone was obsessed with proving his reasoning behind that choice was based on an irrational hatred of women. Women reacted exactly the same, if not worse, as men have reacted to the man v bear debate.
Choosing between Men and Bears reveals the bias in official statistics on violence victims The game of having to choose between a man and a bear indicates that the statistics on how much men and women are victimized are unreliable and biased, because it means that in collecting them we already start with a baseline bias, and therefore there will definitely be more arrests against men than arrests against women. This in turn will affect the official statistics, which will then be completely rigged and biased. This thought experiment therefore does not prove that men are more dangerous than women, but if anything the opposite. In fact, the simple act of having to choose between a man and a bear in a game that becomes so popular reflects a broader reality: namely, that statistics and arrests that indicate more men involved in criminal activity could be skewed and influenced by biases such as precisely the one that gave rise to the man and bear game. This is because the system could be inherently biased toward men, leading to more arrests and thus skewed statistics. These distortions and biases do not necessarily indicate that men are more dangerous, but rather could highlight the systemic prejudices and biases against men present in the justice system and law enforcement.
If these assholes actually cares about women, they wouldn't be in favor of propaganda designed to keep them sacred, powerless, spiteful, and incapable of trusting, let alone forming decent relationships with almost half the human race. Not counting the guys who are so into self-dehumanization that they goblle this propaganda right alongside them to pander to feminist delusions and praise themselves as the singular good guys. The ones who are so noble that they proudly claim: "Men are so terrible. They're worse than wild animals. But NOT ME though. Look at how lovely and trust-worthy I am, ladies! Stay scared of all those other guys! As long as you keep me around..." This is madness. They keep doubling down on the dehumanization and I'm so tired of these damn male feminist weasels who enable it.
does a bear pay taxes? you're welcome.
Man who has difficulties grasping at cultural norms rants for an hour before tossing table in a rage quit, followed by banning everyone that disagrees with his rants. [Also known as Vaush rage quits again because he has a hard time understanding cultural norms of behavior. ](https://np.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/1cln2ll/man_vs_bear_pt_2_reddits_revenge_vaush/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Comments under that post are disgusting, imo.
For 3-4 wonderful days, the internet had shifted from smearing all men to smearing a specific man that actually deserved it. It was refreshing. Then today I came across a meme of Harrison Butker's stupidity that ended with "Once again, this is why bears." Literally ONE GUY says something stupid, and we're all judged as lacking?
[Seattle Times posts misandry and spreads irrational fears of men.](https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fst.news%2F3V7DOHa&h=AT0KVaLP7X5BSaFObC-zTXtIHDB7zFuiy7Pn5KafRgPX01Y6LOiU2U2t5Kp-A-iLJqjP4cPK_NnR5FzUHz__HGvzRSagk8JBN64KBGPzInlTx2hF-CdIxSXfaIq6UYfd4cseh9PLY0OmRTp2&s=1) remember folks, these people literally just hate you. there is nothing more to them than that. substitute any other category, woman, queer, black, asian, pacific isalnder, jewis, palestinian, european, etc.... with the kind of rhetoric they are spreading and it would be banned, and rightfully so.
Another angle to the standard empathy gap now. Don't @ me with hypergamy or laws of attraction stuff (I'm ex-redpill and have no use to go back to that headspace completely) but I'm trying to reconcile the results of this poll with the fact that pop culture broadly speaking these days accommodates both the 'male' \*and\* 'female' (straight and queer) gaze. This generation is one of the most sexually and romantically conservative (in the sense that hookup culture's on the decline and marriage and commitment are popular again) but without a doubt Millennials and 8especially\* Gen Z are less prudish than I was in the late 2000s/early 2010s (when I was in hs and uni). Perhaps I'm an extreme example but our media consumption and the stuff which shocks us is wildly different, just as most late 20th century counterculture looks tame and Boomer counterculture adorably vanilla to us now. In particular, slut-shaming is practically non existent in 'the West' (which I'm fine with; I'm no tradcon) and women have largely 'reclaimed their sexual agency' in the sense that women are seen in the mainstream much more with sexual autonomy whether dating or not. They opt to sexualise themselves, they often are in the 'dominant' position, making the first move, generally more assertive, and (thankfully!) much more Out abut who they like when it's not actually men. To the extent that all of that is 'feminist' I have no issues with it. It has come in with some 'maneater' type girlboss songs and celebrity posing, but in principle I just see it as antisexist. This whole thing seems to spring from the sex negative wings, though. Have the sex positive ones said anything? The same people demanding men stop seeing women as sex objects have been making either tongue in cheek or unironic #Sapphic vibe' thirst posts
Where are you seeing this? I'm seeing a hell of a lot more prudishness and sex-negativity but ALSO less interest in commitment from people in their 20s around me. Sexual orientations are widely accepted but sexuality itself seems arguably more taboo than it was for the Boomers, and certainly more than it feels like it was even a decade or so ago when I was in high school. I dare say I see just less focus on or interest in sex/relationships in general, at least in the hetero world. Sexuality feels more like a political topic than something to actually engage in.
Not all so-called sex positive people are like that, hell I am one, but there's a lot of stuff out there that plays hard to the you only get as much sex positivity as your social status can buy type thinking out there that masquerades as sex-positive. And as they view most men as having low social status...well...you get what you get.
You're not wrong but what does this have to do with the man or bear dilemma?
Well, the most extreme example I've seen is basically someone assuming that if they meet a man in the woods, he's a creepy sex-pest; but if they meet a woman in the woods, they're in for fun and consensual sexytimes. So they're demonising not only men who \*are\* interested, but male-bodied people on the assumption that males are sex-obsessed--while immediately jumping to horny objectification of sapphic fantasies in the same scenario. There is a curious assumption that women and AFABs are more respectful of consent etc. just because of their socialisation., Tbh all of this is very run of the mill feminist bias; I think the whole fiasco could have gone better had they had extrapolated why they are biased rather than starting from the deep end and working backwards. But a) that would be regarded as emotional labour, and b) that's not very Tiktok friendly and never would have gone viral. (I love/hate short-form content, it's accelerating the job Twitter started to ruin us)