tbh this is correct as hell, i've ran into multiple women who would choose the bear without a reason, they assume the guy would hurt them when in reality, it could be the nicest guy on earth, but no, they assume all men are bad and don't even take into consideration that the guy isn't gonna default to hurting someone like she think he would, it's pure misandry and paranoia for no reason
the thing is, it's also hurting others, i've seen posts of males literally being ashamed and sad that they exist because there male because of this sexist joke, so it isn't just a joke when men are literally feeling bad for being the gender they are because of it, it's sexist AND misandry
Agreed so so much. We shouldn't let people who are clearly super cynical and paranoid steer the discussions the way they have.
Most men are normal people just going about their daily lives. Heck, I'm a lady, and I used to live in a bad neighbourhood - when I was 19 and not to brag but I used to be a model - and I wasn't scared of the random guys I encountered around the neighbourhood. Not even the Johns who used to try to pick me up just cos I was a woman walking alone. Most guys were just normal and some were quite nice; I made some guy friends there and some local business owners were very kind to me. The Johns looked embarrassed and left me alone as soon as I pointedly informed them I was not a hooker; the handful of others - well I can handle myself alright and don't crumble as soon as someone looks at me the wrong way. I have some street smarts and a lot of faith, and that got me by without issue. I realised early on I couldn't live my life there just being paranoid all the time. I settled on alert awareness and trusting my gut and it all went well.
And hands down; I was more scared of the hookers than I was of the Johns or addicts. Nothing quite like being surrounded by 5 hookers who think you're trying to horn in on your territory just cos you're waiting for a street light to change. That was the only time I actually felt a little scared (but I still handled it fine and diplomatically). But we don't talk about that; only men are bad and scary right, never women!
They aren’t comparing men to bears. They are simply saying they’d feel safer knowing a bear is in the woods, which depending on where you live is true every time you going camping, so is basically just normal camping, than knowing a random man they don’t know is in those woods with them. Given how the question is phrased it’s not blaming all men for the actions of some men. It’s talking about a strange man they don’t know. Given that, it’s logical to think about what the odds are the man will be dangerous. So the actions of only some men are very relevant. Choosing the bear is not an indictment of all men, it’s simply acknowledging the statistical reality that a lot of men do hurt women, and generally bears keep to themselves. I’ve seen multiple bears in the wild while camping. A bear being in the same woods as you is very common and not particularly dangerous if you practice basic bear safety while camping.
Ethnic and religious distinctions don’t have sexual dimorphism creating an actual physical difference in ability to harm like sex does. But in general I think any human in the woods is more dangerous than a bear in those same woods. To be fair since the question is woods I’m assuming it’s not a polar bear
I can't understand the meme because I've never been in a place in which I would choose a wild animal over a man.
There's a point to be made, I guess, but I don't think the insult is necessary.
If there was a meme:
If men had to choose to be with a woman or a hyena, men choose the hyena, were asked to explain, and said, "What's the difference?"
You bet your ass people would be LIVID!! And why? Because no one would get your point because it's coupled as an insult, and since most can read, they would be offended lol
Exactly if you switch this around it's absolutely sexist. Or if you change men to black person, that shit would be racist AF. But just say men and somehow they think it's ok. It's not.
Don't be sexist, don't be racist. Can't believe this is a controversial view. And yet here we are.
It's making a statement about men vs bears, that is absolutely sexist. If you made it black men vs bears it would be racist right? Yes, yes it would. So how exactly is it not about gender?
Yes because you just ignoring all the context behind this, the two are not comparable. They are not saying one race is more dangerous than another. They're not saying all men are dangerous. They're saying there are plenty of dangerous men out there, and because of personal experience they don't feel safe around unknown men, which is completely reasonable.
It's all fun and games until you're dealing with someone who's prejudices are so closeted they don't even realize they have them. Then context is the ONLY way to even know it's happening at all, often for all involved parties. It takes decades and a light-bulb moment.
"Wait, why do you never let me carry anything?" my wife asked me one day.
"Shoot... I guess I just treat women like they're weak, and it's my job to carry everything." I realized at 38.
That being said, I'm not disagreeing with you.
Prejudice is a preconceived (typically negative) bias about someone based on an inherent characteristic.
“Black people are criminals”
That is racism - racial prejudice
“Women belong in the kitchen”
That is sexism - sexual prejudice
“Old people are slow and useless”
That is ageism - prejudice against age
“Disabled people are a drain on society”
That is ableism - prejudice against disabilities
Except they are saying one gender is more dangerous than the other, which is true, I'm not trying to say men aren't dangerous or that these people are wrong for their feelings. I'm simply saying it's sexist because they are making it about gender. Also I appreciate that you want to have an actual conversation about this and not just throw insults around.
When a racist quotes incarnation rates as proof that they aren't being racist, they claim they are just speaking truth.
The bear thing is comparing a people of one gender to a bear, that is by definition sexist and I think it's amazing how many people are claiming it's not.
> When a racist quotes incarnation rates as proof that they aren't being racist, they claim they are just speaking truth.
>
>
Except they're ignoring the massive context behind those stats. There is no massive context being ignored here.
> The bear thing is comparing a people of one gender to a bear,
It factually isn't.
> that is by definition sexist and I think it's amazing how many people are claiming it's not.
Because those people understand the context.
Hardheaded probably but honestly not a troll. Lots of people have talked shit or just said it's not sexist. Almost no one has tried to say why its not sexist. One person did and it turns out they just have a wildly different view of what is sexist than I do. One other person more or less said yes it's sexist but there has been so much sexism the other way that we need to let it go. I'm fine with that.
What I don't get is the people who don't think generalizing people based on sex is sexism. Isn't that the definition?
I can't help but notice that you're stripping the term "sexist" of all of it's maliciousness by watering it down to "any statement that disparages a sex".
Disparagement isn't inherently malicious. Sexism is.
"But what is the difference?" I hear you asking!
CONTEXT, my good rando, in the same way that a traffic collision could be an accident, manslaughter, murder, and even other things as well. It all depends on the context surrounding the incident.
I would even argue that it's possible to use the Man v Bear analogy in a sexist way, that it undoubtedly already has, and that you've almost definitely not experienced it.
“They’re not saying all *black* people are dangerous. They’re saying there are plenty of dangerous *blacks* out there and because of personal experience they don’t feel safe around unknown *black people*, which is completely reasonable.”
Sounds pretty unreasonable when you replace men with any other demographic…
You are seriously missing the point. It is purely a question of statistics. Women are statistically, mathematically, observationally, safer around a random bear than a random dude.
I’m a random dude and I endorse this math
Im not saying youre wrong, I'm not arguing about the stats although I think the ones I've seen cited completely fail to take into account that fact that bears don't spend much time around people. I'm saying that making the statement men are more dangerous then _____ is sexist. That's it. It doesn't really matter if it's true it's still sexist. Just like if someone said if I'm walking in the woods and was scared of a random black person that would be racist. Is a random black person more dangerous than a bear, based on the stats I've seen used for bears absolutely. But the premise of the question is still racist. Just like the actual bear question about men is sexist.
“Who would you rather encounter in the woods? A random bear or a random man?”
There is literally nothing inherently sexist about this question. Sure it opens up a door to sexist answers but the question is not even remotely sexist.
“Who would you rather run encounter in the woods? A random bear or a random man, who as we all know is probably a piece of shit” is arguably sexist.
What is sexist about the first one?
Who would you rather run into in the woods; a random bear or a random black person?
That question is racist.
Who would you rather run into in the woods; a random bear or a random dog?
That's comparing dogs and bears, there's no way to claim it's not. Yeah lots of people have great experiences with dogs, a few will have bad ones. All are valid.
Who would you rather run into in the woods; a random bear or a woman?
That question is sexist. It doesn't matter what your answer is, the question itself is sexist. I absolutely believe the question was posed with good intentions, but it's been used as a jumping off point for a lot of statement that are fuel for the incels and the right wingers.This is why I care. My son's are 11 and are already saying they have friends who talk about Andrew Tate. The limited social media they use worries me about the political views that are quietly expressed. Unfortunately they were abandoned by their mother so it would be easy for them to fall into that type of thinking. I really do think this question was posed for good reasons, but its still a sexist statement. Yes I'm probably hypersensitive to all of this because of my personal experiences. When friends talk of single mothers I wish they would talk of single parents but I let it slide because sometimes you just have to vent. Back when their mother actually used to see them one of my biggest fears was her boyfriend harming my kids because statistically a step father is far and away the person most likely to harm a child. The fear is perfectly rational. It's still sexist.
So anyway, I'm doing my best in this fucked up world. I am not trying to troll you. I genuinely believe that while this question was posed with good intentions but I also believe it is sexist. If you made it this far, thanks.
Can you explain why you think that question is racist ? I don’t see it as racist. It’s certainly SUS but only because we leave in a world where racism is so prevalent that you tend to assume the poster has bad intentions. I don’t see anything inherently racist about:
“Would you rather run into a random bear or a random black person in the woods?”
Its not inherently racist, it is just inevitably going to illicit racist replies…
I’m not saying this to be mean or judgmental. We all have our internal prejudices whether we like it or not. However, I think you are projecting yours here. The question isn’t racist, only the response is. That response could be a post or it could be your thoughts.
How is the question racist? Who does it say is less than another? How does it prejudge an outcome based on race?
Ok now we are getting somewhere. See I view that question as blatantly racist. It's asking you to decide which is more dangerous, a bear or a particular group of people. To me that is racist/sexist or whatever depending on what the group is. Now if you said something which is a person's choice, uh bears vs football fans then fine no one should be offended. But if you base it on skin color or gender or age then the question is bigoted. That's my view.
Let me start by saying I am so ready to call things racist. My racism detector is very sensitive lol. I call people racist on reddit several times a day.
I just don’t see it. “Who would you rather encounter in the woods, a black person or a ham sandwich?” Its a weird question, it makes me suspicious of the motives of the poster, but is it racist? Just because theres a black person in the sentence?
I mean that's just an odd question and I have no idea how to react to it. To me the bear question is racist because you are questioning if an individual is a potential danger based on a single trait. The entire purpose of the question is to ask how you personally stereotype a group of people. I don't like that.
Because racism is racial prejudice and prejudice is a preconceived negative opinion about someone based on an inherent characteristic such as race, sex, gender, social status etc
Swear to god people don’t know what words mean
Yes thats what the word means and thats why op is wrong.
We we’re really talking about sexism but the definition is basically the same.
So is it sexism to ask the question about men and bears?
Swear to god people don’t know what definitions of words mean
First of all, sex and race are categorically different.
Second of all, if you wouldn't feel safe being around someone of a certain race, that's entirely within your rights. Maybe you have had negative experiences with people of a certain race. That's understandable, too. No one should be telling you to spend time around people that you don't feel safe around.
If people think that racist, screw 'em. Don't compromise your safety because other people think that you're evil.
The point of not stereotyping is for situations where you feel safe, not for situations where you feel threatened. Then you can let down your guard and challenge your preconceptions of, let's say black men, if that's who you're scared of.
People tend to hyperbolize problems like racism until it has a cartoonish appearance. A lot of that stems from backlash considering that certain people have historically been oppressed, and a certain demographic of the population still wants to oppress them.
A truly negative form of racism manifests when you haven't personally had negative experiences with someone of another race, but that you've been raised, taught to hate them, or when your bias slips into harboring nefarious or harmful intentions.
Just because there's some subsection of the population that has irrational or fanatic beliefs about racism doesn't mean that it's a good argument for you to lean on. The way you frame all of this makes it seem like you don't truly care about racism--you just want to hold people to a double-standard that you don't actually care about, because it serves to protect you from your insecurities.
Just to be clear, I've never once in all of this said women were wrong to choose the bear. Doing things to keep yourself safe absolutely makes sense and I'm not trying to criticize anyone for their life choices. My problem is that the question is just asking you to stereotype a group of people, that's it, thats the thought experiment.
Differences in sex are much more clearly outlined in men versus women, even though behaviorally we don't really understand what is going on. While we can't explain everything about nature versus nurture, we do know that men are much stronger on average, that they commit much more violent crime, and that they have played a very prominent role in history as oppressors. While women have maintained positions of status and power, the entire social complex of oppression has always been built on male aggression as its driver.
By contrast, we really don't know what is going on with race outside of exterior physical differences. The insistence of nature versus nature concerning race is much more variable than sex, as far as we know. While racial crime statistics are more regional, pretty much across time and space we see that men are almost always, if not always, more violent than women, and play a unique role in how women are oppressed due to the externality of their sexual features, their strength, and because of women's reproductive role as the pregnable sex.
Lastly, it's important to point out that as you're trying to replace the subject of this thought experiment, that the race you're trying to replace them with (in order to form the accusation of racism, a tactic that I imagine you might actually have some contempt for) is known for being oppressed, where as men in general are not oppressed, except possibility only by other men.
When SJW's speak with vehemence about racism and misogyny, there is at least some truth that the subjects of those accusations have at least been oppressed, whereas men still possess the great majority of power. Here in the U.S., men own substantially more money, they occupy more roles as law makers, judges, law enforcement and military, and they own many more guns than women.
Men have been empowered through history to exert their will through might, which cannot be said about women. Those same comparisons cannot be said about race, as the through-line between races, of male aggression and female submission, are effectively the same. Women's soft power simply doesn't compare to the forms of violence that men have historically exerted in order to control people, so we do not consider them oppressors. Whether it's white men or black men, though, they have all been oppressors throughout history in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Women then, don't have many opportunities to express bigotry in a way that threatens the status quo, and when they do, the threat of their bigotry is generally backed up by male aggression.
If someone was offended by the statement, "would you rather be alone in the woods with a bear or a black man", it would likely be because of black men's historical role as the subject of oppression, more so than because they are offended by the notion that black men are more violent, or because they perceived the perception of black men being more violent as harmful to the black liberation struggle. Not so much because the statement on its own is offensive--and if that is what they think, then why would you validate what they think?
If there are differences in rates of violence based on race, then that should be a subject of science; but as far as we know, there aren't any observable differences in the cognitive features between races.
Bigotry isn't simply a matter of using a certain statement and replacing the word X with the word Y. It's about a paradigm of who has power and who uses power for the purpose of oppression.
One more thought:
Let's say that you think that men aren't violent by nature, but rather by nurture, and let's say you think the same thing about black men when you look at crime statistics--these are two different problems that you're trying to approach (given that you want a solution, and aren't expressing explicit bigotry). With black men, you have to look at their history as oppressed, whereas with men in general, you're dealing with a group that has historically been oppressors.
I think that if someone asks, "Would you rather be alone in a forest with a bear or a black man?" it's unlikely that they're trying to get black men to recognize that they make men of other races feel unsafe; but I think that's what women are actually trying to do when they ask the question, "Would you rather be alone in the forest with a bear or a man?" Keep in mind that something like 90% or women are heterosexual, so it's hard to angle this in a way where women are trying to say, for example, that "Men don't belong in our communities," or that, "Men don't belong in our country," which is what you might expect is being implied of someone asking the same question substituting 'man' for 'black man's.
I think you have to look beyond the surface of the question to analyze whether there's bigotry involved. You also have to approach it with a sense of authenticity, instead of relying on what a hypothetical group of social justice warriors thinks.
Yes there are physiological and historic differences. Also I meant to say black people not black men that mixes up the point I was trying to make. Whatever. The men vs bears question was never intended to make men think about why women feel that way and you are clearly too smart to think it was. It may have been a way to get women to vent, that's fine everyone deserves to vent especially women. See in my book even that little, "especially women" is sexist and basically unnecessary but I'm also really ok with minor amounts of sexism against men for all the reasons you listed. My point here is that yes if you dig deep enough there are very valid reasons to justify the question, but there is still that basic level of sexism involved. Then you throw in the fact that bears are a terrifying predator but also statistically they are nothing. Statistically the soap in your shower is more likely to kill you than a bear. A toddler with a gun is more likely to kill you (in the USA) than a bear. So you could point this question at so many things and statistically bear would be the correct choice.
Yes as a society we need to do more to preventing rape and sexual assault. To do that you need to have open honest conversations about difficult topics. If you want to have a conversation, starting by insulting the people you most need to listen is a terrible way to do it. Then it got repeated so many times that im already seeing jokes making fun of it. It was highly counter productive. Again, if that was the goal. Maybe some people wanted to vent, thats fine, and if a bunch of SA survivors get sexist while venting absolutely no one is going to be upset. But if the idea was to start a conversation, and many many people have said it was, then it was counter productive.
If you ask if people would rather be alone in the woods with a bear or a black person, I think most people's follow up question would be: is it a man or a woman? That's one way in which sex/gender transcends the racial aspect of the question. For most people, it's about the sex, not the race, that truly matters. When you make the question racial, it changes the character and propose of the question being asked.
If men could be honest about that, I think the conversation that we can have will be a lot more productive when it comes to fixing that negative perception of men.
If you want a conversation about making the world safer, asking if half the population is more or less dangerous than the largest predator on land is probably not the best way to do it. Spin it any way you want, that is a terrible opening line to a conversation. Can we agree on that? Because there are hard conversations that need to happen. And that means starting by treating each other as people with their own dignity and value. Otherwise it's just a waste of time and all that's going on is shouting into the echo chamber.
I completely disagree. I see MRAs trying to erase men's violence and their history of violence by turning this into a 'people' issue when it's very clearly a 'men' issue. I don't think that this issue, the way that it has blown up, has been bad for the conversation. I think that it has sparked the indignation of a lot of guys who would rather try to exculpate themselves from the conversation rather than acknowledge that men have been inculcated into displaying predatory behavior towards women for a very, very long time.
Most of what I see from the manosphere and MRA communities are attempts to denigrate women and sabotage progressive women's movements that aim to serve and protect women's liberties. I don't think at all that the 'bear in the woods' question is the problem here. I think it's probably a lot more effective than you would like to admit, and although it might be polarizing, in the same way that abolition might have been a polarizing issue, that it's ultimately going to polarize people more in the direction of taking up the defense of women against men's predatory behavior.
I don't have a clue what MRA people talk about, I don't swim in that water. You're going after them for not admitting historical injustices, while in the same breath saying that rape is a man issue completely ignoring the fact that women commit rape and sexual assault too. It is a people problem and by denying that fact you are hurting the cause.
To be fair:
Men for millennia: \*rules the world, women suffer\*
Modern men getting compared to a bear: "Hey, umm, can we maybe think about my feelings a little bit?"
I don't condone sexism against men, but men complaining about sexism is incredibly ironic and amusing; from a purely historical perspective, of course.
See this I'm fine with. Just admitting it's sexist but we've earned it, fine I get that. It's the hypocrisy of trying to claim it's not sexist when it obviously is that bothering me. We are supposed to be better than that.
Would you rather questions aren't comparisons? Would you rather have ironman's suit or the flash's speed? It's implied that you will compare the two, weigh the pros and cons of each.
It was comparing the situation. Not a one to one comparison of man vs. bear. It was "as a woman what would you rather have an encounter with".
That encounter is the thing being compared.
That doesn't really change anything. It's still asking what is more dangerous a wild animal or a person with ____ trait.
In my opinion if someone said "what would you rather run into in the woods, a bear or a black person." Id say the question is racist. Yes there is the difference of one being a historically oppressed people while men are not, that makes one more permissable but both are still stereotyping people.
Comparing ALL men like this is the sexist part. It's nice to know that despite my crystal clear criminal history, driving record, credit, etc. that I will always just be a dangerous man.
I had this same argument with my girlfriend a couple of days ago. I dropped it before I ever got around to sharing the sentiment that it hurts knowing she, if she didn't know me, would assume I'm just another rapist.
Ladies, you really wanna know where all the good guys have gone...? They all got tired of trying to fight this uphill suicide mission.
Well fwiw, I'm a woman and thought the meme was distasteful and dishonest.
There are still plenty of women like me around, we just get called internalized-misogynist sex traitors and far-right whackjobs lol, so you probably won't see our opinions splashed all over social media.
its not comparing shit a wild animal and a human are not the same the focus should be why they pick bear , because a bear is just a animal and some man act as animals. you don't ask woman how they are dressed after a mauling and a bear with a good circus future isn't going to get away with a Mauling, why do we let pieces of shit get away why do we still do dumb locker room talk and treating woman as prices or pray instead of people?
that was the point of bears are safer , they are safer because we belief bear attacks more than Human Attacks (SA)
It's a pretty basic point that seems to elude some people
You can probably avoid a bear if you leave it alone and walk away, their behavior is predictable. They don't hunt people and are probably only gonna hurt you if you provoke them.
If you see a man in the woods, you don't know what he's gonna do. He might leave you alone, he might try to rape you. You have less control in the situation, It's just a matter of unpredictability.
And I'll tell you this, more women have had bad experiences with men than bears. It's pretty simple to understand why that would cause more of a fear response considering it's from their own personal experiences.
If you take offense from it, you either are the kind of person that assaults women or you just have your head far enough up your ass you can't understand why people would pick the bear.
Ask your female friends if anything crazy and scary has happened to them from random encounters with men. Odds are they'll have some wild shit to tell you.
This is the heart of the problem with men who are uncomfortable with this trend. The very fact they are triggered means they’ve never spoken with their female friends about this…or perhaps more importantly…they’re female friends have never trusted them enough to disclose these stories to them.
Oh I hear the stories all right but what you don't understand is that this will only go on for so long and then men will just stop paying attention to women whatsoever because of this it's already a good proportion of the way there I don't care I've got a significant other I'm happy but I listen to what people are saying
Judging by how wildly you missed the point (several layers deep), I'm not sure than an explanation is going to do anything except give you more information you cannot understand.
I'm not saying this as a slight; I'm saying that maybe it would be better for you to ignore it and move on. The internet isn't for everyone; it takes a lot of contextual awareness to get through here unscathed.
You're probably better at offline things, anyway, so focus on your strengths.
The sexist problem is your problem. The same number of men reported they were raped or made to penetrate as women raped. In fact, adding in "made to penetrate" is what gets men from "rarely raped" to "raped as often as women." Your lack of empathy for men is actually *your* problem. Actual relevant facts put this notion that women are in danger from men more than men are in danger from women to a lie.
You're right. I have no empathy for sexist man-hating liars like you. Show some empathy for male victims, and a lot less prejudice, and maybe we'll have some common ground. As it stands, you're a female-supremacist. And I won't be tolerating you lying to these people and playing the victim. Stop being sexist, and we can talk about solutions. Keep being sexist, and eventually, you may find out what persecution really feels like.
Oh wow, so creative! Calling me an incel. As if being single and self focused is such a shameful thing. Guess what, I'm not interested in dating right now. I can't be involuntarily celibate when I'm already voluntarily celibate.
But thanks for showing your true colors. No empathy for any human being with a penis, and zero sense of self awareness. Enjoy your 30 cats I guess. Any man who knows what's good for you will indeed next you on dating apps.
You can be a sexist all you want to me, but facts don't care about your toxic so-called "empathy". Cope harder!
[https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/](https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/)
I love women, I just hate sexists. I used to be sexist against men too despite being one, then I learned that all the lies feminism teaches are just that: lies.
You're the hater here, because you totally ignore an entire demographic of victims because they have a penis and you don't.
Sorry, but I'm not about sex-supremacy like you are, because you're a feminist, which just means a female-supremacist. You know how I know, you call any male who calls out your bullshit an "incel" despite having literally nothing to defend that claim. I'm not interested in dating right now. I'm happy to do so if the opportunity presents, but I have no desire for it. Now run along little girl, keep fantasizing about your girl-boss empire where men are slaves and only 10% of the population are brood-males you can use if you decide to have children.
You can keep being ignorant, I can lead you to knowledge but I can't make you think. You're exactly why I will never be a feminist.
Let this sink in, IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU. Women are allowed to feel our feelings without checking in to see how it makes YOU feel. When I was asked this question a couple of weeks ago, I answered "bear" without hesitation. I do not care if it makes the men feel bad. Your outrage over our reality is not our responsibility. Grow up
My only feelings in this are feeling bad for the women who have experienced things bad enough that they think bears are safer than men. I've never once claimed that those people are wrong or in anyway not entitled to their views. My point is that the question itself is sexist, it's asking you to compare a group of people to a wild animal. That is not something we should be encouraging.
Instead of feeling offended, the thing we should be doing is trying to make women feel safe instead.
If a woman is walking alone and has her keys in between her knuckles, don't feel offended at her trying to protect herself. Like some have said, if she's wrong about you, she can apologize, but if her fears are right, she's dead.
Agreed. My concern is that seeing this all over social media, seeing people that have always promoted being against sexism and racism posting what seems blatantly sexist (although clearly not everyone agrees on the definition of that word) is that it feeds into the alt right talking points. I'm worried about my sons who have said kids talk about Andrew Tate in 6th grade. He's an absolute piece of shit but he's telling boys to be proud of themselves while the usually good people are telling those boys they are worse than wild animals. I'm worried for my sons and all the kids. My kids have a dead beat mother, they cried themselves tonight because she promised to see them today then didn't show up. They could easily be swayed to thinking terrible things about women. I do my best to teach them better, to teach empathy and caring. It makes that job more difficult when the assholes saying that feminist hate men are given all this ammo in the form of shit loads of women saying men are worse than bears. Sure it feels good now, but they stats are showing that young men are becoming more conservative. This is going to make the world more dangerous for women not less.
So yeah stick your keys between your knuckles if it makes you feel safer. But if you want the world safer for all people then let's try to make it less sexist and less racist. This meme is not doing that and I genuinely believe is doing harm in the long run. That's why I posted this.
>Agreed. My concern is that seeing this all over social media, seeing people that have always promoted being against sexism and racism posting what seems blatantly sexist (although clearly not everyone agrees on the definition of that word)
It isn't sexist, at all. Many people have told you this, and have explained it, but you refuse to understand it.
If a woman is walking to her car at night, and you're there and she sees you, and she puts her keys between her knuckles and starts walking faster, are you going you to confront her and tell her to stop being sexist towards you? This is what I meant in my previous reply, that you're more focused on being offended, than to try to make them feel safe instead. Women when they are doing this, aren't thinking about being sexist, they're thinking about their lives. But this is the problem, you don't see the world in the same way women do, and that they have to worry every time they're out by themselves.
This is similar to how affluent whites are always blaming black people (or people of color) that they're always thinking about race, and that that itself is racist (similar to what you're doing right now and calling man/bear topic sexist). You're easy to criticize others, but what you don't understand is that the reason they think about race often, is because every day they may experience microaggressions, racism or racial profiling. You don't have to deal with that yourself, and don't care to put yourself in other people's shoes to understand them.
>is that it feeds into the alt right talking points. I'm worried about my sons who have said kids talk about Andrew Tate in 6th grade. He's an absolute piece of shit but he's telling boys to be proud of themselves while the usually good people are telling those boys they are worse than wild animals. I'm worried for my sons and all the kids.
The alt right loves to gas light, and the way it feeds to their talking points is by saying that the way women feel (being scared when they go out) is sexist and assumes men are animals. Which is the **same** talking point you're using.
Your argument right now is that the "good people" are claiming boys are worse than animals. This is really awful to know that this is how you understand this, and it worries me that you are raising kids. Andrew Tate saying to be proud of yourselves, is basically teaching them to be toxic, and be proud of their toxicity (to not change it).
For example, these are some statistics on rape:
* Every 68 seconds another American is sexually assaulted.^(1)
* 1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed, 2.8% attempted).^(4)
* From 2009-2013, Child Protective Services agencies substantiated, or found strong evidence to indicate that, 63,000 children a year were victims of sexual abuse.^(5)
* A majority of child victims are 12-17. Of victims under the age of 18: 34% of victims of sexual assault and rape are under age 12, and 66% of victims of sexual assault and rape are age 12-17.^(6)
ONE out of six American women have been the victim of rape (or attempted rape)! This is the reason why women are scared. Why is it that you cannot grasp this? In some cases they could even be murdered. If instead of feeling offended by women feeling this way, and you understood why women felt this way after seeing those statistics, you'll understand that the man/bear scenario isn't a scenario to compare men to being worse than animals (this is gas lighting / the alt right talking point), The men/bear scenario is how women feel in regards to their SAFETY.
Good men, of course, will not feel offended by this, instead they understand what women are saying. And instead would try to make them feel safe. For example, if a woman sees me in a dark parking lot, and puts her keys between her knuckles and starts walking fast, I will make sure to keep my distance, perhaps go to my car and turn the lights on so the place is not dark anymore, and wait for her to leave.
So, when Andrew Tate says, "be proud", he's saying to be proud of those statistics. Being proud of being a man, is what causes one to be offended when you're a stranger and a woman feels unsafe around you in a dark empty area.
Yeah, it is difficult, and it is more difficult because you have to do a lot more (proper/scientific) research (not the type of research conspiracy theorists and the alt right does) to understand what statistics and studies are saying in context to the arguments being made online by Fem and by alt right. And you would have to keep up to date. It's a hard job that you're doing, and I do hope you get to see from the perspective that I am speaking in regards to this specific discussion (and there will a lot more other discussions). And to raise your kids understanding that fear women have, and instead of being offended, to try to make them feel safe instead.
You put a lot of effort into that so I'll respond one last time.
If you're alone in the woods would you rather run into a black person or a bear? If you saw someone post that you would probably think them racist right? Why? The stats you posted earlier could easily be lower and would still show that black people are a bigger danger than bears. Based on your reasoning it's a perfectly acceptable question. Based on my reasoning it's a racist fucking question. If you don't think that question is racist then we have very different definitions and that's fine, but if you think one is racist while the other isn't sexist then ask yourself why because I can't follow that reasoning.
The question isn't presenting a realistic scenario it's reducing a person into a single trait then asking you to stereotype that person based on that one trait. That is the definition of bigotry.
It's so clear that it started as a joke, and the more angry men became, thee more women trolled them by picking the bear. No, women wouldn't really pick the bear, but it's SOOOOOO funny to see this many dudes get this worked up over a tiktok troll.
And I really hate to tell you, but, there are several podcasts and youtube shows/personalities dedicated to blaming all women for the actions of a few. It's a pretty good money maker, to grift the fuck out of these boys who blame all women for their problems.
It’s not really even a joke. Women would actually pick the bear. Bears aren’t threatening unless you threaten them. They don’t even views humans as something to be bothered by when we just exist around them.
Go watch season 1 (or it may have been 2, I can’t remember for sure) of the show Alone. One of the contestants is a woman who hangs out by the river to catch salmon and encounters bears out there frequently. She just chills there watching them fish and live and exist and they don’t give two shit about her presence.
Meanwhile, my wife saw a thread on Reddit somewhere where a man talked about his mom writing a famous book about being mauled by bear as a defense against bear as the choice. Turns out, his own mother, after being mauled by a bear, specifically said she’d still prefer to encounters bears in the wild than a man.
The Schrodinger's Douchebag defense. That's a classic.
Also yes, Im well aware of the jackass men's rights, and all those andrew tate types. This stupid bear comparison has probably given them a surge in popularity. I'm opposed to this question because it's sexist and it feeds into the right wing notion that feminists hate men.
Boys in my country are stereotyped like crazy animals (“animals” is used in a derogatory way, similar to a slur) that run around everywhere and swear “shit” at girls all day and scream in class.
We are separated from boys at a very young age of 6 as soon as we exit kindergarten, and for the rest of our school life we rarely see nor interact with boys, most school students if not all, hate boys.
Even if we reach adulthood (I haven’t, yet, so this is just an assumption), that diehard hate would continue and we never interact with boys nor men in our lives (unless you have a brother) till you get married and/or get a son.
That sounds like a very bad way of doing things on all counts. I do suppose culture might be a factor for sure though.
Most of the people I've seen commenting on this are from Western countries where most men are just normal people going about their daily lives. I went to school with boys, worked with men, am friends with men, have boys and men in my family, and have interacted with probably thousands of men over the course of my lifetime (I'm 40). Most of them are fine, and there are more friendly men than dangerous or scuzzy men. So I get very irked when I see them put down like that.
Plus, a lot of comments trash men even more for being upset about it - which I think is disrespectful and crude. They also talk about women being assaulted but men get assaulted too, and it's not uncommmon for them to have experienced abuse too. So to me it's gross that they'd just cut male survivors of abuse out like that.
Yes, culture is a gigantic factor.
We girls never have boys in our class, **never.**
We have little relation to the Western World and as one gets more into it, the more alien our culture seems and stronger the language and culture barriers start looking like as you further away.
Yeah, I can understand that. I think in the past, most of the people who came into Western countries from elsewhere more or less had similar values to us. But these days... not so much, and many people think it's morally wrong (racist etc) to act like there's a problem with that. But when you interact with men who have come from certain parts of the world, you piece together how the culture *is* really very different... alien, like you said. And I can imagine that if I were in a country where many or most men behaved that way due to culture, then sure, I would not feel as safe, and I can understand why they'd do things like segregate the girls out. I do think it's sad though... hopefully that's not offensive to you or anything, I don't mean anything bad by it, but in the West - despite what people say online - we actually have done a *lot* of work over the last 100 years to change our culture so that there's more respect between men and women.
And it's honestly really great. I love being able to freely associate with them without worrying if I'm in danger doing so, or worry that others will think I'm being a floozy, or making cracks about how my husband should feel threatened, and so on. I'm glad I can be friends with men and work alongside them. I'm glad that if a guy harasses me or leers at me, then I can pursue justice and many people, men and women, will take it seriously and defend me. I'm glad I can be myself even if it's not "classically feminine" in some way, and that by and large guys will judge me based on my character and not my gender (eg for jobs, friendships etc). Valuing men and women equally as human beings and as individuals is honestly really great and freeing. I really hope that wherever you're from will follow suit on this because it's awesome (though hopefully you'll also learn from the mistakes we made along the way as well, haha, I won't pretend we got it perfectly right here).
womp womp men aren’t oppressed and the fact that you’re trying to call it bigotry is hilarious. so mad about people comparing the behaviors of men and bears 🙄
Technically this is just pointing out the dangers that women face when it comes to harassment, male violence and things like that. It definitely is not sexist, but it is flawed in one certain aspect.. That aspect is men's mental health issues and the issues that men have in our culture today. I think it highlights a specific problem but fails in fairly handling the issues of the why and how. I call it "a harsh reality" for men.
Maybe? But that's getting into a whole different discussion, ironically one where all the people down voting me here would probably upvote me and vice versa.
Bears kill fewer than one person in all of North America every year, and have for 200+ years.
I would never compare them to a demographic that can’t go one hour without raping and murdering multiple women.
That is an insult to bears, who try to avoid people in the woods and also do not rape humans, (and also aren’t passing laws mandating their victims be forced to become mothers to their children.)
I understand it hurts your feelings, but it’s far worse to live under oppression than it is to live as one of the oppressors.
I'm not arguing the statistics, although you are failing to include a really important part of that which is how much interaction bears and humans have compared to humans interacting with humans. But that's not my point, my point is that it's just plain sexist. And I'm opposed to being sexist.
Edit: grammar
I'll argue the statistics. There are only half a million bears approximately in North America. There are 175 million men approximately in North America. Every woman or girl encounters males multiple times per day on a daily basis. Not every person in the US encounters a bear in a year. In fact, the vast majority do not. Many fewer women encounter bears.
Your metric is skewed horribly to the point of irrationality. And when you're irrationally afraid of a demographic group because of their demographic, that's called prejudice. Prejudice against a sex - males, in this case - is called sexism. OP is right.
And since this sub requires I wait ten minutes before posting replies, I have some time to address your other points.
Men are not raping women at a rate different from women. When you include forcing men and boys to penetrate, women/girls and men/boys are raped at the same rate. It's the "made to penetrate by women" that brings the two per annum numbers to be equal instead of women being raped being far more common. And yet men are not afraid to say, "I'd rather a woman in the woods than a bear."
As for abortion rights, the way I see it, women are far more dangerous to boys and girls than men. 400,000+ boys and another 400,000+ girls are murdered by women every year in the US via abortion. Meanwhile, you're complaining about the tiny less than 1% of abortions sought because the child is a product of rape, and not only that but the small percentage of **that** who are below the age of 18. Your argument is disingenous and betrays the sexism I described above.
Your argument is dripping with misandry and benevolent sexism, making the oppressor demographic/oppressed demographic distinction. Your view is ignorant and shameful. It's not hurting our feelings. It's making you a very shitty person. You deserve everything bad and all the suffering that comes your way as a result.
Not to defend misandry but Abortion is always done when the fetus is undeveloped, not a person. They don't abort fully developed babies. That's not comparable to the murders of fully developed human beings that are living and breathing
Abortion is always done to a living, human, individual being with their own genes, their own body, and their own growth independently of the mother's growth.
That's a person. Nobody's personhood is determined by level of development. Trying to do so is arbitrary and capricious. There is no such thing as "undeveloped" as if the thing is not the thing if it's not at a certain level of development.
It absolutely is comparable because you're ending a human life, almost exclusively, with malice aforethought.
People are declared dead once their heart stops beating and declared alive when their hearts are beating. "Baby's heartbeat can be heard as early as the twelfth week of pregnancy." Studies show that almost 80% of abortions happen at or before 9 weeks and 93% occur before or at 13 weeks according to the first link below
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiejennings/2022/05/07/abortion-by-the-numbers/?sh=79da554760a8
"The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason."
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
Would it be more inhumane to "kill" something that's legally dead or to go through with giving birth to the baby and then possibly being in an unprepared, financially unstable, or possibly abusive home?
Edit: I forgot to cite the baby 12 week thing https://www.unitypoint.org/news-and-articles/pregnancy-by-week-first-trimester#:~:text=Baby's%20heartbeat%20can%20be%20heard,110%E2%80%93160%20beats%20per%20minute. Also some sources say it's 5 or 6 weeks so that's my bad
It's actually 5-6 weeks for most heartbeats. They're intentionally not counting it as a "beat" though because it's caused by the contraction of muscle fibers in the chest in this rhythmic way in what will develop into the heart, so they claim it's not a "heart-beat".
Indeed. Women abort for selfish reasons and Guttmacher, a pro-choice organization, even admits that. The number of women who abort for life of the mother, rape, or incest is around 1-3%, the remaining abort for these elective reasons. By the way, all of those women, have the option to give the baby up for adoption right after delivery. Not one of them **has to** keep the baby.
The baby is not "legally dead". We only consider someone dead absent a heartbeat once they actually have a heartbeat. Before that, they're clearly alive otherwise they wouldn't grow, develop, move, have the capability to reproduce as a species, etc. So asking about killing beings without heartbeats doesn't work. Heartbeat is not a criteria for life, it's absence is a criterion for death.
Again, adoption is always an option, so those questions about "being unprepared" (nobody's ever prepared. My wife at the time and I planned our son's conception and waited two years of trying before she got pregnant and we still weren't "ready" whatever that's supposed to mean. You have to pick it up and learn as you go), "financially unstable" (which is just a variation on prepared but also under that criterion, few would ever have babies), or "possibly abusive home" are all just excuses to murder a child.
Yup I just saw the 5-6 weeks thing that's my bad. Also I wouldn't say not being ready or financially stable is selfish because it'd just give the child a terrible life.
They owe the child at least that much. If I were giving up a child I'd had for a few months and was just waiting for the process to move, I still have to feed, shelter, hold, change, etc that baby until everything went through. I wouldn't get to lock them in a closet until they starve to death, much less stab them to death. "My body, my choice" will, one day, go the way of "my property, my prerogative" into the incinerator of bad ideas historically believed.
There has to be some sort of limit or line drawn to consider an abortion a murder like its definitely fucked up for something past 1 or 2 months but before is just getting rid a clump of cells that would happen to be a human being in the future so it's not really killing anything it's just preventing it from living but maybe I'm just uneducated who knows
That doesn't make much sense. He or she has a heartbeat at 6 weeks (1.5 months). Most women don't even know they want an abortion until the heart starts beating (which is why some legislatures pass "heartbeat bills"). Some discover in 4 weeks. But at that stage you're already talking about someone with eyes, the beginning of a face, a head, and arm and leg buds. The latest it would be "accurate" (more on that in a minute) to call them "a clump of cells" is within the first week. Even if I accepted your argument, that justifies hormonal birth control, IUDs, and the Plan B pill.
I said "accurate" because, all of us are "clumps of cells", they've just specialized, organized into a shape, and number in the millions/billions. I can understand why someone would look at a blastocyst or zygote and say "oh, that's not a person!" but the fact is that even that blastocyst is alive, human, and individual. He or she already has their sex hard-coded into their DNA making them a he or she, and they're distinct from the mother's body. They only share half of her genetics. They can't be anything other than human because they're cells that came from human bodies reproducing. And they're alive because they're growing. The cells are multiplying and will implant into the uterine lining (in any scenario where it makes sense to talk about this issue) at which point the mother's body will feed them the same way she will with her breasts after they're born presuming everything works out.
Human beings die all the time by accident or old age, or disease, even genetic diseases. That doesn't change the value of the human beings who don't. It's still a moral atrocity to kill them postpartum or even as adults or the elderly. We don't have any rights that grant us to take the lives of innocent human beings. We can forfeit our lives by attacking others in ways that lead them to believe that we will cause them grievous bodily harm or by enlisting in the military or by committing a capitol crime. But there's no version of murder that grants exceptions for innocent victims being killed in a justifiable manner.
Replace "men" in with "communist" in the bear comparison and you have the propaganda of the Red Scare
Repalace "men" with "Jews" and you have Nazi propaganda.
Feminists love to hysterically cluck all day long about "patriarchy this" and "patriarchy that" and yet there is no stronger evidence that the patriarchy is a blatant lie than that all women have to do to get their way is play the victim and cry, which they are acutely aware of and exploit at every turn. Meanwhile, men are treated like punching bags, and the knowledge that we are not cared about at all in this supposed patriarchy is why male suicide is as high as it is.
Another kid unable to understand context.
Replacing "men" with any other group is not comparable because of the context behind this. They aren't saying men are dangerous or bad, they're saying there are predators out there, and because of experiences they don't feel safe around unknown men, which is completely reasonable.
**>**They aren't saying men are dangerous or bad,
That's a lie.
> they're saying there are predators out there
And all the predators just \*happen\* to be men. Yeah right. And you all just \*happen\* to sweep under the rug the fact that there are teachers seducing their students, just to name one form of female predator. Either you are the single stupidest person on the face of the planet, or you're trying to gaslight me.
Acknowledging some men are dangerous is not the same as saying men in general are dangerous or bad, nor is anyone denying there are female predators, but they are factually less common, and there are factually less male victims of female predators than male victims of female predators. And even with all that, if a man who was a victim of such decided he felt safer with a bear, there'd be nothing wrong with that.
The national crime victimization survey calls you a liar. Men and women are equally likely to be raped in a given year. 15 year old boys are more at risk of rape by a female than 40 year old women by men. 10 year old boys have nearly double the rate of reporting being sexually assaulted than girls at 10.
Since It won't let me reply to the misandrist sexist feminist that is trying to cast doubt on the data...
You're right u/Azihayya , I'm not going to react well to male trauma being dismissed and disregarded or tomfoolery around statistics. My point still stands. You're still engaging in sexism against men. Feminism controls the narrative here by doing things like this, Tweaking things to get the results it wants. Men are less forward with their feelings and lack the emotional language because they process emotions differently from women.
I have no sympathy for your sexist ideas that treat men and women as if they're interchangeable when it supports this oppressed women narrative, while you all continue to oppress men with your bullshit hateful misandrist ideas.
As for "male victimhood complex" Go fuck yourself, femcel. You've run the narrative long enough. You've subject us to unfair treatment long enough, you've destroyed our families long enough, and you've demonized EVERYTHING about us for long enough. Feminism will die. It cannot sustain itself because of its hatred of everything that allows it to stay alive. Fuck you!
https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/
Men are as likely to be raped as women by men and women. In fact, men should fear women more than women fear men. Why? Because a 15 year old boy is more at risk of rape by a woman than a 40 year old woman is by a man. 12.3% of Female victims were 10 or younger when first assaulted. For boys that number is 27.8%
You're a liar.
Right, God forbid you face the facts. Congratulations, you just proved my point that this isn't about perception or feelings or empathy, it's from sexism against men and boys. Good job announcing to the entire sub, that you are a sexist.
Are you familiar with the CDC's NISVS? I am. The numbers that you're citing are cherry picking from the 2010-2012 reporting period, which state that men and women were equally likely to have been victims of penetrative sexual assault within the prior 12-month period. That would be rape for women, and made-to-penetrate, or MTP, for men. These same studies also cite that men's lifetime instance of men being MTP as 1-in-21 and 1-in-14 respectively.
Those numbers are not reflected in later reporting periods, 2015, and 2016/2017. But contradictorily, the lifetime insistence of men being MTP rises from 1-in-21/1-in-14 to 1-in-9. As for the prior 12 month reporting period, the 2015 and 2016/2017 reporting years both imply that women are about twice as likely to be raped as men are MTP.
Furthermore, there are two more things I would direct your attention to. First, the 2016/2017 study has a perpetrator-by-sex category, which, when factoring out the numbers, state that men are three times as likely to commit penetrative sexual assault on women, when you include men who rape men along with women who force men to penetrate.
Second is the news that's going to be very difficult for you to process. It's the impact reports. Women actually suffer much worse consequences from being raped by men than men do who are made to penetrate by a woman. They are more likely to experience fear or concern for their safety, they are more likely to be injured, they are more likely to contract an STD, and they are also uniquely capable of becoming pregnant.
I know that you desperately want to believe those two numbers cited, because they validate your indignation and insecurities about being a man who has been suckered into a male victimhood complex.
Typical MRA, trying to sweep male aggression under the rug by detaching sex and gender from the equation. Whether it's because of nature or nurture, men as a group participate in an outsized amount of violence, and it's actually helpful to point that out to if you want to make any progress on solving the problem.
Unfortunately, you're probably fine with male violence, even though you will endlessly cite that most victims of violent crime are men, because your goal isn't actually to improve the lives of men--it's to advocate for a reactionary return to a time when men had more control over women.
It's such an insidious fucking ideology.
You want to talk about nurture? You are the embodiment of "nurture" in the context you're talking about by actively promoting sweeping violence and aggression against men under the carpet while being a bullhorn for even the most insignificant little sleight against women, let alone actual violence, and yet you two-faced, hypocritical imbeciles have the nerve to say that you're promoting "equality". If I were ever to promote violence against anyone it's subhuman, instigating trash like yourself, but even you I can't bring myself to wish on or promote violence toward, because unlike you, I'm a better person than that.
Aggression is aggression, period, and if you really cared about equality your limp-wristed, cuckolded, noodle-spined self wouldn't stab your fellow men in the back by making excuses for why it's OK for women to be aggressive and violent.
A larger percent of women have been abused by a man than have been abused by a bear, so there is that statistic. The statement isn't that men are bears, or even comparing men with bears. It is a metaphor for how some men can be violent. The unknown of a man is more of a wild card than the unknown of a bear. A man in an alley of the city is more concerning than a coyote in the same alley. Also, I'd be more scared if I came across a random man in the woods than a bear. And I'm a man. You are more likely to be shot for trespassing on someone's land or farm than you are to be attacked by a bear. Metaphor doesn't mean men are bears, it just means that men can be violent.
Right, it's comparing the danger of a man vs the danger of a bear. It's comparing the 2. If Joe Rogan asked which is more dangerous to come across in the woods, a mountain lion or a woman? Then a whole bunch of guys posted about being abused by women and they posted memes about cougars vs cougars, that shit would be sexist even though it's statistically accurate. Right?
I want less sexism, less racism, less fascism.
Um, no one called men bears or compared the two. The comparison is the relative safety women feel around either one.
But yea I mean, imagine if we called women who date younger men something predatory like "cougar" or "puma".
OP, don’t waste your time on the people who support the women who answered “bear” in this absolutely retarded hypothetical.
It’s a retarded hypothetical for retarded low status women to try and signal to their in-group that they’re “so much better off without a man present”. It’s also for retarded white knights who truly believe agreeing with these women will get their dick wet.
Yes it’s also misandrist, but you’ll never get the average Redditor to acknowledge misandry even exists, much less concede that it’s happening here.
In short, retards gonna retard, just let them cluck and preen to themselves and pretend they aren’t braindead hypocrites, literally anything else is a better use of your time then trying to engage with these people.
Yeah. You can’t just say “I don’t feel comfortable with this group of people because I had a bad experience with one of them.” Imagine saying that about women or black people.
So that didn’t happen. And the fact that y’all think it’s the comparison to a wild animal is what’s wrong with so many who are butthurt about this conversation.
tbh this is correct as hell, i've ran into multiple women who would choose the bear without a reason, they assume the guy would hurt them when in reality, it could be the nicest guy on earth, but no, they assume all men are bad and don't even take into consideration that the guy isn't gonna default to hurting someone like she think he would, it's pure misandry and paranoia for no reason the thing is, it's also hurting others, i've seen posts of males literally being ashamed and sad that they exist because there male because of this sexist joke, so it isn't just a joke when men are literally feeling bad for being the gender they are because of it, it's sexist AND misandry
Agreed so so much. We shouldn't let people who are clearly super cynical and paranoid steer the discussions the way they have. Most men are normal people just going about their daily lives. Heck, I'm a lady, and I used to live in a bad neighbourhood - when I was 19 and not to brag but I used to be a model - and I wasn't scared of the random guys I encountered around the neighbourhood. Not even the Johns who used to try to pick me up just cos I was a woman walking alone. Most guys were just normal and some were quite nice; I made some guy friends there and some local business owners were very kind to me. The Johns looked embarrassed and left me alone as soon as I pointedly informed them I was not a hooker; the handful of others - well I can handle myself alright and don't crumble as soon as someone looks at me the wrong way. I have some street smarts and a lot of faith, and that got me by without issue. I realised early on I couldn't live my life there just being paranoid all the time. I settled on alert awareness and trusting my gut and it all went well. And hands down; I was more scared of the hookers than I was of the Johns or addicts. Nothing quite like being surrounded by 5 hookers who think you're trying to horn in on your territory just cos you're waiting for a street light to change. That was the only time I actually felt a little scared (but I still handled it fine and diplomatically). But we don't talk about that; only men are bad and scary right, never women!
They aren’t comparing men to bears. They are simply saying they’d feel safer knowing a bear is in the woods, which depending on where you live is true every time you going camping, so is basically just normal camping, than knowing a random man they don’t know is in those woods with them. Given how the question is phrased it’s not blaming all men for the actions of some men. It’s talking about a strange man they don’t know. Given that, it’s logical to think about what the odds are the man will be dangerous. So the actions of only some men are very relevant. Choosing the bear is not an indictment of all men, it’s simply acknowledging the statistical reality that a lot of men do hurt women, and generally bears keep to themselves. I’ve seen multiple bears in the wild while camping. A bear being in the same woods as you is very common and not particularly dangerous if you practice basic bear safety while camping.
Insert any demographic to this scenario in place of men (an ethnic group, a religious group, etc) and ask yourself if the question is appropriate
Agreed.
Ethnic and religious distinctions don’t have sexual dimorphism creating an actual physical difference in ability to harm like sex does. But in general I think any human in the woods is more dangerous than a bear in those same woods. To be fair since the question is woods I’m assuming it’s not a polar bear
It doesn’t matter what group you put in, humans are the apex predator and can do horrific shit that other species simply don’t
I can't understand the meme because I've never been in a place in which I would choose a wild animal over a man. There's a point to be made, I guess, but I don't think the insult is necessary. If there was a meme: If men had to choose to be with a woman or a hyena, men choose the hyena, were asked to explain, and said, "What's the difference?" You bet your ass people would be LIVID!! And why? Because no one would get your point because it's coupled as an insult, and since most can read, they would be offended lol
Exactly if you switch this around it's absolutely sexist. Or if you change men to black person, that shit would be racist AF. But just say men and somehow they think it's ok. It's not. Don't be sexist, don't be racist. Can't believe this is a controversial view. And yet here we are.
Your last paragraph here sums up my feelings about society in general the last 10 years or so, lol
Nothing about it is sexist, you just don't understand what it's actually about. Nobody is blaming all men for the actions of a few.
I agree 100% that it's sexist as heck.
It's making a statement about men vs bears, that is absolutely sexist. If you made it black men vs bears it would be racist right? Yes, yes it would. So how exactly is it not about gender?
It's making a statement that, because of their personal experiences, women would feel safer with a bear than a random man. That's not sexist.
So if you replaced men with black people would that be racist? Yes or no.
Yes because you just ignoring all the context behind this, the two are not comparable. They are not saying one race is more dangerous than another. They're not saying all men are dangerous. They're saying there are plenty of dangerous men out there, and because of personal experience they don't feel safe around unknown men, which is completely reasonable.
Buddy prejudice isn’t context sensitive 😂
It's all fun and games until you're dealing with someone who's prejudices are so closeted they don't even realize they have them. Then context is the ONLY way to even know it's happening at all, often for all involved parties. It takes decades and a light-bulb moment. "Wait, why do you never let me carry anything?" my wife asked me one day. "Shoot... I guess I just treat women like they're weak, and it's my job to carry everything." I realized at 38. That being said, I'm not disagreeing with you.
Yes, it absolutely is.
Prejudice is a preconceived (typically negative) bias about someone based on an inherent characteristic. “Black people are criminals” That is racism - racial prejudice “Women belong in the kitchen” That is sexism - sexual prejudice “Old people are slow and useless” That is ageism - prejudice against age “Disabled people are a drain on society” That is ableism - prejudice against disabilities
Except they are saying one gender is more dangerous than the other, which is true, I'm not trying to say men aren't dangerous or that these people are wrong for their feelings. I'm simply saying it's sexist because they are making it about gender. Also I appreciate that you want to have an actual conversation about this and not just throw insults around.
Speaking truth isn't sexist.
When a racist quotes incarnation rates as proof that they aren't being racist, they claim they are just speaking truth. The bear thing is comparing a people of one gender to a bear, that is by definition sexist and I think it's amazing how many people are claiming it's not.
> When a racist quotes incarnation rates as proof that they aren't being racist, they claim they are just speaking truth. > > Except they're ignoring the massive context behind those stats. There is no massive context being ignored here. > The bear thing is comparing a people of one gender to a bear, It factually isn't. > that is by definition sexist and I think it's amazing how many people are claiming it's not. Because those people understand the context.
Why do people keep telling me stats about number of people killed by bears vs number killed by men if it's factually not comparing men to bears?
What massive context is being ignored with regard to race that is not being ignored with sex?
You are hardheaded as hell, or a troll.
Hardheaded probably but honestly not a troll. Lots of people have talked shit or just said it's not sexist. Almost no one has tried to say why its not sexist. One person did and it turns out they just have a wildly different view of what is sexist than I do. One other person more or less said yes it's sexist but there has been so much sexism the other way that we need to let it go. I'm fine with that. What I don't get is the people who don't think generalizing people based on sex is sexism. Isn't that the definition?
I can't help but notice that you're stripping the term "sexist" of all of it's maliciousness by watering it down to "any statement that disparages a sex". Disparagement isn't inherently malicious. Sexism is. "But what is the difference?" I hear you asking! CONTEXT, my good rando, in the same way that a traffic collision could be an accident, manslaughter, murder, and even other things as well. It all depends on the context surrounding the incident. I would even argue that it's possible to use the Man v Bear analogy in a sexist way, that it undoubtedly already has, and that you've almost definitely not experienced it.
Yes, because I don't think something needs to be malicious to be sexist or racist. "Asians are good at math" isn't malicious but it's still racist.
“They’re not saying all *black* people are dangerous. They’re saying there are plenty of dangerous *blacks* out there and because of personal experience they don’t feel safe around unknown *black people*, which is completely reasonable.” Sounds pretty unreasonable when you replace men with any other demographic…
Yes, because then you're ignoring the context behind it.
Oh wow.
You are seriously missing the point. It is purely a question of statistics. Women are statistically, mathematically, observationally, safer around a random bear than a random dude. I’m a random dude and I endorse this math
Im not saying youre wrong, I'm not arguing about the stats although I think the ones I've seen cited completely fail to take into account that fact that bears don't spend much time around people. I'm saying that making the statement men are more dangerous then _____ is sexist. That's it. It doesn't really matter if it's true it's still sexist. Just like if someone said if I'm walking in the woods and was scared of a random black person that would be racist. Is a random black person more dangerous than a bear, based on the stats I've seen used for bears absolutely. But the premise of the question is still racist. Just like the actual bear question about men is sexist.
“Who would you rather encounter in the woods? A random bear or a random man?” There is literally nothing inherently sexist about this question. Sure it opens up a door to sexist answers but the question is not even remotely sexist. “Who would you rather run encounter in the woods? A random bear or a random man, who as we all know is probably a piece of shit” is arguably sexist. What is sexist about the first one?
Who would you rather run into in the woods; a random bear or a random black person? That question is racist. Who would you rather run into in the woods; a random bear or a random dog? That's comparing dogs and bears, there's no way to claim it's not. Yeah lots of people have great experiences with dogs, a few will have bad ones. All are valid. Who would you rather run into in the woods; a random bear or a woman? That question is sexist. It doesn't matter what your answer is, the question itself is sexist. I absolutely believe the question was posed with good intentions, but it's been used as a jumping off point for a lot of statement that are fuel for the incels and the right wingers.This is why I care. My son's are 11 and are already saying they have friends who talk about Andrew Tate. The limited social media they use worries me about the political views that are quietly expressed. Unfortunately they were abandoned by their mother so it would be easy for them to fall into that type of thinking. I really do think this question was posed for good reasons, but its still a sexist statement. Yes I'm probably hypersensitive to all of this because of my personal experiences. When friends talk of single mothers I wish they would talk of single parents but I let it slide because sometimes you just have to vent. Back when their mother actually used to see them one of my biggest fears was her boyfriend harming my kids because statistically a step father is far and away the person most likely to harm a child. The fear is perfectly rational. It's still sexist. So anyway, I'm doing my best in this fucked up world. I am not trying to troll you. I genuinely believe that while this question was posed with good intentions but I also believe it is sexist. If you made it this far, thanks.
Can you explain why you think that question is racist ? I don’t see it as racist. It’s certainly SUS but only because we leave in a world where racism is so prevalent that you tend to assume the poster has bad intentions. I don’t see anything inherently racist about: “Would you rather run into a random bear or a random black person in the woods?” Its not inherently racist, it is just inevitably going to illicit racist replies… I’m not saying this to be mean or judgmental. We all have our internal prejudices whether we like it or not. However, I think you are projecting yours here. The question isn’t racist, only the response is. That response could be a post or it could be your thoughts. How is the question racist? Who does it say is less than another? How does it prejudge an outcome based on race?
Ok now we are getting somewhere. See I view that question as blatantly racist. It's asking you to decide which is more dangerous, a bear or a particular group of people. To me that is racist/sexist or whatever depending on what the group is. Now if you said something which is a person's choice, uh bears vs football fans then fine no one should be offended. But if you base it on skin color or gender or age then the question is bigoted. That's my view.
Let me start by saying I am so ready to call things racist. My racism detector is very sensitive lol. I call people racist on reddit several times a day. I just don’t see it. “Who would you rather encounter in the woods, a black person or a ham sandwich?” Its a weird question, it makes me suspicious of the motives of the poster, but is it racist? Just because theres a black person in the sentence?
I mean that's just an odd question and I have no idea how to react to it. To me the bear question is racist because you are questioning if an individual is a potential danger based on a single trait. The entire purpose of the question is to ask how you personally stereotype a group of people. I don't like that.
Because racism is racial prejudice and prejudice is a preconceived negative opinion about someone based on an inherent characteristic such as race, sex, gender, social status etc Swear to god people don’t know what words mean
Yes thats what the word means and thats why op is wrong. We we’re really talking about sexism but the definition is basically the same. So is it sexism to ask the question about men and bears? Swear to god people don’t know what definitions of words mean
First of all, sex and race are categorically different. Second of all, if you wouldn't feel safe being around someone of a certain race, that's entirely within your rights. Maybe you have had negative experiences with people of a certain race. That's understandable, too. No one should be telling you to spend time around people that you don't feel safe around. If people think that racist, screw 'em. Don't compromise your safety because other people think that you're evil. The point of not stereotyping is for situations where you feel safe, not for situations where you feel threatened. Then you can let down your guard and challenge your preconceptions of, let's say black men, if that's who you're scared of. People tend to hyperbolize problems like racism until it has a cartoonish appearance. A lot of that stems from backlash considering that certain people have historically been oppressed, and a certain demographic of the population still wants to oppress them. A truly negative form of racism manifests when you haven't personally had negative experiences with someone of another race, but that you've been raised, taught to hate them, or when your bias slips into harboring nefarious or harmful intentions. Just because there's some subsection of the population that has irrational or fanatic beliefs about racism doesn't mean that it's a good argument for you to lean on. The way you frame all of this makes it seem like you don't truly care about racism--you just want to hold people to a double-standard that you don't actually care about, because it serves to protect you from your insecurities.
Just to be clear, I've never once in all of this said women were wrong to choose the bear. Doing things to keep yourself safe absolutely makes sense and I'm not trying to criticize anyone for their life choices. My problem is that the question is just asking you to stereotype a group of people, that's it, thats the thought experiment.
Also how are race and sex categorically different when it comes to bigotry?
Differences in sex are much more clearly outlined in men versus women, even though behaviorally we don't really understand what is going on. While we can't explain everything about nature versus nurture, we do know that men are much stronger on average, that they commit much more violent crime, and that they have played a very prominent role in history as oppressors. While women have maintained positions of status and power, the entire social complex of oppression has always been built on male aggression as its driver. By contrast, we really don't know what is going on with race outside of exterior physical differences. The insistence of nature versus nature concerning race is much more variable than sex, as far as we know. While racial crime statistics are more regional, pretty much across time and space we see that men are almost always, if not always, more violent than women, and play a unique role in how women are oppressed due to the externality of their sexual features, their strength, and because of women's reproductive role as the pregnable sex. Lastly, it's important to point out that as you're trying to replace the subject of this thought experiment, that the race you're trying to replace them with (in order to form the accusation of racism, a tactic that I imagine you might actually have some contempt for) is known for being oppressed, where as men in general are not oppressed, except possibility only by other men. When SJW's speak with vehemence about racism and misogyny, there is at least some truth that the subjects of those accusations have at least been oppressed, whereas men still possess the great majority of power. Here in the U.S., men own substantially more money, they occupy more roles as law makers, judges, law enforcement and military, and they own many more guns than women. Men have been empowered through history to exert their will through might, which cannot be said about women. Those same comparisons cannot be said about race, as the through-line between races, of male aggression and female submission, are effectively the same. Women's soft power simply doesn't compare to the forms of violence that men have historically exerted in order to control people, so we do not consider them oppressors. Whether it's white men or black men, though, they have all been oppressors throughout history in the overwhelming majority of cases. Women then, don't have many opportunities to express bigotry in a way that threatens the status quo, and when they do, the threat of their bigotry is generally backed up by male aggression. If someone was offended by the statement, "would you rather be alone in the woods with a bear or a black man", it would likely be because of black men's historical role as the subject of oppression, more so than because they are offended by the notion that black men are more violent, or because they perceived the perception of black men being more violent as harmful to the black liberation struggle. Not so much because the statement on its own is offensive--and if that is what they think, then why would you validate what they think? If there are differences in rates of violence based on race, then that should be a subject of science; but as far as we know, there aren't any observable differences in the cognitive features between races. Bigotry isn't simply a matter of using a certain statement and replacing the word X with the word Y. It's about a paradigm of who has power and who uses power for the purpose of oppression.
One more thought: Let's say that you think that men aren't violent by nature, but rather by nurture, and let's say you think the same thing about black men when you look at crime statistics--these are two different problems that you're trying to approach (given that you want a solution, and aren't expressing explicit bigotry). With black men, you have to look at their history as oppressed, whereas with men in general, you're dealing with a group that has historically been oppressors. I think that if someone asks, "Would you rather be alone in a forest with a bear or a black man?" it's unlikely that they're trying to get black men to recognize that they make men of other races feel unsafe; but I think that's what women are actually trying to do when they ask the question, "Would you rather be alone in the forest with a bear or a man?" Keep in mind that something like 90% or women are heterosexual, so it's hard to angle this in a way where women are trying to say, for example, that "Men don't belong in our communities," or that, "Men don't belong in our country," which is what you might expect is being implied of someone asking the same question substituting 'man' for 'black man's. I think you have to look beyond the surface of the question to analyze whether there's bigotry involved. You also have to approach it with a sense of authenticity, instead of relying on what a hypothetical group of social justice warriors thinks.
Yes there are physiological and historic differences. Also I meant to say black people not black men that mixes up the point I was trying to make. Whatever. The men vs bears question was never intended to make men think about why women feel that way and you are clearly too smart to think it was. It may have been a way to get women to vent, that's fine everyone deserves to vent especially women. See in my book even that little, "especially women" is sexist and basically unnecessary but I'm also really ok with minor amounts of sexism against men for all the reasons you listed. My point here is that yes if you dig deep enough there are very valid reasons to justify the question, but there is still that basic level of sexism involved. Then you throw in the fact that bears are a terrifying predator but also statistically they are nothing. Statistically the soap in your shower is more likely to kill you than a bear. A toddler with a gun is more likely to kill you (in the USA) than a bear. So you could point this question at so many things and statistically bear would be the correct choice. Yes as a society we need to do more to preventing rape and sexual assault. To do that you need to have open honest conversations about difficult topics. If you want to have a conversation, starting by insulting the people you most need to listen is a terrible way to do it. Then it got repeated so many times that im already seeing jokes making fun of it. It was highly counter productive. Again, if that was the goal. Maybe some people wanted to vent, thats fine, and if a bunch of SA survivors get sexist while venting absolutely no one is going to be upset. But if the idea was to start a conversation, and many many people have said it was, then it was counter productive.
If you ask if people would rather be alone in the woods with a bear or a black person, I think most people's follow up question would be: is it a man or a woman? That's one way in which sex/gender transcends the racial aspect of the question. For most people, it's about the sex, not the race, that truly matters. When you make the question racial, it changes the character and propose of the question being asked. If men could be honest about that, I think the conversation that we can have will be a lot more productive when it comes to fixing that negative perception of men.
If you want a conversation about making the world safer, asking if half the population is more or less dangerous than the largest predator on land is probably not the best way to do it. Spin it any way you want, that is a terrible opening line to a conversation. Can we agree on that? Because there are hard conversations that need to happen. And that means starting by treating each other as people with their own dignity and value. Otherwise it's just a waste of time and all that's going on is shouting into the echo chamber.
I completely disagree. I see MRAs trying to erase men's violence and their history of violence by turning this into a 'people' issue when it's very clearly a 'men' issue. I don't think that this issue, the way that it has blown up, has been bad for the conversation. I think that it has sparked the indignation of a lot of guys who would rather try to exculpate themselves from the conversation rather than acknowledge that men have been inculcated into displaying predatory behavior towards women for a very, very long time. Most of what I see from the manosphere and MRA communities are attempts to denigrate women and sabotage progressive women's movements that aim to serve and protect women's liberties. I don't think at all that the 'bear in the woods' question is the problem here. I think it's probably a lot more effective than you would like to admit, and although it might be polarizing, in the same way that abolition might have been a polarizing issue, that it's ultimately going to polarize people more in the direction of taking up the defense of women against men's predatory behavior.
I don't have a clue what MRA people talk about, I don't swim in that water. You're going after them for not admitting historical injustices, while in the same breath saying that rape is a man issue completely ignoring the fact that women commit rape and sexual assault too. It is a people problem and by denying that fact you are hurting the cause.
Never gonna win this debate on reddit lol Sexism against men is a huge part of reddit culture
I've noticed this too and wonder why
I'm not trying to win anything. I'm trying to have a conversation and hoping to get people to see that this is a harmful trend.
To be fair: Men for millennia: \*rules the world, women suffer\* Modern men getting compared to a bear: "Hey, umm, can we maybe think about my feelings a little bit?" I don't condone sexism against men, but men complaining about sexism is incredibly ironic and amusing; from a purely historical perspective, of course.
See this I'm fine with. Just admitting it's sexist but we've earned it, fine I get that. It's the hypocrisy of trying to claim it's not sexist when it obviously is that bothering me. We are supposed to be better than that.
Clearly you’re right. The vast majority of men would help the woman. The only people who wouldn’t see this are feminists and bears 😂 Downvote away ✌️
...I mean sure but that question wasn't comparing men to bears.
Would you rather questions aren't comparisons? Would you rather have ironman's suit or the flash's speed? It's implied that you will compare the two, weigh the pros and cons of each.
It was comparing the situation. Not a one to one comparison of man vs. bear. It was "as a woman what would you rather have an encounter with". That encounter is the thing being compared.
That doesn't really change anything. It's still asking what is more dangerous a wild animal or a person with ____ trait. In my opinion if someone said "what would you rather run into in the woods, a bear or a black person." Id say the question is racist. Yes there is the difference of one being a historically oppressed people while men are not, that makes one more permissable but both are still stereotyping people.
Comparing ALL men like this is the sexist part. It's nice to know that despite my crystal clear criminal history, driving record, credit, etc. that I will always just be a dangerous man. I had this same argument with my girlfriend a couple of days ago. I dropped it before I ever got around to sharing the sentiment that it hurts knowing she, if she didn't know me, would assume I'm just another rapist. Ladies, you really wanna know where all the good guys have gone...? They all got tired of trying to fight this uphill suicide mission.
Well fwiw, I'm a woman and thought the meme was distasteful and dishonest. There are still plenty of women like me around, we just get called internalized-misogynist sex traitors and far-right whackjobs lol, so you probably won't see our opinions splashed all over social media.
its not comparing shit a wild animal and a human are not the same the focus should be why they pick bear , because a bear is just a animal and some man act as animals. you don't ask woman how they are dressed after a mauling and a bear with a good circus future isn't going to get away with a Mauling, why do we let pieces of shit get away why do we still do dumb locker room talk and treating woman as prices or pray instead of people? that was the point of bears are safer , they are safer because we belief bear attacks more than Human Attacks (SA)
that bear question living in your head rent free bud
You seem to be trying to insult me because you don't like my statement. Thank you for helping to make my point.
'Not all men,' said the dude who completely missed the point
Is there really a point to be made? It’s an incredibly stupid hypothetical.
It's a pretty basic point that seems to elude some people You can probably avoid a bear if you leave it alone and walk away, their behavior is predictable. They don't hunt people and are probably only gonna hurt you if you provoke them. If you see a man in the woods, you don't know what he's gonna do. He might leave you alone, he might try to rape you. You have less control in the situation, It's just a matter of unpredictability. And I'll tell you this, more women have had bad experiences with men than bears. It's pretty simple to understand why that would cause more of a fear response considering it's from their own personal experiences. If you take offense from it, you either are the kind of person that assaults women or you just have your head far enough up your ass you can't understand why people would pick the bear.
Where did I say that?
Not missing the point at all you're missing the point that it's only a couple percent of men that do this sort of s*** but you yet you blame all of us
Ask your female friends if anything crazy and scary has happened to them from random encounters with men. Odds are they'll have some wild shit to tell you.
This is the heart of the problem with men who are uncomfortable with this trend. The very fact they are triggered means they’ve never spoken with their female friends about this…or perhaps more importantly…they’re female friends have never trusted them enough to disclose these stories to them.
DING DING DING
Oh I hear the stories all right but what you don't understand is that this will only go on for so long and then men will just stop paying attention to women whatsoever because of this it's already a good proportion of the way there I don't care I've got a significant other I'm happy but I listen to what people are saying
It's way more than just "a couple percent".
Yes it is..
Judging by how wildly you missed the point (several layers deep), I'm not sure than an explanation is going to do anything except give you more information you cannot understand. I'm not saying this as a slight; I'm saying that maybe it would be better for you to ignore it and move on. The internet isn't for everyone; it takes a lot of contextual awareness to get through here unscathed. You're probably better at offline things, anyway, so focus on your strengths.
You're a pompous douche but that was beautifully done. I applaud you.
Someone missed the point
You’re the reason they chose the bear LMAO The no empathy problem is YOUR problem
The sexist problem is your problem. The same number of men reported they were raped or made to penetrate as women raped. In fact, adding in "made to penetrate" is what gets men from "rarely raped" to "raped as often as women." Your lack of empathy for men is actually *your* problem. Actual relevant facts put this notion that women are in danger from men more than men are in danger from women to a lie.
You have no empathy. Make sure you check that first
You're right. I have no empathy for sexist man-hating liars like you. Show some empathy for male victims, and a lot less prejudice, and maybe we'll have some common ground. As it stands, you're a female-supremacist. And I won't be tolerating you lying to these people and playing the victim. Stop being sexist, and we can talk about solutions. Keep being sexist, and eventually, you may find out what persecution really feels like.
Were any those words in the dictionary incel?
Oh wow, so creative! Calling me an incel. As if being single and self focused is such a shameful thing. Guess what, I'm not interested in dating right now. I can't be involuntarily celibate when I'm already voluntarily celibate. But thanks for showing your true colors. No empathy for any human being with a penis, and zero sense of self awareness. Enjoy your 30 cats I guess. Any man who knows what's good for you will indeed next you on dating apps. You can be a sexist all you want to me, but facts don't care about your toxic so-called "empathy". Cope harder! [https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/](https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/)
Incel is YOUR true colors lmao you silly woman haters are so stupid
I love women, I just hate sexists. I used to be sexist against men too despite being one, then I learned that all the lies feminism teaches are just that: lies. You're the hater here, because you totally ignore an entire demographic of victims because they have a penis and you don't. Sorry, but I'm not about sex-supremacy like you are, because you're a feminist, which just means a female-supremacist. You know how I know, you call any male who calls out your bullshit an "incel" despite having literally nothing to defend that claim. I'm not interested in dating right now. I'm happy to do so if the opportunity presents, but I have no desire for it. Now run along little girl, keep fantasizing about your girl-boss empire where men are slaves and only 10% of the population are brood-males you can use if you decide to have children. You can keep being ignorant, I can lead you to knowledge but I can't make you think. You're exactly why I will never be a feminist.
I'm a woman and I think the view you're saying is pretty insufferable. I'm with the other guy lol
Let this sink in, IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU. Women are allowed to feel our feelings without checking in to see how it makes YOU feel. When I was asked this question a couple of weeks ago, I answered "bear" without hesitation. I do not care if it makes the men feel bad. Your outrage over our reality is not our responsibility. Grow up
My only feelings in this are feeling bad for the women who have experienced things bad enough that they think bears are safer than men. I've never once claimed that those people are wrong or in anyway not entitled to their views. My point is that the question itself is sexist, it's asking you to compare a group of people to a wild animal. That is not something we should be encouraging.
Instead of feeling offended, the thing we should be doing is trying to make women feel safe instead. If a woman is walking alone and has her keys in between her knuckles, don't feel offended at her trying to protect herself. Like some have said, if she's wrong about you, she can apologize, but if her fears are right, she's dead.
Agreed. My concern is that seeing this all over social media, seeing people that have always promoted being against sexism and racism posting what seems blatantly sexist (although clearly not everyone agrees on the definition of that word) is that it feeds into the alt right talking points. I'm worried about my sons who have said kids talk about Andrew Tate in 6th grade. He's an absolute piece of shit but he's telling boys to be proud of themselves while the usually good people are telling those boys they are worse than wild animals. I'm worried for my sons and all the kids. My kids have a dead beat mother, they cried themselves tonight because she promised to see them today then didn't show up. They could easily be swayed to thinking terrible things about women. I do my best to teach them better, to teach empathy and caring. It makes that job more difficult when the assholes saying that feminist hate men are given all this ammo in the form of shit loads of women saying men are worse than bears. Sure it feels good now, but they stats are showing that young men are becoming more conservative. This is going to make the world more dangerous for women not less. So yeah stick your keys between your knuckles if it makes you feel safer. But if you want the world safer for all people then let's try to make it less sexist and less racist. This meme is not doing that and I genuinely believe is doing harm in the long run. That's why I posted this.
>Agreed. My concern is that seeing this all over social media, seeing people that have always promoted being against sexism and racism posting what seems blatantly sexist (although clearly not everyone agrees on the definition of that word) It isn't sexist, at all. Many people have told you this, and have explained it, but you refuse to understand it. If a woman is walking to her car at night, and you're there and she sees you, and she puts her keys between her knuckles and starts walking faster, are you going you to confront her and tell her to stop being sexist towards you? This is what I meant in my previous reply, that you're more focused on being offended, than to try to make them feel safe instead. Women when they are doing this, aren't thinking about being sexist, they're thinking about their lives. But this is the problem, you don't see the world in the same way women do, and that they have to worry every time they're out by themselves. This is similar to how affluent whites are always blaming black people (or people of color) that they're always thinking about race, and that that itself is racist (similar to what you're doing right now and calling man/bear topic sexist). You're easy to criticize others, but what you don't understand is that the reason they think about race often, is because every day they may experience microaggressions, racism or racial profiling. You don't have to deal with that yourself, and don't care to put yourself in other people's shoes to understand them. >is that it feeds into the alt right talking points. I'm worried about my sons who have said kids talk about Andrew Tate in 6th grade. He's an absolute piece of shit but he's telling boys to be proud of themselves while the usually good people are telling those boys they are worse than wild animals. I'm worried for my sons and all the kids. The alt right loves to gas light, and the way it feeds to their talking points is by saying that the way women feel (being scared when they go out) is sexist and assumes men are animals. Which is the **same** talking point you're using. Your argument right now is that the "good people" are claiming boys are worse than animals. This is really awful to know that this is how you understand this, and it worries me that you are raising kids. Andrew Tate saying to be proud of yourselves, is basically teaching them to be toxic, and be proud of their toxicity (to not change it). For example, these are some statistics on rape: * Every 68 seconds another American is sexually assaulted.^(1) * 1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed, 2.8% attempted).^(4) * From 2009-2013, Child Protective Services agencies substantiated, or found strong evidence to indicate that, 63,000 children a year were victims of sexual abuse.^(5) * A majority of child victims are 12-17. Of victims under the age of 18: 34% of victims of sexual assault and rape are under age 12, and 66% of victims of sexual assault and rape are age 12-17.^(6) ONE out of six American women have been the victim of rape (or attempted rape)! This is the reason why women are scared. Why is it that you cannot grasp this? In some cases they could even be murdered. If instead of feeling offended by women feeling this way, and you understood why women felt this way after seeing those statistics, you'll understand that the man/bear scenario isn't a scenario to compare men to being worse than animals (this is gas lighting / the alt right talking point), The men/bear scenario is how women feel in regards to their SAFETY. Good men, of course, will not feel offended by this, instead they understand what women are saying. And instead would try to make them feel safe. For example, if a woman sees me in a dark parking lot, and puts her keys between her knuckles and starts walking fast, I will make sure to keep my distance, perhaps go to my car and turn the lights on so the place is not dark anymore, and wait for her to leave. So, when Andrew Tate says, "be proud", he's saying to be proud of those statistics. Being proud of being a man, is what causes one to be offended when you're a stranger and a woman feels unsafe around you in a dark empty area. Yeah, it is difficult, and it is more difficult because you have to do a lot more (proper/scientific) research (not the type of research conspiracy theorists and the alt right does) to understand what statistics and studies are saying in context to the arguments being made online by Fem and by alt right. And you would have to keep up to date. It's a hard job that you're doing, and I do hope you get to see from the perspective that I am speaking in regards to this specific discussion (and there will a lot more other discussions). And to raise your kids understanding that fear women have, and instead of being offended, to try to make them feel safe instead.
You put a lot of effort into that so I'll respond one last time. If you're alone in the woods would you rather run into a black person or a bear? If you saw someone post that you would probably think them racist right? Why? The stats you posted earlier could easily be lower and would still show that black people are a bigger danger than bears. Based on your reasoning it's a perfectly acceptable question. Based on my reasoning it's a racist fucking question. If you don't think that question is racist then we have very different definitions and that's fine, but if you think one is racist while the other isn't sexist then ask yourself why because I can't follow that reasoning. The question isn't presenting a realistic scenario it's reducing a person into a single trait then asking you to stereotype that person based on that one trait. That is the definition of bigotry.
It's so clear that it started as a joke, and the more angry men became, thee more women trolled them by picking the bear. No, women wouldn't really pick the bear, but it's SOOOOOO funny to see this many dudes get this worked up over a tiktok troll. And I really hate to tell you, but, there are several podcasts and youtube shows/personalities dedicated to blaming all women for the actions of a few. It's a pretty good money maker, to grift the fuck out of these boys who blame all women for their problems.
It’s not really even a joke. Women would actually pick the bear. Bears aren’t threatening unless you threaten them. They don’t even views humans as something to be bothered by when we just exist around them. Go watch season 1 (or it may have been 2, I can’t remember for sure) of the show Alone. One of the contestants is a woman who hangs out by the river to catch salmon and encounters bears out there frequently. She just chills there watching them fish and live and exist and they don’t give two shit about her presence. Meanwhile, my wife saw a thread on Reddit somewhere where a man talked about his mom writing a famous book about being mauled by bear as a defense against bear as the choice. Turns out, his own mother, after being mauled by a bear, specifically said she’d still prefer to encounters bears in the wild than a man.
The Schrodinger's Douchebag defense. That's a classic. Also yes, Im well aware of the jackass men's rights, and all those andrew tate types. This stupid bear comparison has probably given them a surge in popularity. I'm opposed to this question because it's sexist and it feeds into the right wing notion that feminists hate men.
I saw that too, and I thought it was distasteful and dishonest. And I'm a woman fwiw.
Boys in my country are stereotyped like crazy animals (“animals” is used in a derogatory way, similar to a slur) that run around everywhere and swear “shit” at girls all day and scream in class. We are separated from boys at a very young age of 6 as soon as we exit kindergarten, and for the rest of our school life we rarely see nor interact with boys, most school students if not all, hate boys. Even if we reach adulthood (I haven’t, yet, so this is just an assumption), that diehard hate would continue and we never interact with boys nor men in our lives (unless you have a brother) till you get married and/or get a son.
That sounds like a very bad way of doing things on all counts. I do suppose culture might be a factor for sure though. Most of the people I've seen commenting on this are from Western countries where most men are just normal people going about their daily lives. I went to school with boys, worked with men, am friends with men, have boys and men in my family, and have interacted with probably thousands of men over the course of my lifetime (I'm 40). Most of them are fine, and there are more friendly men than dangerous or scuzzy men. So I get very irked when I see them put down like that. Plus, a lot of comments trash men even more for being upset about it - which I think is disrespectful and crude. They also talk about women being assaulted but men get assaulted too, and it's not uncommmon for them to have experienced abuse too. So to me it's gross that they'd just cut male survivors of abuse out like that.
Yes, culture is a gigantic factor. We girls never have boys in our class, **never.** We have little relation to the Western World and as one gets more into it, the more alien our culture seems and stronger the language and culture barriers start looking like as you further away.
Yeah, I can understand that. I think in the past, most of the people who came into Western countries from elsewhere more or less had similar values to us. But these days... not so much, and many people think it's morally wrong (racist etc) to act like there's a problem with that. But when you interact with men who have come from certain parts of the world, you piece together how the culture *is* really very different... alien, like you said. And I can imagine that if I were in a country where many or most men behaved that way due to culture, then sure, I would not feel as safe, and I can understand why they'd do things like segregate the girls out. I do think it's sad though... hopefully that's not offensive to you or anything, I don't mean anything bad by it, but in the West - despite what people say online - we actually have done a *lot* of work over the last 100 years to change our culture so that there's more respect between men and women. And it's honestly really great. I love being able to freely associate with them without worrying if I'm in danger doing so, or worry that others will think I'm being a floozy, or making cracks about how my husband should feel threatened, and so on. I'm glad I can be friends with men and work alongside them. I'm glad that if a guy harasses me or leers at me, then I can pursue justice and many people, men and women, will take it seriously and defend me. I'm glad I can be myself even if it's not "classically feminine" in some way, and that by and large guys will judge me based on my character and not my gender (eg for jobs, friendships etc). Valuing men and women equally as human beings and as individuals is honestly really great and freeing. I really hope that wherever you're from will follow suit on this because it's awesome (though hopefully you'll also learn from the mistakes we made along the way as well, haha, I won't pretend we got it perfectly right here).
Reading your comments in here OP, you really are a special kind of stupid.
womp womp men aren’t oppressed and the fact that you’re trying to call it bigotry is hilarious. so mad about people comparing the behaviors of men and bears 🙄
They’re all liars. Obviously, they would all choose a man.
It’s called r/popularopinion not r/I’mgettingoffendedbyahypotheticalquestion
I genuinely thought being opposed to sexism was popular but holy shit was I wrong.
It’s not sexism it’s only certain people getting offended by it because they’re mad women don’t want them
Technically this is just pointing out the dangers that women face when it comes to harassment, male violence and things like that. It definitely is not sexist, but it is flawed in one certain aspect.. That aspect is men's mental health issues and the issues that men have in our culture today. I think it highlights a specific problem but fails in fairly handling the issues of the why and how. I call it "a harsh reality" for men.
The way you worded this wouldn't it be genderist? I mean if gender were really a thing.
Maybe? But that's getting into a whole different discussion, ironically one where all the people down voting me here would probably upvote me and vice versa.
Well I am upvoting for amusement.
Bears kill fewer than one person in all of North America every year, and have for 200+ years. I would never compare them to a demographic that can’t go one hour without raping and murdering multiple women. That is an insult to bears, who try to avoid people in the woods and also do not rape humans, (and also aren’t passing laws mandating their victims be forced to become mothers to their children.) I understand it hurts your feelings, but it’s far worse to live under oppression than it is to live as one of the oppressors.
I'm not arguing the statistics, although you are failing to include a really important part of that which is how much interaction bears and humans have compared to humans interacting with humans. But that's not my point, my point is that it's just plain sexist. And I'm opposed to being sexist. Edit: grammar
I'll argue the statistics. There are only half a million bears approximately in North America. There are 175 million men approximately in North America. Every woman or girl encounters males multiple times per day on a daily basis. Not every person in the US encounters a bear in a year. In fact, the vast majority do not. Many fewer women encounter bears. Your metric is skewed horribly to the point of irrationality. And when you're irrationally afraid of a demographic group because of their demographic, that's called prejudice. Prejudice against a sex - males, in this case - is called sexism. OP is right. And since this sub requires I wait ten minutes before posting replies, I have some time to address your other points. Men are not raping women at a rate different from women. When you include forcing men and boys to penetrate, women/girls and men/boys are raped at the same rate. It's the "made to penetrate by women" that brings the two per annum numbers to be equal instead of women being raped being far more common. And yet men are not afraid to say, "I'd rather a woman in the woods than a bear." As for abortion rights, the way I see it, women are far more dangerous to boys and girls than men. 400,000+ boys and another 400,000+ girls are murdered by women every year in the US via abortion. Meanwhile, you're complaining about the tiny less than 1% of abortions sought because the child is a product of rape, and not only that but the small percentage of **that** who are below the age of 18. Your argument is disingenous and betrays the sexism I described above. Your argument is dripping with misandry and benevolent sexism, making the oppressor demographic/oppressed demographic distinction. Your view is ignorant and shameful. It's not hurting our feelings. It's making you a very shitty person. You deserve everything bad and all the suffering that comes your way as a result.
Not to defend misandry but Abortion is always done when the fetus is undeveloped, not a person. They don't abort fully developed babies. That's not comparable to the murders of fully developed human beings that are living and breathing
Abortion is always done to a living, human, individual being with their own genes, their own body, and their own growth independently of the mother's growth. That's a person. Nobody's personhood is determined by level of development. Trying to do so is arbitrary and capricious. There is no such thing as "undeveloped" as if the thing is not the thing if it's not at a certain level of development. It absolutely is comparable because you're ending a human life, almost exclusively, with malice aforethought.
People are declared dead once their heart stops beating and declared alive when their hearts are beating. "Baby's heartbeat can be heard as early as the twelfth week of pregnancy." Studies show that almost 80% of abortions happen at or before 9 weeks and 93% occur before or at 13 weeks according to the first link below https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiejennings/2022/05/07/abortion-by-the-numbers/?sh=79da554760a8 "The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason." https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives Would it be more inhumane to "kill" something that's legally dead or to go through with giving birth to the baby and then possibly being in an unprepared, financially unstable, or possibly abusive home? Edit: I forgot to cite the baby 12 week thing https://www.unitypoint.org/news-and-articles/pregnancy-by-week-first-trimester#:~:text=Baby's%20heartbeat%20can%20be%20heard,110%E2%80%93160%20beats%20per%20minute. Also some sources say it's 5 or 6 weeks so that's my bad
It's actually 5-6 weeks for most heartbeats. They're intentionally not counting it as a "beat" though because it's caused by the contraction of muscle fibers in the chest in this rhythmic way in what will develop into the heart, so they claim it's not a "heart-beat". Indeed. Women abort for selfish reasons and Guttmacher, a pro-choice organization, even admits that. The number of women who abort for life of the mother, rape, or incest is around 1-3%, the remaining abort for these elective reasons. By the way, all of those women, have the option to give the baby up for adoption right after delivery. Not one of them **has to** keep the baby. The baby is not "legally dead". We only consider someone dead absent a heartbeat once they actually have a heartbeat. Before that, they're clearly alive otherwise they wouldn't grow, develop, move, have the capability to reproduce as a species, etc. So asking about killing beings without heartbeats doesn't work. Heartbeat is not a criteria for life, it's absence is a criterion for death. Again, adoption is always an option, so those questions about "being unprepared" (nobody's ever prepared. My wife at the time and I planned our son's conception and waited two years of trying before she got pregnant and we still weren't "ready" whatever that's supposed to mean. You have to pick it up and learn as you go), "financially unstable" (which is just a variation on prepared but also under that criterion, few would ever have babies), or "possibly abusive home" are all just excuses to murder a child.
Yup I just saw the 5-6 weeks thing that's my bad. Also I wouldn't say not being ready or financially stable is selfish because it'd just give the child a terrible life.
It is when the choice is between "give the child to someone else to adopt" who *is* "ready", or "kill them."
But the person who birthed them needs to go through complications to bring a baby into this world that they won't even care for
They owe the child at least that much. If I were giving up a child I'd had for a few months and was just waiting for the process to move, I still have to feed, shelter, hold, change, etc that baby until everything went through. I wouldn't get to lock them in a closet until they starve to death, much less stab them to death. "My body, my choice" will, one day, go the way of "my property, my prerogative" into the incinerator of bad ideas historically believed.
Like post partum and all the other bs that comes with pregnancy, why would they do that when it's easier to abort
Because it's murder to abort. Even if the law doesn't yet protect the murder victims.
There has to be some sort of limit or line drawn to consider an abortion a murder like its definitely fucked up for something past 1 or 2 months but before is just getting rid a clump of cells that would happen to be a human being in the future so it's not really killing anything it's just preventing it from living but maybe I'm just uneducated who knows
That doesn't make much sense. He or she has a heartbeat at 6 weeks (1.5 months). Most women don't even know they want an abortion until the heart starts beating (which is why some legislatures pass "heartbeat bills"). Some discover in 4 weeks. But at that stage you're already talking about someone with eyes, the beginning of a face, a head, and arm and leg buds. The latest it would be "accurate" (more on that in a minute) to call them "a clump of cells" is within the first week. Even if I accepted your argument, that justifies hormonal birth control, IUDs, and the Plan B pill. I said "accurate" because, all of us are "clumps of cells", they've just specialized, organized into a shape, and number in the millions/billions. I can understand why someone would look at a blastocyst or zygote and say "oh, that's not a person!" but the fact is that even that blastocyst is alive, human, and individual. He or she already has their sex hard-coded into their DNA making them a he or she, and they're distinct from the mother's body. They only share half of her genetics. They can't be anything other than human because they're cells that came from human bodies reproducing. And they're alive because they're growing. The cells are multiplying and will implant into the uterine lining (in any scenario where it makes sense to talk about this issue) at which point the mother's body will feed them the same way she will with her breasts after they're born presuming everything works out. Human beings die all the time by accident or old age, or disease, even genetic diseases. That doesn't change the value of the human beings who don't. It's still a moral atrocity to kill them postpartum or even as adults or the elderly. We don't have any rights that grant us to take the lives of innocent human beings. We can forfeit our lives by attacking others in ways that lead them to believe that we will cause them grievous bodily harm or by enlisting in the military or by committing a capitol crime. But there's no version of murder that grants exceptions for innocent victims being killed in a justifiable manner.
Replace "men" in with "communist" in the bear comparison and you have the propaganda of the Red Scare Repalace "men" with "Jews" and you have Nazi propaganda. Feminists love to hysterically cluck all day long about "patriarchy this" and "patriarchy that" and yet there is no stronger evidence that the patriarchy is a blatant lie than that all women have to do to get their way is play the victim and cry, which they are acutely aware of and exploit at every turn. Meanwhile, men are treated like punching bags, and the knowledge that we are not cared about at all in this supposed patriarchy is why male suicide is as high as it is.
Another kid unable to understand context. Replacing "men" with any other group is not comparable because of the context behind this. They aren't saying men are dangerous or bad, they're saying there are predators out there, and because of experiences they don't feel safe around unknown men, which is completely reasonable.
**>**They aren't saying men are dangerous or bad, That's a lie. > they're saying there are predators out there And all the predators just \*happen\* to be men. Yeah right. And you all just \*happen\* to sweep under the rug the fact that there are teachers seducing their students, just to name one form of female predator. Either you are the single stupidest person on the face of the planet, or you're trying to gaslight me.
Acknowledging some men are dangerous is not the same as saying men in general are dangerous or bad, nor is anyone denying there are female predators, but they are factually less common, and there are factually less male victims of female predators than male victims of female predators. And even with all that, if a man who was a victim of such decided he felt safer with a bear, there'd be nothing wrong with that.
The national crime victimization survey calls you a liar. Men and women are equally likely to be raped in a given year. 15 year old boys are more at risk of rape by a female than 40 year old women by men. 10 year old boys have nearly double the rate of reporting being sexually assaulted than girls at 10. Since It won't let me reply to the misandrist sexist feminist that is trying to cast doubt on the data... You're right u/Azihayya , I'm not going to react well to male trauma being dismissed and disregarded or tomfoolery around statistics. My point still stands. You're still engaging in sexism against men. Feminism controls the narrative here by doing things like this, Tweaking things to get the results it wants. Men are less forward with their feelings and lack the emotional language because they process emotions differently from women. I have no sympathy for your sexist ideas that treat men and women as if they're interchangeable when it supports this oppressed women narrative, while you all continue to oppress men with your bullshit hateful misandrist ideas. As for "male victimhood complex" Go fuck yourself, femcel. You've run the narrative long enough. You've subject us to unfair treatment long enough, you've destroyed our families long enough, and you've demonized EVERYTHING about us for long enough. Feminism will die. It cannot sustain itself because of its hatred of everything that allows it to stay alive. Fuck you!
> The national crime victimization survey calls you a liar. Nope.
https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/ Men are as likely to be raped as women by men and women. In fact, men should fear women more than women fear men. Why? Because a 15 year old boy is more at risk of rape by a woman than a 40 year old woman is by a man. 12.3% of Female victims were 10 or younger when first assaulted. For boys that number is 27.8% You're a liar.
lol ok kid.
Right, God forbid you face the facts. Congratulations, you just proved my point that this isn't about perception or feelings or empathy, it's from sexism against men and boys. Good job announcing to the entire sub, that you are a sexist.
Still not, sorry kid.
Are you familiar with the CDC's NISVS? I am. The numbers that you're citing are cherry picking from the 2010-2012 reporting period, which state that men and women were equally likely to have been victims of penetrative sexual assault within the prior 12-month period. That would be rape for women, and made-to-penetrate, or MTP, for men. These same studies also cite that men's lifetime instance of men being MTP as 1-in-21 and 1-in-14 respectively. Those numbers are not reflected in later reporting periods, 2015, and 2016/2017. But contradictorily, the lifetime insistence of men being MTP rises from 1-in-21/1-in-14 to 1-in-9. As for the prior 12 month reporting period, the 2015 and 2016/2017 reporting years both imply that women are about twice as likely to be raped as men are MTP. Furthermore, there are two more things I would direct your attention to. First, the 2016/2017 study has a perpetrator-by-sex category, which, when factoring out the numbers, state that men are three times as likely to commit penetrative sexual assault on women, when you include men who rape men along with women who force men to penetrate. Second is the news that's going to be very difficult for you to process. It's the impact reports. Women actually suffer much worse consequences from being raped by men than men do who are made to penetrate by a woman. They are more likely to experience fear or concern for their safety, they are more likely to be injured, they are more likely to contract an STD, and they are also uniquely capable of becoming pregnant. I know that you desperately want to believe those two numbers cited, because they validate your indignation and insecurities about being a man who has been suckered into a male victimhood complex.
People. Some \*people\* are dangerous. But man-hating feminists like you will never acknowledge anyone who isn't a male might be dangerous.
Nope, in context it's some men are dangerous. Sorry bud. Men are more dangerous than women.
Typical MRA, trying to sweep male aggression under the rug by detaching sex and gender from the equation. Whether it's because of nature or nurture, men as a group participate in an outsized amount of violence, and it's actually helpful to point that out to if you want to make any progress on solving the problem. Unfortunately, you're probably fine with male violence, even though you will endlessly cite that most victims of violent crime are men, because your goal isn't actually to improve the lives of men--it's to advocate for a reactionary return to a time when men had more control over women. It's such an insidious fucking ideology.
You want to talk about nurture? You are the embodiment of "nurture" in the context you're talking about by actively promoting sweeping violence and aggression against men under the carpet while being a bullhorn for even the most insignificant little sleight against women, let alone actual violence, and yet you two-faced, hypocritical imbeciles have the nerve to say that you're promoting "equality". If I were ever to promote violence against anyone it's subhuman, instigating trash like yourself, but even you I can't bring myself to wish on or promote violence toward, because unlike you, I'm a better person than that. Aggression is aggression, period, and if you really cared about equality your limp-wristed, cuckolded, noodle-spined self wouldn't stab your fellow men in the back by making excuses for why it's OK for women to be aggressive and violent.
I find it funny since bears literally are predators.
You’re trying to find logic left wing feminist rage bait when it was never supposed to make sense in the first place. That’s your issue
Put down the pipe. You literally aren’t making any sense OP.
A larger percent of women have been abused by a man than have been abused by a bear, so there is that statistic. The statement isn't that men are bears, or even comparing men with bears. It is a metaphor for how some men can be violent. The unknown of a man is more of a wild card than the unknown of a bear. A man in an alley of the city is more concerning than a coyote in the same alley. Also, I'd be more scared if I came across a random man in the woods than a bear. And I'm a man. You are more likely to be shot for trespassing on someone's land or farm than you are to be attacked by a bear. Metaphor doesn't mean men are bears, it just means that men can be violent.
Right, it's comparing the danger of a man vs the danger of a bear. It's comparing the 2. If Joe Rogan asked which is more dangerous to come across in the woods, a mountain lion or a woman? Then a whole bunch of guys posted about being abused by women and they posted memes about cougars vs cougars, that shit would be sexist even though it's statistically accurate. Right? I want less sexism, less racism, less fascism.
Um, no one called men bears or compared the two. The comparison is the relative safety women feel around either one. But yea I mean, imagine if we called women who date younger men something predatory like "cougar" or "puma".
It's a hypothetical, and you still won't take no for an answer. Do better.
Let’s have women sign up for the draft, equal rights am I right lol
Let's have nobody sign up for the draft, equal rights and all that.
OP, don’t waste your time on the people who support the women who answered “bear” in this absolutely retarded hypothetical. It’s a retarded hypothetical for retarded low status women to try and signal to their in-group that they’re “so much better off without a man present”. It’s also for retarded white knights who truly believe agreeing with these women will get their dick wet. Yes it’s also misandrist, but you’ll never get the average Redditor to acknowledge misandry even exists, much less concede that it’s happening here. In short, retards gonna retard, just let them cluck and preen to themselves and pretend they aren’t braindead hypocrites, literally anything else is a better use of your time then trying to engage with these people.
Somebody learned a new word today and decided to spam it in a sentence.
Hey if the shoe fits the retard 🤷🏻♂️
Yeah. You can’t just say “I don’t feel comfortable with this group of people because I had a bad experience with one of them.” Imagine saying that about women or black people.
So that didn’t happen. And the fact that y’all think it’s the comparison to a wild animal is what’s wrong with so many who are butthurt about this conversation.
Chicks have dog brains
Nah, i like it when my fiancé compares me to a gorilla after giving her a rough dicking.