“b-but bears are actually dangerous!” Shut the hell up.
can we just drop this stupid joke that many missed the point of? its getting real annoying real fast. people suck, get over yourselves.
This topic keeps coming up because people keep talking past each other. There is a real, measured, evidence backed problem. The victims are saying “I feel this way, and it causes me to behave this way” and those who are neither victims nor perpetrators are upset about the way they are choosing to express that in a general sense. Now this meme itself is not more helpful than the bear, it didn’t give any new information. But it’s a good expression of that general frustration when no one listens. At least on Lemmy, there is a certain defensive response rather than an understanding empathetic one on this topic. This meme in particular seems harsh, but it’s driven by decades of talking about this, or not being able to talk about this, because the response is always so negative. Everything from “why did you dress that way” to “you should have know before you married them” to “not only women” (yes but that’s the topic at hand so). I would hope that some can come to understand this sentiment. I hope that this community improves.
.
If we could just add one more line at the bottom: “but men’s feelings ARE important”, then I think we’d be on the right path.
Or just replace the whole thing with
"dont assault anyone.
physically, mentally or emotionally.
Man, woman, or in between."
It would get zero upvotes because everyone agrees with that statement.
The problem with the bear thing is it was always about feelings, not safety. Men’s and women’s feelings. Perceptions of safety.
Well upvotes ARE the most important thing.
I’m a woman (a trans one if that matters to you) and have experienced sexual assault and domestic violence from both men and women.
I know the point that people are trying to make with the whole bear thing.
But I think the friction comes from women talk about this as a theoretical to make a point, where men are thinking more literally.
And I do belive that no one in there right mind, if actually given this option in real life, would pick a bear (unless maybe it was definitely one of the more harmless species).
Each and every one of us, even those of us that have survived SA, have had countless uneventful interactions with men you don’t know. Even when it’s just one on one. And its mostly normal biases that makes us remember the shitty ones more. And something a lot of people forget is that the vast majority of SA victims already know their assailant, so the idea of a rando assaulting you is even less likely. So yes I would much rather be in the woods with a man, than a wild fucking animal. And if you’re a reasonable person, then you would too.
Honestly I think it depends more on the guy than the bear. Any time you’re alone in the woods (at least in the US) it’s safe to assume you’re with a bear, that’s where they live. Most bears keep to themselves though.
People tend to be less low-key, and less predictable. To me it seems more likely that a random guy could follow you around, take your stuff, or generally make life more difficult. There’s also a higher chance for a guy to assist you and make things easier, but I can understand how the potential risk could outweigh the potential benefits.
Nono you’re not allowed to judge the man individually. You’re required to judge before you see both the man and bear so that we get a properly over-essentialised judgement how else are we going to propagate in- / out-group divisions.
As a trans woman who has also been sexually assaulted, it has more to do for me with what danger is more real to me. I’ve experienced zero bear attacks. Nobody I know has experienced a bear attack. Why would I fear one? Of course, consciously yeah, I know a bear is dangerous, but I have no real world experience to back that assumption up.
Men though? Yeah, I’ve been sexually assaulted by men. I’ve been physically assaulted by men. I’ve had family and friends who’ve been physically and sexually assaulted by men. That danger is real to me. I know that if a man I don’t know is nearby me he could do those things to me, and I have the real world experience to prove that assumption correct (the assumption that they could, not the assumption that they would.)
Therefore, of course I’m more scared of the man than the bear. And of course I’d choose the bear over the man. I don’t care if it’s the wrong choice, I’ll take my chances to not have to relive that trauma, even if it means risking my life. Not like I’ll have time to regret that decision if the bear decides to kill me. Probably. And most women I know when asked expressed the same sentiment in different words. We’re more scared of men than bears, but that doesn’t mean we literally think men are more dangerous than bears.
Is it the logical choice to pick the bear? Probably not, but humans are not logical creatures. I’d rather make the wrong choice than the scary choice.I’d rather make the wrong choice than the scary choice.
Unrelated to the topic, but this mindset is exactly why far-right movements are getting so strong right now.
I agree. I never said it was a good mindset. Therapy is definitely something we need to learn to deal with this and think logically. The issue is so absurdly many women have been traumatized by men that the mental health support systems would be so overloaded that it’s just a fact that only a miniscule fraction of women would ever be able to receive help, even if we had absolutely perfect support systems.
So the only solution is to prevent them from getting traumatized in the first place. But the entirety of Lemmy seems really resistant to that conversation. Would rather quote statistics about “oh the average man isn’t likely to assault you” than to accept that the ones who do are dealing enough damage that the problem needs to be dealt with regardless of what the average man is doing.
This is a great look into the mindset of someone who’s been through SA. Thanks for sharing.
The point I think a lot of men are trying to make is that: In the same way that somebody who commits SA may have been abused themselves, women who are prejudiced against men create a new victim. Treating a harmless man as worse than a dangerous animal is an experience that most every man goes through and that sucks.
I can understand and sympathize with your position. But it doesn’t absolve you of your behavior. Just like someone who commits SA isn’t off the hook because they were beaten as a child and that screwed them up. I feel for someone who was abused growing up, but they don’t get to throw up their hands and say it’s not their fault they victimize others. Compassion is crucial, but at the end of the day, everyone is responsible for their own actions.
But what’s going on here isn’t something within the control of most people. When you’re abused by somebody you don’t choose to fear those people, you fear them because that’s what your brain is wired to do to avoid repeated trauma. Like I said, therapy is the solution, but only part of the solution. The other part is fixing the issue causing the trauma in the first place. Men aren’t being victimized by the women who fear them, they’re being victimized by the other men who caused that fear.
And I want to be clear, because I’ve realized at this point that this isn’t obvious anymore in today’s world, fear is not an excuse for misandry. At the same time, fear of men is not misandry. Somebody saying they’d rather pick the bear should be met with “oh, we should fix the issue causing them to fear men more than bears,” not “oh, they should fear bears more.”
I also want to be clear that this isn’t even a gendered issue despite the fact that it’s been made into one. A man who’s been abused by women and would rather pick the bear should also be met with compassion and “how can we reduce the number of female abusers?” I’ve actually been abused by women too. In fact, more often than I have men. I want to be clear that even though this discussion has been about men specifically, I feel the exact same way about women. That we still need to be compassionate to their victims and accept that the people who traumatized them are the problem, not their trauma.
Fearing somebody is not an action you perform, it’s a state you’re in.You seem incredibly well adjusted for what you’ve been through and clearly you’ve learned a lot from your life experience. Thanks for laying all that out. It was very insightful. I think we agree on 99% of this. So at the risk of splitting hairs, I’m going to put a magnifying glass on that last 1%.
I think fear absolutely victimizes people. I’ve seen xenophobia and homophobia do plenty of damage. Men are far from a disenfranchised minority and I think the issue of women’s safety is much more pressing than men being treated unfairly in some situations. But it still shouldn’t happen.
You’re right that in a way it’s the fault of the dangerous men who abuse women. But in a way, hypothetically, it’s really the fault of their parents who sexually assaulted them. But in a way it’s the fault of their parents genetics that made them mentally unstable, etc, etc all the way back to the first multicellular organism. This thinking, however true, isn’t very useful. People need to take responsibility for their own actions.
We agree fear is not an excuse for misandry. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for women to fear men after having a traumatic experience. However I can still point out the problem here. I think a good example is the trolley problem. If you pull the lever to only kill one person instead of six, I can both: agree with your decision but also point out that you killed someone. You can argue that’s insensitive to your difficult dilemma, but I think it’s worse to pretend like someone isn’t getting hurt. That one person who died still was a life with people who will mourn them.
I think what’s irking men about this whole bear thing is not that the result is not what they want or even what they expect. It’s that a huge chunk of people seem to not even see it as a problem that most men are being judged for something they have nothing to do with.
I’ve never been shot or held at gunpoint, but I have have the shit kicked out of me. But still if given the option to face a person with a gun and a person with the bare hands. I don’t think I’m going to pick the the guy with a gun.
There’s a serious difference in the level of trauma between these examples, and the level of exposure to the dangers of the counter. Sexual trauma is a hell of a lot more scarring on your psyche than simply being beaten. In addition, at least in the US we’re exposed to gun violence every day as opposed to basically never for bear attacks. Even in other countries with better gun control, you’re dramatically more likely to hear about somebody being shot than you are to hear about somebody being mauled by a bear. Not only that, but it’s really easy to process “get shot, you’re dead.” It’s not as easy to make yourself believe you’re definitely gonna be killed by an animal that has whole guides written on how to survive them.
Those two things combined make your example far from comparable. In addition, I’m not saying in any way that the fear is justified nor that no attempt should be made to fix it, what I’m trying to point out us that people don’t realize how intense a fear it really is when they get offended at people making this choice.Obviously, therapy is important to learning how to handle that fear and think more logically, but if every woman who needs it sought therapy for this, there just aren’t enough therapists in the entire world to handle the load. Not even close. So a bigger part of the solution is, y’know, making sure women aren’t getting traumatized in the first place. But everybody here wants to skip that part for some reason.
Sexual trauma is a hell of a lot more scarring on your psyche than simply being beaten.
Very hard disagree.
You’re free to disagree, but for me and many others, I’ve been through both, and I’m definitely waaaay more scared of being sexually assaulted again than being beaten half to death again. They have very different effects on your psyche. Physical violence I react far more with anger than fear, even if I was terrified in the moment. When it looks like it’s happening again, my brain says “Fight back.” When I’m afraid of sexual trauma being relived, my brain says “Escape, now. Can’t escape? Submit. Maybe that way they won’t kill you too at least.”
How about you Google the man who’s face was eaten by bear and then decide
How about you miss the entire point and get aggressive for no reason?
Seriously, what kind of response to “I’ve been traumatized by men” is “you should traumatized by bears too?”
👍
(This is me being glib) It depends on what kind of bear we’re talking about. Blackbear be big noisy and confusing, grizzly play dead, big hairy gay guy like best case scenario.
it makes me happy that this is near the top of this thread, but this comment is also only 15 minutes old, so i’m not sure how far down the pipeline of this post, it’ll track.
Most bears would just walk away from you when you make a loud noise. Men would approach you. So even I as a man, would pick a bear
Men’s feelings is what makes some of them unsafe to begin with.
We can’t address safety concerns of women without addressing the thinking of men, and trying to shut men up a little harder is not gonna help.
love how this post is turning this fascinating thought experiment (which a lot of people don’t seem to understand very well)
and turning it into correlation, not even causation of correlation, this is literally just taking two random things and smashing them together lmao.
there are so many variables to how this can be interpreted that make this a very difficult to comprehend statement.
It’s nice to change the subjects of racist phrases to get a free dunk on a lot of people that are cool to hate now.
Feel however you want, but don’t drag me into the what other people have done. I don’t deserve the prejudice, and I’d rather just not interact with you.
People’s safety is more important than people’s feelings.
dsfgasfsaf
Are you really all lives mattering this post rn? God damn dude. I hope every person in your life belittles every problem you personally have by telling you that tons of people have that problem.
BLM, no sarcasm.
all lives matter amirite /s
BLM, no sarcasm.
the bureau of land management is on some shit istg
this statement is funny to me, because linguistically, safety is a relatively “felt” concept. We “feel” exposed in a massive open field, and we “feel” safe inside of a building, because we are no longer exposed in a massive wide open field.
In some aspects, physical safety is a thing, but given the context of this thread here, i think it’s probably appropriate to say that it’s actually the feeling of safety here, that matters more than anything. And as a result, this makes the statement a non starter.
Because to some degree, that feeling of safety, is based on well… Feelings, and if feelings are somehow less important than the safety that those feelings are capable of deriving, than how are you supposed to experience safety?
Physical safety or psychological safety?
That gives me feelings of “All lives matter” which minimized the issues of black people. Can you explain why this is different?
BLM, no sarcasm.
It’s not, this tread is filled with Incels.
Some people seriously can’t hold any conversation about sexism without introducing the word “incel” for the sake of it.
I wonder, can that be cured?
Found the incel
Got his ass
alright that’s enough for today
Except one has built in meaning and the other is a simple meme made by one person with an oversimplified idea used likely to stir up people considering all the discussions happening about bears or whatever.
dsfgasfsaf
It’s disingenuous all the way down
Indeed. It strikes me as pointlessly gendered. All people, safety is more important than feelings.
you know what else is pointlessly gendered? the patriarchyfeminist messaging has to be gendered because the patriarchy is a gender issue.
that said, feminism is for everybody. liberating women from oppressive structures by nature does the same for men.
If it’s not gendered and is for everybody, that isn’t that just the original statement? That safety is for everybody? That seems rather circular.
But I think I get what you’re saying. We focus on lifting up women, and everyone benefits.
If this weren’t gendered I’m not sure I would connect that this was posted as result of people’s reaction to the bears vs men thing.
The whole thing was meant to be rage bait.
or it’s purposefully gendered in response to the man vs bear thing
Which is also rage bait
Even then it’s contradictory. Men wouldn’t be upset about being chosen over a bear and women wouldn’t be safe if the bear was chosen, so in that specific context it’s nonsensical.
What wat? What do you want to know?
Most bears don’t seek out and attack women, but many men do. One of those happens far more often than the other, and you’re either uninformed or willfully ignorant about that fact.
Yet another exhibit of people not knowing anything about bears. If bears and women had anywhere near the same amount of interactions as men and women, maulings would be up by a percentage with an alarming number of zeroes. This is like the literal equivalent to the Face Eating Leopard Party supporters being surprised that the Leopards are eating their faces.
Yeah this meme as well as the original bear one were meant to be divisive and make people angry. That’s the point of these kinds of memes, they’re not really meant to be intelligent, they’re meant to stir up drama and make people fight.
And all lives matter, right? How else can we commandeer this conversation?
BLM, no sarcasm.
You spelled it wrong, the sign should say “Safety is more important than feelings”
elaborate?
Everyone’s safety is more important than anyone’s feelings.
yeah this is something I can get behind
You agree with the post, why change it?
Imagine if the police brutality movement was called “Black Lives Matter More Than White People’s Need To Oppress”. It’s working a needless insult into the message.
I’d also be okay with other phrases highlighting how safety is a bigger topic for women than men realize, but not one that makes assumptions about “all men”. Even if I was a guy who largely hated the actions of my own gender, you think you’ll get 50% of the world on board by doing that?
Black lives do matter more than white supremacy, which precipitates in a perceived “need” to oppress. That is in fact a very poignant statement of what critical race theory is.
You are on the wrong side of history trying to tone police how women express that they are unsafe.
Even if a statement is truthful, it can be demeaning and misleading.
“Ripping a puppy’s guts out is a very bad thing - so take it under advisement that you should not do that.”
That’s a ridiculous statement that says something truthful and slyly forms the expectation of blame for an issue on a person. Many men have been violent to women - and many whites have oppressed black people. But twisting the wording to generalizing the group makes people feel like it’s directed personally, and forms a psychological barrier to any response.
You’re even doing it in this comment about “wrong side of history” - I’ve done nothing to discourage women being vocal about their safety problems; just the pushing of blame to a group that’s too broad, especially since men need to be in that conversation about stopping sexual violence and encouraging safer spaces if we want actual change.
I’ve done nothing to discourage women being vocal about their safety problems
By participating in this conversation and telling women how best to express their experiences the moment they speak up, like it or not, you are doing precisely that.
Does the sign say “all men”? If it did, would it matter? This is the most engagement I’ve ever seen on Lemmy regarding the issue of women’s safety, sorry you don’t approve of it.
To use more inclusive language, of course. That’s what we’re all doing now isn’t it?
Then the post wouldn’t have meaning because that’s a universally agreed upon moral sentiment on its face. The post is targeting people who would rather take offense to recent discourse rather than slowing down and considering how this moral sentiment applies to the situation. Without specifying ‘women’ and ‘men’ the post would not have contextual meaning.
You’re free to make your own ‘inclusive’ meme that states the obvious, but the people this meme is targeted toward would see it as obvious and not consider how it pertains to their behavior.
It has the exact same meaning with the inclusive wording, without being adversarial for absolutely no reason. It would work just as well when said to a man getting butthurt over women choosing the bear.
The wording in the OP is hateful, even if it is saying something morally correct. This is not a “Black Lives Matter” vs “All Lives Matter” situation.
That is exactly the situation. No part of this post is hateful; it’s adversarial because women expressed a justified fear and men just “disagreed” because they don’t like to think about it. The point is to be controversial yet morally correct as a statement. It would absolutely not work just as well if it was inclusive, people would just agree with it and no one would care.
Do you disagree with the statement? It doesn’t sound like you do. What’s the issue? Who is harmed by this post?
and what do we do if somehow safety becomes intertwined into feelings?
What happens then?
You become trauma bonded
mhm see, that makes sense. But i was speaking with regards to the hypothetical presented here specifically.
I… What? The hypothetical that some kind of saw game show makes women actually choose? If the feelings are intertwined with safety, you become trauma bonded. Then die or run. Because safety is more important than feelings
ok so in the hypothetical presented here the entirety of feelings is less important than safety, yes?
If so, than feelings that are influencing your understanding/feeling of safety, are completely invalid and null in this case. Because again, feelings are less important than safety, but the problem here is trauma bonding influences your understanding of safety, with feelings. But those feelings literally do not exist in this example, so that entire field is of null value at this specific moment in the hypothetical.
Safety would quite literally only be dependent on the statistical analysis capability of the individual if feelings are no longer present. Unless of course this statement is written incredibly poorly and does not explain the position it holds properly. In which case, you should probably be more specific.
My point here is that this statement makes little sense, given that feelings often influence the feeling of safety, ironic really. While physical safety is an isolated and quantifiable fact. I.E. a knife can cut you, you should be careful with it. The felt safety is not something that can be quantified and understood, since it’s based on emotions, and we don’t understand how those work particularly well. But what we do understand is how they influence each other. I.E. feelings can often result in feeling unsafe due to many different reasons. But since feelings in this case, do not matter more than safety does it’s possible that we can delete the entire notion of “felt safety” since physical safety is a quantifiable concept.
Of course the feelings could matter, but that would be rather silly wouldnt it? Given that the entire statement here hinges off of the fact that “feelings don’t matter” in comparison to safety, that is.
It feels like you are making a logic knot only for yourself so you then can solve it? I am sure there is something you can gain from understanding that, what is meant here. But I don’t follow your semantic reasoning, I mean… What is put up is that, when your feelings say one thing, but your brain knows another way, and it’s related to safety, you shouldn’t follow your feelings. It’s ofc extremely generalised advice but from an old man, trust me it’s truer than you think. Listen to your brain if it tells you something is dangerous, even if your heart says woohoo. Just in general, that’s super solid advice
This is specifically about the bear meme though. Way too many men feel personally attacked by women not feeling safe around men they don’t know. Instead of thinking about why that is the men cry and attack the women.
Why? The sign seems fine to me.
Because thereal’s version is welcoming and non discriminatory, and the meme is antagonistic by design
Yes, it is antagonistic. But is it bad to be antagonistic to people who think that men’s feelings are more important that women’s safety?
Yeah, ok, with this response and your other one, I’m blocking you now
The thing is, I’ve seen statements like this before. Except when I heard it, it was being used to justify ignoring women’s experiences and feelings in regard to things like sexual harassment and feeling unsafe, since that’s “just a feeling” as well. It wasn’t okay then, and it’s not okay the other way around. The truth is that feelings do matter, on both sides. Everyone should feel safe and welcome in their surroundings. And how much so that is, is reflected in how those people feel.
The outcome of men feeling being respected and women feeling safe are not mutually exclusive. The sad part is that someone who is reading this here is far more likely to be an ally than a foe, yet the people who need to hear the intended message the most will most likely never hear it nor be bothered by it. There’s a stick being wedged here that is only meant to divide, and oh my god is it working.
The original post about bears has completely lost all meaning and any semblance of discussion is lost because the metaphor is inflammatory by design - sometimes that’s a good thing, to highlight through absurdity. But metaphors are fragile - if it’s very likely to be misunderstood or offensive, the message is lost in emotion. Personally I think this metaphor is just highly ineffective at getting the message across, as it has driven people who would stand by the original message to the other side due to the many uncharitable interpretations it presents. And among the crowd of reasonable people are those who confirm those interpretations and muddy the water to make women seem like misandrists, and men like sexual assault deniers. This meme is simply terrible and perhaps we can move on to a better version of it that actually gets the message across well, instead of getting people at each other’s throat.
Yes, feelings matter. Beautifully put.
But nobody is purposefully “wedging a stick” between allies and enemies. No secret society is plotting to prevent you from sending any message of safety. The metaphor is not designed, or created for a specific purpose. You have to realise how crazy and for real dangerous this way of agumenting is.
You aim for a good purpose, then use basically the debate version of biological weapons of mass destruction to make your point.
Just for any small argument about a small thing between sexes, like always it’s fun for people to discuss, and some get mad, but
For you to use the narrative of psy ops, learned no doubt subconsciously, to speak like there is a secret cabal that want you to be fearful, we must unite against some kind of expression just because they are coming for you… No
If anyone takes it too far it’s talk like that, and you unironically talk about how reasonable people are hard to come by
Gee
Wonder why that is brother
But nobody is purposefully “wedging a stick” between allies and enemies.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
There are plenty systems that are not controlled by a cabal, yes
Just because noone sets out to do a thing on purpose, individually, as a group, organically, conspiratorially, whatever, doesn’t mean that the resulting system of action does not act with a particular purpose in the wider system.
Life, for example, has the purpose of hastening the heat death of the universe: We reduce entropy locally and to do that increase the rate of entropy increase in the wider universe. It’s what we do. It’s our purpose, as far as the universe is concerned, whether we like it or not, whether we intend to or not, whether we are aware of it or not, whether we try to or not.
These kinds of memes (bear, worm, what have you) have a particular impact. That impact is their purpose. If you don’t like the impact I suggest advocating against the practice instead of saying “but nobody meant to”. Have some Goethe.
Purpose implies intent more than outcome. I agree with your overall stance but think something like “result” would be more effective. Calling it the “purpose” makes a similar accusation to anyone who wants to have this debate to what it itself is making about men in general, which will just increase the divide. I don’t think you’re deliberately trying to do that, but I think it could end up being the result.
Your overall point does capture how this whole thing has made me feel. Even as someone who didn’t get offended, understands what women who would “prefer the bear” are actually saying and doesn’t think I’m owed any attention from anyone that doesn’t want to give it to me, the only thing this meme makes me want to do is disengage even more. And a younger version of me would have really resented being made to feel like my mere presence was offensive or scary.
It’s a system thinking heuristic. The reason “purpose” is used instead of result is a) “the result of a system is what it does” doesn’t actually make sense, as systems aren’t events in time but, well, systems which have non-negligible timespans – it sounds something like “what is the result of a dishwasher” – I dunno, what is it doing? Is it standing there? Short-circuiting and on fire? Washing dishes? All that is part of what “a dishwasher” is, does, and therefore, its purpose in the grand scheme of things. And b) precisely to stop people trying to find purpose in motives, intentions, etc, to go with a materialistic instead of idealist interpretation of things. To quote Beer: “There is no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it constantly fails to do.” The purpose of prisons is to rehabilitate? Well maybe in some countries, in other countries no matter what the stated intent is their purpose is to be a place where people can get degrees in how to do crime.
Exactly, which is why your rhetoric is damaging
No it’s not and that’s a terrible way to view the world.
Are you the same idiot who argued with me before because he thought he’d found the Word of God in this random philosophical exercise?
Edit: nope, different moron. I wonder why this silly thing is making the idiot rounds lately? It’s like when a 19 year old has their first philosophy 101 class and thinks they’ve gained supreme knowledge of how the world works.
It’s systems thinking and if you think it’s terrible then because it’s terribly good at getting rid of excuses. “Oh but you see the intent of the prison system is to reduce crime, never mind it doing the opposite, move along, nothing to see because intent is all that matters”.
Yes, it’s a thought exercise, not a tautology. And it’s not a great thought exercise either, because people of low intellect apparently assume it’s a tautology because of how it’s worded.
It’s not a thought exercise but a modelling discipline.
Those are more or less synonymous.
I can tell you’ve been huffing too much philosophy because you insist on weird hair splitting like this lol
You’re right, feelings do matter, and this post did not dispute that. It’s just that safety matters more.
It saddens me that the default interpretation of this is accusatory and requiring of defense. Not to personally blame you, this is very common and clearly a systemic reaction, but I don’t know enough psychology/politics/sociology to understand why, just enough to know it’s bad.
It saddens me that the default interpretation of this is accusatory
It’s saying men are inherently unsafe to be around. How is that not accusatory?
This isn’t about women’s safety versus men’s feelings, it’s about women’s feelings (of safety) versus men’s feelings (of respect).
But it doesn’t say that
But it doesn’t say you personally are unsafe, it says that the odds that a man chosen at random is unsafe is high enough that women - understandably - fear being left alone with a random stranger to a level at least comparable with being left alone with a bear.
An enormous number of men fail to understand just how common and how terrifying it is for women to be harassed, assaulted and raped by men. And that is exactly what the bear/man hyperbole is pointing out.
And the reason people with takes like yours get chewed out for it is because you could do some reflection and consider
what is this systemic issue, what behaviours might make women around me scared, what can we as a society do to change this, and what can I do to avoid women around me fearing I may be unsafe?
But instead, they take it as a personal attack, and so respond
why am I being attacked for someone else’s behaviour?
Edit: here’s another example in a similar format to demonstrate how the meme is being misinterpreted, note how your first response wouldn’t be “why are you accusing all priests?!”
“Who would you rather babysit your child, a bear or a Catholic priest?”
It’s what it says to me and many of us. Perhaps it’s the messaging.
What do you mean what behaviors? I don’t harass women. I barely talk to people I don’t know. But yet people are still scared of me.
And I would 100% pick a catholic priest. What a dumb choice. And, yeah, you are accusing everyone.
I clearly said: it’s not targeted at you specifically, but at that fact that women are disproportionately more likely to be harassed or assaulted, and when that happens, the aggressor is almost exclusively men.
They’re not scared of you because you’re personally scary, they’re scared of you because there’s an ingrained culture of sexual harassment of women by men. So when you say “that’s a nice dress” to a woman you don’t know, she’s not thinking “aww cute”, she’s thinking “is this guy being nice, or will they threaten me if I turn them down?”
Seriously, ask literally any woman you know if they’ve ever been sexually harassed, and the answer is almost guaranteed to be yes.
I would 100% pick a Catholic priest
Yes, I know that, that’s how hyperbole works. My point is that such a statement shouldn’t be interpreted as “every priest is a child molester” but as “there’s a concerningly high rate of them, and they’re probably not a good option for childcare.”
You are accusing everyone
When did I say “all men are <whatever you’re saying I’m accusing all men of>?” Stop making this about you, and actually try to understand why interactions with men can be terrifying for women.
If you are not targeting all men, stop talking about men as one generalized body.
Sorry, when you say “I’d rather encounter a bear than a man” it sure as hell sound like you are saying all men are dangerous. If that isn’t what you are saying, you are saying it poorly.
I disagree. Clearly the meme is highly effective. It brought a topic that ought to be in the light back into the light. Considering the frequency of SA, this should be something that people are considering how to handle on a regular basis, but that’s not what you see if you watch the news, listen to the city council, or talk with the school board.
Your opening paragraph sounds similar to the expression “All lives matter.” It didn’t sound like you wrote that ironically.
And the final paragraph is classic heckler’s veto. Two sides disagree, and rather than talk about the serious issue, you make a comment about how people should all try to get along better by speaking in less aggressive terms. But the underlying problem is not about aggressive speech. It’s about aggressive action. So maybe we can focus on that.
Clearly the meme is highly effective.
It was highly contagious, that is, it spread widely. But so was the whole “would you still love me if I were a worm” thing and it was “effective” for the same reason: Gals thought “Oh I want a ‘yes’ to that answer that’d be so emotionally satisfying” and guys thought “WTF why would I want a worm if there’s something more behind it why can’t my SO speak plain English”: It spread by exploiting the emotional kick gals get out of tripping over guys for having a particular default interpretation. No, it is not a “wrong” interpretation to think of the question as “rather with a bear or a man like me”. If you don’t want men to interpret the question like that then pose it differently. Simple as that. But then it wouldn’t be as inflammatory and with that not as contagious.
Each and every time one of these things comes around one of two things happens for the average guy: We a) fall right into a trap and then get accused of being insensitive or b) we recognise the trap, lift our hands, walk back slowly, then faster, then even faster, until making a go at the 10km parcour world record. Because yes that kind of shit is a giant red flag.
It’s like those people who are proud of being “brutally honest” but in reality what they care about is not the truth, but the brutality, just from the other side of the gender distribution.
Best take in this thread by a long shot. I’d like to add that there’s nothing wrong with a little thought experiment to illicit a point. But the internet has become such an inhospitable place to any kind of discussion requiring nuance and patience.
Honestly I am so goddamn tired of this shit, everytime something like the bear question comes up it blatantly tilted in one side or the others favor and dissent is crushed in both sets of spaces and no one learns anything.
That’s quite the universal statement. I think first and foremost, men need to learn that they might not be part of the problem, but that there are many very problematic ones among us.
The feeling of general suspicion is what we need to tackle. If you don’t grasp the problems and their magnitude, you will naturally take offense in being suspected.
We need to take this feeling and turn it into anger towards the disgraceful people that are the reason for the suspicion.
So on the contrary, I think men’s feelings actually matter a lot, if you want to reach a world free of misogyny and violence against women.
Here’s my hot take on all this:
Fellas, it’s not that your feelings don’t matter, everyone’s feelings matter, it’s that your feelings don’t matter more than the safety of others.
You’re getting mad at the wrong shit here. You’re mad at the women for not wanting to be stuck in a forest with a random dude, when in all actual fact, that decision was borne from a plethora of experience with random dudes, most of that experience being negative.
Almost all of that negativity is because there’s to fucking many creepy ass dudes making us all look bad. To be blunt, I have high hopes, and expectations from my fellow man; especially when it comes to respecting women. Yes, there’s a nontrivial number of crazy bitches out there, in the same breath, there’s a lot of crazy dudes too. They’re making us all look bad. Be mad at them.
The women are only making the best decision for their own health and safety, based on their experience. Be the change you want to see in the world, my brothers. Be that change.
It’s this sexist statement still being made? Cool, cool, cool… I mean it’s not actually, but here we are with this crap still being said.
When people justify racism with statistics: That’s stupid and you’re a bigot
When people justify sexism with statistics: Only one side’s feelings matter! I’m going to post this divisive meme everywhere!1!
Edit Sexists know how to downvote, but not present a logical argument.
Stay tuned for the next “men suck” cycle: ‘toxic masculinity is bad you should express your feelings instead of bottling them’, more after the break
This rage bait is so old the Simpsons parodied it:
“Today’s topic…”
