You must log in or register to comment.
The bear is honest, either it eats you or it fucks off. The bear would never pretend to be friendly to gain your trust, or pretend to fuck off and instead stalk you for days. I can more accurately surmise a bears intentions than i can for any random man because all the bear could possibly want out of me is a meager amount of food.
Men getting angry about this are being upset by the possibility that they could potentially be considered threatening, by a completely uninformed third party nonetheless. And their chosen recourse is to demonstrate threatening behavior.
Some men are real snowflakes tbh
I’m a man and I endorse this message.
One thing about being a man is other men drop their guards around you and say the things they believe about their roles regarding women and masculinity. In my experience, most men are fine. Many are confused about who they are and their place in the world but do their best to be good people. Other men are just rotten, selfish, and/or broken people for many reasons. They’re often victims of abuse who perpetuate that abuse.
Some, though, are also confused and do their best, but what their best looks like is informed by people like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson. They believe women are somehow subhuman and that treating them as such is natural, right, and good. They believe in a social hierarchy and that might makes right. These are the men to worry about. The bad men I mentioned before generally know they’re bad or are broken enough that one can notice. These guys, though, appear normal but will absolutely fuck you over to get what they believe they deserve, all the while patting themselves on the back for being such an upstanding person who is “just enforcing the natural order”.
That’s why I’d also choose the bear.
Ugh. I hate it when some misogynistic asshole assumes I agree with his views on women because I have the same downstairs anatomy as he does. Fuck you and stop “🙄 women…” around me. You’d be the first one to whine about a woman doing the same thing about men.
Animals fear men for a reason. Men’s BO triggers an acute fear response in rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, mice and hamsters. This experiment did require the animal to be sacrificed, hence why it only involves common laboratory animals.
Anyway. They noticed men would underestimate the suffering of a laboratory animal. They already knew that prey animals hide their pain when they are scared. This is to make them less of an easy target for birds of prey to hunt. Because a limping rabbit, is a much easier meal.
The reason why there was a difference in welfare scoring done by men and women, was because this fear response got triggered. They did an experiment where they had shirts be worn by a man, woman or both for 24 hours. Found that the animals didn’t care for smells of women, but feared BO from men. It wasn’t a skill issue, or lack of empathy.
We also find in wolves who are used to humans, that they are more hostile towards strange men than they are towards strange women.
Testosterone is not a friendly hormone. It leads to being easily agitatated in all mammals. The only reason higher levels of androgens in humans, correlates with decreased aggressive behaviour is because when we produce more androgens, we produce more estrogens. Which in turn fascilitate communication between two regions in the brain that determine emotional impulses and whether or not the person acts on it. Hence why men are less aware of their emotions (it’s not just societal influence), more impulsive and more easily agitated/aggressive than women.
With bears you know what you can expect. And there are even things that can be done to save yourself. But with men? You never really know their intentions. It’s why women’s intuition exists at the level it does.
I try to understand your post, and my conclusion is that you arbitrarily chose to abbreviate “body odour”(?) as BO? That’s the only possibility I can think of what it could mean in order for the post to make sense
I don’t think it’s too arbitrary but may be generational and/or regional. I grew up with BO being a common abbreviation used for referring to body odor.
I used to think abbreviation overuse was the result of things like SMS and twitter, but then I found out O. J. Simpson had a nickname “The Juice” long ago, so I guess it’s just an American thing.
OJ was his initials which is also the initials of orange juice, it’s a somewhat creative nickname.
But it wouldn’t be if the initials were not already associated with the drink, hence me realising the thing goes way before the internet.
Yes. Sorry. It was about body odour.
It’s on us as men to call out the bad men. They’re much more likely to listen to us. There’s one memorable time for me where I stepped in and the creep who was going to grope my friend tried bargaining with me about it. Many of them will shirk back when they see another man angry at them.
Remember all the women getting angry about the Pence Rule (never be alone with a woman who isn’t your wife) and some men saying they follow it because it’s a good idea because while most interactions aren’t going to result in false accusations any of them potentially could and the stakes are too high to leave it to chance? Remember all the claims that that is wildly misogynistic?
This bear thing is essentially the same.thing with the genders flipped.
Men need to be better about calling out the shitty misogynists. Because the thing is, misogynists inherently don’t care about women calling them out. When another man tells them to check themselves and shut the fuck up, they take notice.
I too would prefer the bear, and I say that as a man. My masculinity isn’t threatened by acknowledging there’s creepy men out there.
Yeah you can see that in action in this very thread. Anybody who mentions they’re a woman tends to get downvoted regardless of the actual content of their comment.
Like, homeboy you’re just doing a sexism.
anyone who even for a moment considers ‘bear’ is just showing they have absolutely no real experience in any sort of wild situation. Never choose an encounter with a bear, it is a predator and the apex predator of wherever you are to boot, its a ridiculous exercise meant to rile people up.
with this same argument id 100% take a dinosaur over any woman, because hell, she might knife me when I least expect it, but the allosaurus has a clear motive.
Anyone who is afraid of bears has absolutely no experience in the wild. It might do you some good to actually get that experience in the wild. A hike is much better for your brain than writing a post about how outraged you are that someone “made a ridiculous exercise meant to rile people up”
Being afraid is not the same as being aware of the dangers, I never once said anything about fear.
you definitely are… how did it go?
writing a post about how outraged you are that someone “made a ridiculous exercise meant to rile people up”
maybe you need a hike.
The fact that you don’t understand why women think the bear is safer is exactly why we’re picking it.
Let me spell it out for you - the bear will either kill me and eat me or leave me alone.
The man may try to rape me. And leave me alive with the suffering that results from that rape. And there’s a chance he may impregnate me and in many states in this country, I will not be able to abort it and will have to give birth to it, which is another assault on my body.
I would rather just be eaten. At least in that case the pain ends.
Heres a fun fact for you, Bears are known to eat their prey alive, so no. he wont kill you and eat you, it will be the other way around. so you will live the rest of your very, very short life being eaten alive by an apex predator.
It will still eventually end.
And the fact that you don’t understand this shows me you’re one of those people i never want to meet alone in the woods.i mean, if the baseline here is death, we should be including suicide. Nothing stops you from just killing yourself if you consider the end game to be death. Not that it’s any better. But it’s probably a lot less worse than it previously was.
deleted by creator
This seems like a slight mischaracterisation:
the possibility that they could potentially be considered threatening, by a completely uninformed third party nonetheless.
The statement is actually that the possiblity of men potentially doing something is so high or so severe that the average bear is preferable.
The rest of your post is opinion though, and if you genuinely believe that the average man is more likely to be dangerous than the average bear, I don’t think it’s possible to change your mind
If you genuinely believe that the average man is more likely to be dangerous than then average bear… that’s just statistics.
"The chances of being injured by a bear are approximately 1 in 2.1 million, according to the National Park Service. You are more likely to be killed by a bee than a bear, and way more likely to be killed by another human than by either bear or bee.
And when bear encounters do happen, they are most often nonviolent. Bears are as afraid of you as you are of them, and bears want to avoid humans at all costs. The most common outcome of a bear encounter is that the bear flees." https://www.idausa.org/campaign/wild-animals-and-habitats/bear-attack/
“One in five women in the United States experienced completed or attempted rape during their lifetime.” https://www.nsvrc.org/resource/2500/national-intimate-partner-and-sexual-violence-survey-2015-data-brief-updated-release And that’s not counting all sexual assault, and it’s not counting regular violence, just rape.
If that doesn’t change your mind, I don’t think it’s possible to change your mind because you’re not interested in facts.
Your entire post is inaccurate because it takes into account the frequency of being near a bear. Your chance of being injured by a bear greatly increases as you get near a bear.
The article is just about being in a forest. Not like you’re locked in a room with the bear. As my source says, the bear is likely to avoid you if they see you, so proximity doesn’t really matter.
Thank you for the response. It’s calm and well reasoned. I did some math, and it doesn’t support my position without assumptions, but I’m keeping it because it was effort and I think it’s helpful.
My main argument is that those stats have massive amount of bias due to the amount of men the average woman encounters vs the amount of bears a woman encounters. I think the actual likelihood of being attacked by a man in an encounter vs a bear is still a lot higher on the bear’s side, but I can’t find stats for that. Assuming a woman encounters 1000 different men a year and 1 bear (which I think is fair), changes my math to 0.008% for the bear vs 0.00014% for the man.
Taking UK stats. As I’m most familiar with them. 41 homicides were perpetrated by a strangers in 2023. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2023#the-relationship-between-victims-and-suspects
Male population is 29.2 million as of the latest UK census. https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/demographics/male-and-female-populations/latest/
Do the math assuming all homicides were committed by men. Is a 0.00014% chance of a male killing a stranger.
The US has approx 900,000 wild bears plus maybe another 100,000 brown bears (cannot find a clear source for this). So lets call it an even 1 million. https://wildlifeinformer.com/black-bear-population-by-state/
According to your article on bears, there have been 4 deaths in the last 50 years. So averaging 0.08 deaths a year.
Which is 0.000008% chance of a bear having killed a person that year.
The bear would never pretend to be friendly to gain your trust, or pretend to fuck off and instead stalk you for days. I can more accurately surmise a bears intentions than i can for any random man because all the bear could possibly want out of me is a meager amount of food.
idk, as a man i’ve been toying with the idea of just being threatening at all times. I still don’t know how i feel about it at a philosophical level. But it keeps people away from me, and i don’t like people so.
But on the other hand it’s probably worse than just being a decent person to decent people? I don’t know. Sociology is complicated as fuck dude.
Women here. I too would choose bear. Everytime. I’d rather get ripped apart than take a chance on a strange man.
Don’t blame you, I’d pick the bear too, and I’m a man.
This is the same thing I said but it’s downvoted. The only difference I can tell is that you mentioned you’re a woman.
There’s even other replies saying the same thing, but also specifically mentioning they’re written by a man. They’re not being downvoted en masse.
That’s pretty fucken stupid, huh?
quick edit: except for other guy replying to this, but he’s obviously being too much of an ally to get the upvote treatment, y’all are inconsistent.
The bear is honest, either it eats you or it fucks off. The bear would never pretend to be friendly to gain your trust, or pretend to fuck off and instead stalk you for days. I can more accurately surmise a bears intentions than i can for any random Jew because all the bear could possibly want out of me is a meager amount of food.
Jews getting angry about this are being upset by the possibility that they could potentially be considered threatening, by a completely uninformed third party nonetheless. And their chosen recourse is to demonstrate threatening behavior.
Some Jews are real snowflakes tbh
Incoming “this was just starting a discussion”, “proving my point”, and other thought-terminating misandrist clichés. You can save the effort, I’ve been seeing the same dumb shit for many years.
Yeah I’m not afraid of Jewish people by nature though? You’ve just typed some antisemitic bullshit trying to assert… what exactly?
To show you how hateful your shit is. You are a bigot. Accept it.
Hateful towards who, rapists? Let’s be real explicit with what you’re trying to weasel here.
Now you’re saying all men are rapists? Interesting.
Fucking obviously that’s not what I’m saying, you’re not that dense. Just say #notallmen and start harassing someone else. I didn’t realize I was communicating with an actual clown this whole time.
No, that is what you’re saying. You started with choosing the bear because you said men are dangerous, then when it was shown how hateful what you said is, you refused to acknowledge it and attempted to paint me as an anti-semite despite the fact that all I did was use your words. Now you’re saying you didn’t actually mean all men, you just meant rapists, as if using “men” interchangeably with “rapist” isn’t the core of the whole damn problem in the first place.
This is a Motte-and-Bailey argument and it’s bullshit. You are a hateful bigot. Admit it.
You don’t know anything. There’s a reason that the real name of “bears” is taboo in many cultures. Just the act of saying its true name made the ancients shit their pants in fear of accidently summoning one. Bears are no joke. They kill on a whim. You can’t reason with bears. You can’t plead with bears. Bears are equal opportunity killers. They kill men, women, children, trans, straight, queer, ponybros, attack helicopters all the same. Your only chance is to make yourself appear too much a hassle that they rather go eat something else. Let all these women and men who approve of the OP’s post be tested irl. See if they will sing the same tune.
I’ve been in the woods, alone, with bears in the same woods, countless times, and I clearly haven’t been eaten.
I mean, you even say in your post that being too much of a hassle to eat is all you need to do. Can’t say that any men I’ve ever talked to wanted to have less sex with me when I indicated I’m a hassle to eat.
Yeah I’ve gone hiking. I’m not like going to go pet the bear, I’m going to give it a huge ass berth and be grateful it won’t get angry at me for doing so
You are so whacky a person that this took genuine effort to determine whether or not it’s satire. I know when you typed that up it probably seemed hard hitting and effective, but I’m just imagining someone earnestly saying “You don’t know anything.” as an OPENER and I cannot stop laughing about it.
To me it’s the same as people opening with “No.” and then explaining why the previous person’s statement is flawed. The only time that’s a valid opener is when the previous statement was clearly a yes or no question, otherwise it’s blatantly rude and abrasive. And extremely common on here.
Some men feel the need to prove their masculinity to this woman who’s obviously rage baiting, the rest of us are thanking the bear for taking one for the team.
To be fair, usually women don’t have to be rage baiting at all and still get the same toxic responses. We still have a loooong way to go for real equality. But we’ve also come a fair ways, so keep up the good work! ❤️
This is terrible logic to go by.
If you generalise half the population and insult them then of course people are going to be mad at you.
This is like some boomer saying “All feminists are easily offended lesbians that just like to shout out people”
Then smugly being like “haha you proved my point” when a femininst rightly takes issue with that statement.
Also bears can’t type, which introduces a massive bias during data collection.
Nonsense.
Well they did say “smarter than the average”. Technically true, but must have meant something like… ten standard deviations from the mean.
Are you sure? How many bear caves have you been in? They might all have fiber at this point.
I thought we were all dogs using the internet while out humans are at work.
Yall are dogs to right?
reminds me of this somethingawful ancient meme:
This is also an indicator of the world’s best insult as per the comic Basic Instructions:
“I find you argumentative and easily offended.”
Basically no one is allowed to respond to it.
“Noted.”
“I’m sorry you feel that way. I hope you get the therapy you need some day”
“How you find me has nothing to do with the conservation. Anyway, conditioner is better.”
Can’t a simple answer be: “You’re wrong” ?
If you generalise half the population and insult them then of course people are going to be mad at you.
As a random man I don’t feel insulted by this at all. I would also rather be in the woods with a random bear than a random man. The bear is more predictable in preferring to have nothing to do with me.
I would also rather be in the woods with a random bear than a random man.
Theres literally no way you genuinely believe this right?
I literally expanded on my reasons in the other reply.
There are literally a bunch of posts from other people explaining their reasons for preferring random bear as well.
The fact that a random man can be told multiple times “I don’t know you well enough to be comfortable with this,” with explanations, and they will still respond with “there’s no way you actually mean the words you are saying” is a big contributing factor.
Cool. But I really think your reasons are complete bullshit.
Like take your last paragraph, you actually think that because some men don’t listen to reasonable arguments you would rather be with a violent and wild animal that is physically incapable of listening to reason?
Seriously you’re either actually insane or you’re just bullshiting to try and prove a point that you’ve already committed to without actually thinking it through.
you would rather be with a violent and wild animal that is physically incapable of listening to reason?
No, that’s why I’d rather be with the bear.
You seem to be really angry about some rando’s opinion on a hypothetical situation. That’s not normal.
Bears generally aren’t violent unless you threaten them. People survive seeing bears in the woods all the time, and once they are out of that situation they generally don’t have to worry that the bear is stalking them.
I’m not angry, I’m incredulous that you either think I’m dumb or you’re completely braindead. There’s a difference.
People survive seeing bears in the woods *all the time
I absolutely 1,000,000 guarantee people survive seeing men more often than they survive seeing a bear.
I absolutely 1,000,000 guarantee people survive seeing men more often than they survive seeing a bear.
And we’re moving the goalposts. Note how the article, and my post, specified in the woods and you have changed the situation to include: In public. Places with good lighting. Lots of people around. Easy access to law enforcement. People you personally know (and therefore not random).
I absolutely 1,000,000 guarantee people get attacked by men more often than they get attacked by bears.
What do you think will happen if you tell the bear you arnt comfortable with being attacked
It’s very possible to communicate to a bear that you aren’t threatening them and that you aren’t prey or worth attacking. I recommend looking up “what to do if you encounter a bear in the woods.”
It seems to be very difficult to communicate to you that I would be uncomfortable encountering you alone in the woods.
So yes, the bear is probably a better listener.
i think i would probably be more concerned if i were alone in the woods with a woman honestly, like what the fuck did i do to be put in that situation? Why am i here at all? Is this an act of god?
Being alone in the woods in it of itself would be fucking weird, but a lot less fucking weird that being alone with someone else for some reason.
You’re walking through the woods and at the end of a clearing you see: either a man, or a bear staring right at you.
Which one makes you more uncomfortable?If I slowly leave the area I’m fairly confident the bear will leave me alone and not follow. I’m spending the rest of my time in the woods wondering if that man is following me.
i would certainly be more perplexed by a human just existing out there, a bear being out there would definitely make a lot of sense, i suppose it matters if either one of them has spotted me.
If neither spots me it doesn’t matter. If one spots me, who’s to fucking say what happens. Could be your local mountain man out there just vibin on his own time, could be your local serial killer up to some shit, who knows!
i would certainly be more perplexed by a human just existing out there
In this scenario you are also “just existing out there.”
Could be your local mountain man out there just vibin on his own time, could be your local serial killer up to some shit, who knows!
And that is the entire point. The article didn’t say “any man” it said “a random man”. Could go either way, who knows? With the bear it’s far more certain it just wants to leave you alone.
This is like some boomer saying “All feminists are easily offended lesbians that just like to shout out people”
Then smugly being like “haha you proved my point” when a femininst rightly takes issue with that statement.
Worse than that even, as feminists are less than half the population and an ideology you choose to belong to, rather than a demographic you are born into.
I havent read the article, but from the heading and the teaser of it it seems to be a personal opinion piece of what she would prefer and asking other women about it.
Where exactly does she actively insult all men?
Where exactly does she actively insult all men?
The part about saying she would prefer being alone in the woods with an animal that would maul and eat her alive than being with [insert trait you were born with].
If you don’t think it’s insulting, switch out the word “men” with gay/jew/trans or any other group of people and ask if those people would feel insulted.
It’s a statement that very likely would be removed by moderators and gotten you banned on certain instances on Lemmy if you did. I honestly don’t believe you’re asking that question in good faith.
I can’t say that I blame her and I’m a guy. Besides, you know she’s just being over the top to make a point. Take five seconds, look at what she’s really saying and stop looking for reasons to be angry at her.
I was merely replying to the other person who seemed to be arguing in bad faith.
I don’t really have much interest the online gender debate. From the few tidbits I’ve seen, it’s not a healthy debate and it doesn’t align with anything I’ve seen in real life in Norway.
You yourself have completely ignored the argument you’re responding to in order to chastise about arguing with a bad take.
It’s looping upon itself and it all starts with one bad take. Maybe you can accept bad faith arguments are bad and move on?
“I don’t feel comfortable being alone at night in the ghetto” = reasonable statement
“I don’t feel comfortable around black people” = being over the top to make a point.
It’s not okay and she should be shunned for saying such things.
“I don’t feel comfortable being alone in the woods with a stranger” = reasonable statement
“I don’t feel comfortable around men in public” = not what was said.
Boo fucking hoo.
It sure is hard being a man, amirite? /s
Okay, let’s reframe this to be about a different specific group.
Let’s say this woman wrote this exact same opinion piece, but instead of it being about men in general, it was about black men specifically.
And she is just saying that she would rather take her chances with a wild animal than be alone with a black man. Is that perfectly okay and not insulting/demanding to black men in your eyes?
The issue with your example is that black men are not in a position of power in society, while men (as a whole) are the dominant gender in society.
This makes making fun of men punching up, questioning their power, while making fun of black men in specific would be just racist.
I’m in a piss-filled trench! The wealthy have the power! Though I am stronger than the average woman, which I acknowledge is a useful trait. Especially for digging trenches with piss seeping into them. Now that’s wielding social power.
The issue with your example is that black men are not in a position of power in society
Power by demographic association is bullshit. Cletus in the trailer park does not wield societal power because a majority of members of Congress are the same color and sex as he is, because they don’t work to protect his sex or color - they work to protect their own economic class and that of their donors/owners.
The trick is that you can’t take each demographic axis and declare that there is a hierarchy there where one group is the “oppressor” and thus has power over all members of the other groups who are deemed the “oppressed”. And usually the whole point of doing so is to try to fit it into a model of Marxist class conflict, which is only really a passable model for economic class (and accordingly only works for other demographic axis to the degree that they correlate with economic class). There are lots of areas where reality violates the fuck out of said hierarchies, and it leads to either attempts to excuse it or bullshit around it that I like to liken to the epicycles and deferents once used to shoehorn geocentric models of the solar system back into line with observations.
, while men (as a whole) are the dominant gender in society.
Hell, look at criminal justice - for nearly every measure where the system appears to favor white over blacks and you would probably call it racist, it also appears to favor women over men (usually to a similar or larger degree) but you would likely not call it sexist because that violates the hierarchy by putting women over men.
Education is similar, there are studies suggesting that teachers preferentially grade in favor of girls (specifically showing that girls get better grades for similar work but that difference vanishes in standardized testing where the grader cannot consider the sex of the student). Girls outnumber boys in both entering higher education and getting degrees, and have since something like the early 80s - yet we still maintain preferential scholarships and recruitment opportunities for women as opposed to men - usually by just deciding the only fields worth worrying about are the few that remain male dominated.
By what metrics do men dominate society?
deleted by creator
But, I mean, are you acquainted with said bear?
Are you on terms with each other’s intentions?
'Cause if you’re in the woods with a stranger, there is a 50 percent chance you’re going to have a bad time. Human or bear.
Stupid city folk. Comparing a BEAR with a honeybear…
A bear predictably would rather have nothing to do with me. If I treat a random bear with respect it will be more likely to treat me with respect than a random man.
I dk, did it have any cocaine or do I have food on me?
Though that would also apply to a human.
I’d generally pick a bear too, most of the time you could just walk away. A human might try to talk to me or something.
My first thought would be “maybe we can be friends”
With the bear, obviously
Posts bait. Catches idiots. Stays relevant.
Words to live by
What species of bear? Because that makes a lot of difference.
Somewhere between gummy and grizzly
Somewhere between gummy and *polar
I would not want to meet a polar bear in a forest
Global warning: soon coming to your location.
I think I’d actually feel safe with a polar bear in the kind of forest I’m used to. It’ll heat stroke out in no time
Gay lumberjack bear.
Those sound pretty safe for a woman TBF
Oh I’m friends with several. I’d bring some picnic supplies
Also, is it smarter than the average bear?
I wouldn’t trust a man with a pic-a-nic basket either
Maybe it’s because i’m a man, but this trend saddens me. I don’t often see what the other gender thinks of us, but the fact that a big part of us are a bother that all off us should be seen as more dangerous than a bear. Damn…
Men in real life (in my experience) are mostly lovely folks. Men in places like Lemmy and Reddit can be pretty decent too, depending on the thread. But honestly, at what point has it been ‘safe’ to self identify as a woman on the wider Internet? Like to have a female voice in a game chat? Or in a random chat room? Between a lot of online harassment (which only needs a small slice of men participating in to be felt much more broadly) and the political and cultural attempts to strip women of power, I get this kind of outlook happening. It just really fucking sucks.
It’s because casual misandry is socially acceptable.
Not entirely. It’s also because men have historically been bad about telling creepy and misogynistic men to back off and shut the fuck up.
I would sooner see men step up and call out the bad actors – and I say that as a man who’s done so. Don’t teach your daughters that they need to be wary about what they wear, teach your sons to respect and not rape women.
I would sooner see men step up and call out the bad actors
And I would be happy to join you in doing this, but this is not the company I keep. In my life I can barely count the number of times I have, or could have, on one hand. Meanwhile, when talking to women about this sort of thing, everyone has awful stories but they all involve people that simply are not a part of their social sphere (and by extension mine) anymore.
I fear that we, as a society, have done such a good job of pushing bad actors out to the margins that we no longer have eyes on the problem.
It’s not even just that they’re at the margins, it’s also a math problem. One bad actor can sexually harass hundreds, perhaps even thousands of women over the course of many years. Now make that thousands of men, and see how it’s very reasonable that 1 in 2 women or whatever it is have been sexually harassed or assaulted - and that can still be less than 1% of the male population doing it. Anyone who doubts women get harassed or even assaulted often needs to have their head examined. There is a guy in my neighborhood currently who has not been caught who is following women while in his car. The neighborhood listservs are awash with women who have noticed this guy. There was another guy who was groping women on the trail who affected multiple women before they caught him.
And this is not just sex crimes. Recently, they arrested a group of car thieves/car jackers in my area. The four of them were responsible for over two hundred car thefts, and possibly up to three hundred additional unaccounted for crimes. And that’s for a very visible crime like stealing a car - imagine the numbers for something like groping someone on a crowded train or bus.
This is why people who say stuff like, “just teach men not to rape” are as insane as saying “just teach minorities not to steal cars”. It is a tiny portion of the population having an outsized influence because they can harm multiple people. When you start blaming a group for the actions of a tiny portion of that group, you’re just lost.
I mean sure, call out crime in general when you see it, but I have seen this type of harassment probably a dozen times in my life. And it happens all around, dozens of times a day.
This is also the same kind of unintuitive math that makes it likely that your friends will be more popular than you… because popular friends are more likely to know you than unpopular friends.
You know I didn’t think about it like this. It does make sense though. I think as well it’s good to point out that the main recipients of violence and murder are other men, not women. Therefore I am suspicious when women talk about these things and being afraid but men don’t. It seems like a double standard.
That’s a really good point. The men who could call out this behavior are usually in exclusive circles from the bad actors.
As I think about it, I really haven’t had many opportunities either. There’s only one that really stands out to me, and it’s when I was out with some friends drinking and we were getting some food to end the night. A stranger was moving to grope a friend of mine, and I shut that down quickly.
But that’s it. This is actually a bit of a difficult question. How exactly do we chastise the bad actors? Maybe the best we can do is teach the next generation, and just call it out when we do see it.
Part of the problem is that men are simply not on alert for bad behavior. They have the luxury of being unaware. When my friend’s dad groped me at a party, I was in a conversation circle with him and 3 of my male friends. None of them noticed him doing it, none of them noticed me going stiff and pale. None of them questioned why I suddenly felt sick and immediately called an Uber to leave.
The dad felt totally comfortable to do that literally less than 2 feet from three other men because you guys aren’t looking out for it in a way that women are. Alternatively, I’ve had stranger women come up to me in public to ask me if I’m uncomfortable because a guy at a gas station is talking to me while I pump my gas. We’re looking out for each other.
“We all a society” have absolutely not pushed out bad actors. If anything, women have closed ranks, but in my experience the men have not, without explicit instruction, called out bad behavior.
This is not the good thing you think it is. Women shouldn’t be hyper-alert about all men, and should use words when being made uncomfortable (or literally sexually assaulted).
If I see a woman go pale and then leave a party, I will assume “oof, must have really had to poop”. I refuse to assume every facial tick on a woman is a sign of sexual assault. That’s a toxic, paranoid way to live.
I agree that women shouldn’t have to be hyper alert, but with our culture the way it is, we have to be to keep ourselves safe.
How about instead of saying I should have spoken up about a man groping me, you say, “he shouldn’t have groped you.” There’s no reason my friend’s old married father should have thought I would be comfortable with his hands on me in a bathing suit area.
I’m saying men with opinions like yours put the entire onus of safety solely on women’s shoulders forcing us to live that toxic paranoid way, as you put it. If you guys would start doing your part to police one another, women wouldn’t have to be so scared all the time.
What makes you think me speaking up would have stopped that man? He clearly had no respect for my personal space, my autonomy, or my comfort. He has already proven he is willing to break social rules and norms. The safest thing for me to do was get away, because confronting a person who does not respect or care about you, who is not bound by the social contract will more likely lead to them hurting you.
How about instead of saying I should have spoken up about a man groping me, you say, “he shouldn’t have groped you.”
How about both? It’s infantilizing for you to suggest I don’t understand a basic principle like “assault is bad”. Of course he shouldn’t have groped you. That was bad. That’s just a baseline, floor-level understanding that we should both agree on.
If you guys would start doing your part to police one another
Well, for one thing, we don’t know which guys are doing this. Even if, as you suggest, the burden should fall solely on men to stop other men (a bit of a problematic viewpoint in itself), we can’t stop it if we don’t know it’s happening. Guys don’t brag to each other about sexual assault. We just don’t talk about sex in general. “Locker room talk” is and always has been a myth. Women talk with each other. Men don’t.
We cannot read your mind and know that any particular guy has done anything bad to you. You have to say something. And if you don’t, the only other option is for everyone to constantly be asking every woman if they’re being assaulted. Like that old Verizon commercial: “are you being assaulted now? Are you being assaulted now?” which is just toxic and awful and paranoid and massively damaging to everyone’s mental health.
I can 100% understand just not wanting to deal with it. Running away and then never speaking about it, and avoiding that guy for the rest of your life is much easier than opening a can of worms.
But if you do that, you have to take responsibility for doing that. Don’t pretend “not my problem, Men should be fixing everything”.
Thank you for this insight. We all really need more of this kind of dialogue to build awareness around what to look for.
Men expect you to communicate if you have an issue, that is how we communicate. We’re busy looking for the next tough guy, suckerpuncher, or knife-wielding psycho because those are the kinds of scars we bear. We’re not going to be looking at subtle changes in the color of your skin in a dark bar.
Well no, the real root cause is a lot of women are afraid of creepy men. Your point is tertiary at best is people are actually picking the bear.
You’re missing the definition of root cause-why are women afraid of creepy men?
But that wasn’t the question.
perfectly balanced, as all things should be, which is a really fucking weird statement, considering that most thing should not be balanced, but then again, maybe the state of non balance is the equivalent to balanced. Which would then equate everything to be perfectly balanced at all times on account of the self balancing dichotomy.
(for those wondering, the comment im replying to has 5 upvotes, and 5 downvotes, and same for the one reply to this comment, at the time of writing at least.)
Please keep in mind that this is one columnist writing clickbait, not the entirety of women.
It’s sad how many women respond to it though.
Female Andrew Tates. Just gross.
Imagine the stupid Pence Rule (never be alone with a woman who isn’t your wife). And framing it as you’d rather be alone with a velociraptor than a strange woman because a velociraptor is less likely to falsely accuse you of something.
I get that the point of the joke is that women think men are dangerous, but any nuance or discussion is completely out the window due to how stupid and inflammatory the framing is
I would also like to add, actually educating people about average bear behaviour would help.
Most bears will flee if given a choice, and are very unlikely to attack. Globally, there’s only around 40 bear attacks a year, and less than 5% are deadly. A lot of how they react is driven by how the encounter starts, if you’re within 60m before it notices you, you’re significantly more likely to be attacked.
Meaning that seeing a bear from a distance off is basically always just going to be neat and maybe a nice photo.
They are huge dangerous creatures, but so are people, and they’d rather not take the risk.
Knowing that makes the argument a bit more reasonable than just pointing out how bad/unpredictable men are
Bear-havior.
Puns away, I take my kids hiking from time to time and the conversation of bears comes up naturally (I bring it up), and I try to tell them about what to do, what to look for, this and that. It’s almost like literally everything else, education is a key to understanding.
And bears, for all intents and purposes, are robots, they tend to do what bears do. Now people, on the other hand, they’re a mystery.
Soo many people in the tread showing their true colours.
i mean, to be clear, you don’t post some shit like that without expecting to piss off some less than favorable people. I would certainly know about that.
Sometimes a little bait is a good bit of fun.
The people complaining that she is being derogatory to men are the same people who would say “what do you expect going into the woods alone with a strange man? What did you think would happen?”
I’m a strange man and I’d rather be with the bear too
The bear is more predictable and would rather have nothing to do with me.
Well…I’m a strange bear, so… What’re we gonna do about it?
I’m a strange man. I think I would quickly leave this baggage behind to increase my chances of survival.
imo for pedants like myself, it needs to be made clear if the bear is LIKELY to harm you
If its a black bear, red panda, or the like that is not even fair, EVERYONE would rather be with a bear that doesnt want to be near you rather than some potentially dangerous rando
From what I’ve read, unless you’re doing something like going between a mother and her cubs, if it’s not a grizzly or polar bear, it’s likely more scared of you than you are of it.
red panda
I don’t think that’s a concern, because pandas (red or otherwise) aren’t technically part of the Ursidae family and wouldn’t qualify.
I’ll spot you that polar bears and brown bears would likely be more of a problem in person. I believe the other kind of bear could conceivably be more of a threat online, but only because they tend to have sharper wits and tongues than the heterosexuals in their genus.
Pandas are ursidae, but not ursinae
Here’s the thing. You said a “red pandas are ursidae.” Are they in the same order? Yes. No one’s arguing that. As someone who is a scientist who studies red pandas, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls red pandas bears. If you want to be “specific” like you said, then you shouldn’t either. They’re not the same thing. If you’re saying “bear family” you’re referring to the taxonomic grouping of ursidae, which includes things from short-faced bears to dog bears to giant pandas. So your reasoning for calling a red panda a bear is because random people “call the cuddly ones bears?” Let’s get raccoons and koalas in there, then, too. Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It’s not one or the other, that’s not how taxonomy works. They’re both. A red panda is a red panda and a member of the ailuridae family. But that’s not what you said. You said red pandas are ursidae, which is not true unless you’re okay with calling all members of the carnivora order bears, which means you’d call cats, dogs, and other mammals bears, too. Which you said you don’t. It’s okay to just admit you’re wrong, you know?
(I said pandas are ursidae, not red pandas, but I liked your passion!)
Edit: I forgot about jackdaws
Red Pandas are Ailuridae. So even farther away.
That is probably their point though.
Too many humans act like dangerous randos (men and women alike, but men are usually more physical), so being near a bear that for the most time just fucks off and mind their own business is more preferred.
Yes, but you encounter at least 1000 people a year, assuming you leave the house. Most people never encounter a wild bear.
If a bear doesn’t kill you 99.9% of the time, and a man doesn’t kill you 99.999% of the time. Which would you rather have 1000 encounters with?
The “point” is that men are dangerous, it’s just being poorly made and is clear rage bait.
This feels a lot like a certain image board talking about FBI crime statistics
it’s strange tho. could it be strangely rabid?
I am a pretty tall, broadly built man, so obv I’m a little biased because I’m reasonably confident that I could kill another man if it came to it. However, the concept of this question bothers me, because it doesn’t indicate what kind of bear. Trust me, if you ever come face to face with a fully grown grizzly, you’d prefer the man. Monsters are real, and they can destroy you on accident, while men have weak necks and unprotected kidneys.
If I was dead either way though, obv I’d rather it be an emotionless grizzly who’d tear me apart pretty quickly.
Honestly it doesn’t matter too much what species. Black bears will happily eat you too, playing dead also doesn’t work for them. Polar bears are basically instant death whenever the bear feels like it, they don’t fear humans. Koala wouldn’t be so bad I suppose. Pandas are somewhat dangerous if they decide to attack
Koalas aren’t bears though. So I guess that pushes up the average danger of your set of bears.
I just want to know how many bears she knows on a a personal level to make it possible for there to be a “strange bear”.
How are you a bot?
you can choose to be one in your profile settings
But you shouldn’t if you aren’t a bot. People filter them out.
I had no idea this was set in my profile! - I’ll have a look
Here’s the setting in Jerboa for reference. ♥️ If anyone has “show bot accounts” off they won’t see you.
Thanks, TIL
As a man, I’d never be stuck in a forest with Kate.
Forests are scary. Can’t we go to a zoo?
