You’re sure doing your part to make sure women want to interact with you. I bet you’ve convinced most of them that throwing a fit and calling people names when you don’t get your way makes you the best guy.
no, I made it up because it’s an easy analogy. but my argument is still different on two fronts.
first, the claim is absolute when it should be comparative. documented immigrants commit less crime than citizens. undocumented immigrants even less than them.
men on the other hand commit crime in ridiculously higher rates than women, and even disregarding that, men commit more serious crimes than women. technically more than bears too.
second, my argument isn’t about opposing men, so it’s not even comparable to the opposing immigration argument. it’s about the fact that men pose a real threat and maybe it’s appropriate to take action to address that rather than get defensive about it.
It was a veil for bigotry when Trump said it, it’s a veil for bigotry now. Doing the “FBI crime stats stats but for men” is not the argument you think it is.
I didn’t say I invented it. I said I made it up. it’s not that wild of an analogy to be impossible to come up with it independently. i was thinking of grains and then remembered an old reddit post about putting skittles in an m&ms bowl.
wow they probably stole that too, since it’s such a crazy original idea that no two people can think of it.
again, “FBI crime stats but for men” is not a good critique because again, it’s not comparable to black people. unless you think the police unfairly favor immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants. women do get more lenient sentences but that wasn’t my argument.
if you have any evidence that women commit as many and as serious crimes as men please share. or if you think men are historically oppressed and financially disadvantaged as context to their crime stats, I’d like to hear that.
pointing at vague similarities to other arguments when they are nothing like each other won’t cut it.
I didn’t say “invented” either, I said “made up” - I used the exact same wording you did. Don’t put words in my mouth, it’s unhygienic. And I would say that of all the foods to pick for the analogy, going straight for M&Ms in particular is, shall we say, telling.
“FBI crime stats” is, in fact a good critique. If we accept bigotry against immigrants is unjustified because their crime stats are low, logically, we are forced to accept that if they were high, bigotry would be justified, which is the “FBI stats” argument. Now, I realize I might be on the fringe here, but I would like to take the stance that bigotry is inherently unjustified, regardless of what stats someone can dig up. Crime stats, historical oppression, financial disadvantage, and other PMC buzzwords do not matter. Either we agree that a person, an actual, living, breathing, human being with feelings, hopes, and dreams, can be pre-judged based their birth (prejudice: prae- “before” + iūdicium “judgment”) , or they can’t. And I am of the radical, extremist stance that prejudice is wrong, inherently.
And what the fuck do bears have to do with any of this?
You are kinda straw-manning their argument. They never implied bigotry against men (or anyone for that matter) is justified. They implied that men as a demographic commit crimes at a higher than average rate, enough so to make it an outlier, and that the underlying issues should be addressed to reduce that.
Your attempt to shift their argument to one of bigotry is just trying to shutdown the conversation. Men really do commit crimes at a higher rate, it’s not bigotry to acknowledge that. It would be bigotry to imply there was something inherent to being a man that made a person commit crimes. But wanting to understand the data and help isn’t bigotry, it’s compassion.
Crime stats, historical oppression, financial disadvantage, and other PMC buzzwords do not matter.
Given that, crime stats, historical oppression, and financial disadvantage do in fact matter to putting context to crime rates. Would you be surprised to learn that areas with higher poverty rates have higher rates of crime? Would you accuse me of bigotry against the poor for saying that providing food, money, housing, education, and resources to those groups would reduce the crime rate? What if the impoverished area was comprised of immigrants? Am I bigoted for wanting to alleviate the situation that drives people to commit crimes, just because the people who need help are a minority group? Obviously not, bigotry is defined by thinking the problem is inherent to a group. It has nothing to do with acknowledging a problem and wanting to help everyone involved.
Now, with all that in mind, if men are committing crimes (especially violent crimes) at a much higher rate than the general population, is it bigotry to say we should consider what we can do to reduce the crime rate in that demographic?
edit: Here is something of a related situation to bring context. There are significantly less women in the tech industry. Is it bigotry to say that there is nothing inherent in being a woman that would make a person less capable to work in tech, so there is likely some alternative (likely societal) reason for this discrepancy? Is it bigotry for someone to try and help women get interested in tech and break into the industry?
I’m not strawmanning anything, the M&M argument itself is a justification for bigotry. It’s not shutting down the conversation, that is the conversation being had. The M&M argument isn’t about helping people, it’s a justification for prejudice and is to be rejected out of hand regardless of what demographic it’s targeting or what justification it tenders, because human beings aren’t fungible commodities. Read the articles I linked. Crime stats do not need context, because they do not matter at all.
How do you respond to M&Ming Japanese-American internment? After all, not all of them are traitors, but one poison M&M… And in response, do you say “well, if you look at the data, the average Japanese-American was actually…”? No, you reject the argument out of hand, because people are innocent until proven guilty. How do you respond to M&Ming vagrancy? Do you dig up data on shelters and talk about mental health? No, you reject the premise, because freedom shouldn’t be contingent on property ownership. How about migrants? Do you waste time proving that actually they’re all nice people who are worthy of help? No, you reject the argument, because people in need should be helped.
Incidentally, inherentness is also irrelevant. The M&M argument doesn’t claim poison is inherent to M&Ms. You can just as easily make the argument that you know full well that …m e n… aren’t inherently violent, it’s just that the crime stats very clearly show that they, as a demographic, have certain tendencies, and while you sympathize with them, and would like nothing more to help them overcome the circumstances, probably cultural, that are surely to blame for them being that way, the data is what it is, and you just don’t feel comfortable working/socializing/sharing an elevator/being in the same bar/seeing them in the neighborhood, and, I mean, for all they complain, the back of the bus is still on the same bus so I don’t get…
I realize nobody thinks of themselves as a bigot, and I know reexamining one’s own biases is not pleasant, but it is a necessary step for growth.
Idk, women also do dumb violent shit, guess everyone should avoid everybody? Since some humans, regardless of their background, are toxic?
Life is risk. Not taking any risk is choosing not to live. It’s relatively easy to figure out who’s a shithead, of course you should be wary of people, but everyone has to filter out other shitty people constantly, it’s not suddenly some new thing because Trumpers exist.
Overwhelming majority of women interactions with men is not alone in the forest - and that was the setting of this exercise.
Of course I’d rather see a man in crowded office space than a bear, stranded alone in a forest however, math changes.
Ok 42% of men voted for your rights.
Most violent crime, SA, and murder is done by men.
Potentially in the near future you can’t escape a marriage without a “good” reason and you can’t abort a forced pregnancy.
Bears. Potentially murder and maul you. Majority of bear to human interactions are non violent and happens numerically wise less than Bears.
You interact with men more than Bears. By a million times.
The interactions with a male could be worse. Than just killed or hurt severally. Which is the only thing you get from a bear.
Yes not all men but most men don’t support your rights and crimes are mostly men. Bear impacts are better outcomes than a bad man impacts
I’ve HEARD a lot of women talk about how they’d rather be with a bear. I haven’t actually SEEN any leaving society to go live in the woods with a bear. Nor have I seen many of the men supporting them cut off their testicles and dress as bears.
Now, that leaves me in a pickle. Should I conclude a lot of women are hypocrites and a lot of men are just white knighting, since none of them are actually putting their money where their mouth is? Should I begin questioning if all women talk out of their ass and only take their input to be true if they provide signed statements, ideally notarized?
Nah. Probably not. I’m gonna choose to believe #notAllWomen lie. Just, like, the ones talking about bears.
Very true, but the overwhelming majority of women interact with men overwhelmingly frequently compared to bears.
Almost as if the whole thing is a light hearted way of drawing attention to a very real fear women live with every day, that stats posted above bear (get it?) witness to.
Plus, if we are being pedantic, it’s not “interactions with men”. It’s “would you, as a woman, feel safer encountering a man or a bear when you are alone in the woods”.
I mean… it is tho innit? But when it comes to topics that people have actual PTSD over, sometimes inventing goofy scenarios makes the hard conversations easier.
So maybe the problem isn’t the goofy scenario, but the fact that people feel the need to ridicule rape and sexual assault fears regardless of how they are presented?
Any woman who says “the bear” honestly, I have to assume" has never once actually encountered a bear in the woods.
Prolly has had extremely few encounters with anything in the woods.
People hang out on trails all the time, and are alone with another stranger on the trails extremely often, and the extremely vast majority of those interactions are overwhelming positive in all configurations. The vast majority of humans are helpful at worst, for all genders.
People like to help other people out.
Yes, I would vastly prefer to encounter a gun toting right wing MAGA nut on the trail than a fucking bear, thats not even a hard question to answer, its a fucking bear.
Im left wing by a long shot but I still know that even the average right wing MAGA nut is actually prolly still gonna be, on average, helpful and/or friendly, or maybe just cold and indifferent towards me, out in the wilderness.
Hell I’d actually honestly say this scenario is one of the few times I’d choose a MAGA right wing nut over a fellow left leaning fellow.
I love my fellow liberals but I also have to acknowledge the vast majority of us are city slickers, many many of which prolly couldnt even start a fire if their life depended on it (cuz its just not a thing that matters in the city)
Meanwhile the odds the random selected MAGA right wing gun nut prolly shows up with hunting equipment and knows how to do shit like make a lean to and skin a rabbit.
If I got to pick between the two, I’d choose the gun nut cuz Id rather risk surviving with a gun nut than dying with a fellow city slicker, love yeah all but like, we aint fuckin surviving in the woods long, thats just a fact lol.
Edit:
If you seriously think this sort of statement is okay to make, I dare you to replace “man” with “black man” and go post it to prove how it’s totally not a bigoted statement
Cuz any argument you try and make about “man” in this statement should hold water even if you change it to “black man” without suddenly sounding super fuckin racist.
Don’t get me wrong, in your situation, where you are man alone in the wilderness, meeting another person is really not so terrifying of a concept. Bears aren’t likely to attack and maul you tbh, but neither is the “gun nut” in your hypothetical.
This isn’t what women are talking about when they say “I’d choose the bear”. They are actually referencing a genuine fear many of them have being alone around men. Reportedly 14.8%, or roughly 1 out of every 6, women in America has been raped. And between the ages of 16-24, they are 3-4 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted. Meaning these fears are at their peak during formative years.
We could argue till we are blue in the face over which is more likely to attack, a bear or stranger in the woods, but it would be completely missing the point of the discussion.
Many women have genuine fears and/or PTSD regarding being alone with men, and so when asked what they would feel safer encountering alone in the woods, they choose the bear. Even if you believe their choice is the “wrong one”, please try to understand what they are trying to communicate by making it.
To be honest, being so unable to grasp the point being made makes you sound… stupid tbh. But I don’t actually think you are stupid, so I assume you are just really dug in deep with how much “choose the bear” annoys you (maybe because you are offended on behalf of men, or on behalf of bears?).
So you want to call it stupid instead of just being willing to acknowledge “choosing the bear” is a polite way of saying “men assault women at such a high rate that women are genuinely terrified to be alone with them.” And honestly, it demonstrates a degree of naivety that you have never truly experienced the constant threat of sexual assault for you to consistently think this was ever about bears.
See, I knew it couldn’t be because you are stupid! But then why did you waste both of our time talking about bear survival?
given the choice of being alone in the woods with a black man or a bear, they’d feel safer with a bear, how does that sound now?
Do you still think that sounds “hyperbolic”, or do you maybe now see how fucked up and stupid it makes you sound?
Oh, maybe you are stupid… Like, to try and conflate the fear of rape to racism… talk about fucked up and stupid. I’m getting embarrassed for you…
You keep trying so hard to change the idea being expressed when women “choose the bear”. Let’s take your demonstration to it’s logical conclusion. Let’s say a stranger demands to be let into your home at night, or asks you to come alone into a dark alley, would you do it, would you feel safe? Now let’s say the stranger was black, did that change literally anything? Or is it a dangerous situation regardless of race, and you would still prioritize your safety?
Women are not being bigoted when they express concerns over sexual assault. They aren’t trying to take men’s rights away, they aren’t saying “all men are rapists”. They are sharing the very real fear they feel from the very real threat of sexual assault. And they know not every man is going to assault them, but they also know that given the chance, a frighteningly large number will. Since they can’t know which one until it’s to late, they have to play by gun safety rules and treat all men like they might. Not to be mean, but to stay safe.
Now if you would get your head out of your rear, you might start to actually hear women when they “choose the bear”, and what they are really saying. So even if you think the thought experiment is dumb, please try to grasp that it is just light-hearted way to bring up a real issue facing women. And your points about bear safety and it being hyperbolic are so unimportant and miniscule compared to the actual conversation at hand, that you are just wasting everybody’s time.
Imagine seriously thinking the most important thing you can add to the conversation is that you think women are expressing their fears over being raped in a “fucked up and stupid” way.
Deep down inside you know it’s a sexist statement, but you’ll twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify it.
It’s sexist, get over it and just admit it. It’s a shitty thing to say.
Fear is fear, you can’t pretend justifying sexism with fear is any better or worse than justifying racism with fear or justifying any other type of bigotry with fear.
If some TERF shithead posted “I’d feel safer alone in the woods with a bear than with a trans woman in the bathroom” or some shit you know how bad that would be.
You have to sit and look in the mirror and confront the fact that you think sexism directed towards men “doesn’t count”.
It does. And until the general public wraps their heads around what should be a very simple concept, shitheads like Trump are going to keep getting elected by reactionaries
If we are talking about odds, I’d rather run into a bear than any human being in the woods regardless of skin color because humans kill humans in an exponentially greater number than bears kill humans.
So sure. I’d rather run into a bear than a black person in the woods. Or a white person. Or a brown person. Or even a blue person. And you do have a small chance running into one of the blue ones in one area that’s bear country.
This is wrong reasoning though. The only reason why bears kill less humans is because like you say, less bears interact with humans. But if you go with the premise of putting a bear and a human next to each other, then a bear is always more dangerous.
It’s like saying ingesting cyanide kills less people than car accidents. That doesn’t mean ingesting cyanide is less dangerous than driving a car.
What’s a “black prison”? Is that like an off-the-books CIA site where they keep people who won’t be found? I’d definitely take the bear, the CIA would probably torture me to get me to tell them how I found their black prison.
Yeah the overwhelming majority of woman interactions with men is non violent.
Yet the majority of violent interactions women experience come from men
Yeah because women don’t interact with several bears on a daily basis you jack ass
You’re sure doing your part to make sure women want to interact with you. I bet you’ve convinced most of them that throwing a fit and calling people names when you don’t get your way makes you the best guy.
“the overwhelming majority of these m&ms are not poisonous.”
mmm sounds delicious
You do, of course, realise that argument was originally concocted to oppose immigration?
no, I made it up because it’s an easy analogy. but my argument is still different on two fronts.
first, the claim is absolute when it should be comparative. documented immigrants commit less crime than citizens. undocumented immigrants even less than them.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117
men on the other hand commit crime in ridiculously higher rates than women, and even disregarding that, men commit more serious crimes than women. technically more than bears too.
second, my argument isn’t about opposing men, so it’s not even comparable to the opposing immigration argument. it’s about the fact that men pose a real threat and maybe it’s appropriate to take action to address that rather than get defensive about it.
No, you did not make it up. This article is from 2016. This one is from 2014.
It was a veil for bigotry when Trump said it, it’s a veil for bigotry now. Doing the “FBI crime stats stats but for men” is not the argument you think it is.
I didn’t say I invented it. I said I made it up. it’s not that wild of an analogy to be impossible to come up with it independently. i was thinking of grains and then remembered an old reddit post about putting skittles in an m&ms bowl.
wow they probably stole that too, since it’s such a crazy original idea that no two people can think of it.
again, “FBI crime stats but for men” is not a good critique because again, it’s not comparable to black people. unless you think the police unfairly favor immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants. women do get more lenient sentences but that wasn’t my argument.
if you have any evidence that women commit as many and as serious crimes as men please share. or if you think men are historically oppressed and financially disadvantaged as context to their crime stats, I’d like to hear that.
pointing at vague similarities to other arguments when they are nothing like each other won’t cut it.
I didn’t say “invented” either, I said “made up” - I used the exact same wording you did. Don’t put words in my mouth, it’s unhygienic. And I would say that of all the foods to pick for the analogy, going straight for M&Ms in particular is, shall we say, telling.
“FBI crime stats” is, in fact a good critique. If we accept bigotry against immigrants is unjustified because their crime stats are low, logically, we are forced to accept that if they were high, bigotry would be justified, which is the “FBI stats” argument. Now, I realize I might be on the fringe here, but I would like to take the stance that bigotry is inherently unjustified, regardless of what stats someone can dig up. Crime stats, historical oppression, financial disadvantage, and other PMC buzzwords do not matter. Either we agree that a person, an actual, living, breathing, human being with feelings, hopes, and dreams, can be pre-judged based their birth (prejudice: prae- “before” + iūdicium “judgment”) , or they can’t. And I am of the radical, extremist stance that prejudice is wrong, inherently.
And what the fuck do bears have to do with any of this?
You are kinda straw-manning their argument. They never implied bigotry against men (or anyone for that matter) is justified. They implied that men as a demographic commit crimes at a higher than average rate, enough so to make it an outlier, and that the underlying issues should be addressed to reduce that.
Your attempt to shift their argument to one of bigotry is just trying to shutdown the conversation. Men really do commit crimes at a higher rate, it’s not bigotry to acknowledge that. It would be bigotry to imply there was something inherent to being a man that made a person commit crimes. But wanting to understand the data and help isn’t bigotry, it’s compassion.
Given that, crime stats, historical oppression, and financial disadvantage do in fact matter to putting context to crime rates. Would you be surprised to learn that areas with higher poverty rates have higher rates of crime? Would you accuse me of bigotry against the poor for saying that providing food, money, housing, education, and resources to those groups would reduce the crime rate? What if the impoverished area was comprised of immigrants? Am I bigoted for wanting to alleviate the situation that drives people to commit crimes, just because the people who need help are a minority group? Obviously not, bigotry is defined by thinking the problem is inherent to a group. It has nothing to do with acknowledging a problem and wanting to help everyone involved.
Now, with all that in mind, if men are committing crimes (especially violent crimes) at a much higher rate than the general population, is it bigotry to say we should consider what we can do to reduce the crime rate in that demographic?
edit: Here is something of a related situation to bring context. There are significantly less women in the tech industry. Is it bigotry to say that there is nothing inherent in being a woman that would make a person less capable to work in tech, so there is likely some alternative (likely societal) reason for this discrepancy? Is it bigotry for someone to try and help women get interested in tech and break into the industry?
I’m not strawmanning anything, the M&M argument itself is a justification for bigotry. It’s not shutting down the conversation, that is the conversation being had. The M&M argument isn’t about helping people, it’s a justification for prejudice and is to be rejected out of hand regardless of what demographic it’s targeting or what justification it tenders, because human beings aren’t fungible commodities. Read the articles I linked. Crime stats do not need context, because they do not matter at all.
How do you respond to M&Ming Japanese-American internment? After all, not all of them are traitors, but one poison M&M… And in response, do you say “well, if you look at the data, the average Japanese-American was actually…”? No, you reject the argument out of hand, because people are innocent until proven guilty. How do you respond to M&Ming vagrancy? Do you dig up data on shelters and talk about mental health? No, you reject the premise, because freedom shouldn’t be contingent on property ownership. How about migrants? Do you waste time proving that actually they’re all nice people who are worthy of help? No, you reject the argument, because people in need should be helped.
Incidentally, inherentness is also irrelevant. The M&M argument doesn’t claim poison is inherent to M&Ms. You can just as easily make the argument that you know full well that …m e n… aren’t inherently violent, it’s just that the crime stats very clearly show that they, as a demographic, have certain tendencies, and while you sympathize with them, and would like nothing more to help them overcome the circumstances, probably cultural, that are surely to blame for them being that way, the data is what it is, and you just don’t feel comfortable working/socializing/sharing an elevator/being in the same bar/seeing them in the neighborhood, and, I mean, for all they complain, the back of the bus is still on the same bus so I don’t get…
I realize nobody thinks of themselves as a bigot, and I know reexamining one’s own biases is not pleasant, but it is a necessary step for growth.
They one poisonous m&m in the factory is better than this chainsaw will to your face off, but at least you were safe from potentially being poisoned
hwut
Are you OK?
Idk, women also do dumb violent shit, guess everyone should avoid everybody? Since some humans, regardless of their background, are toxic?
Life is risk. Not taking any risk is choosing not to live. It’s relatively easy to figure out who’s a shithead, of course you should be wary of people, but everyone has to filter out other shitty people constantly, it’s not suddenly some new thing because Trumpers exist.
oh my god this is all lives matter all over again
Overwhelming majority of women interactions with men is not alone in the forest - and that was the setting of this exercise.
Of course I’d rather see a man in crowded office space than a bear, stranded alone in a forest however, math changes.
Ok 42% of men voted for your rights. Most violent crime, SA, and murder is done by men. Potentially in the near future you can’t escape a marriage without a “good” reason and you can’t abort a forced pregnancy.
Bears. Potentially murder and maul you. Majority of bear to human interactions are non violent and happens numerically wise less than Bears. You interact with men more than Bears. By a million times. The interactions with a male could be worse. Than just killed or hurt severally. Which is the only thing you get from a bear.
Yes not all men but most men don’t support your rights and crimes are mostly men. Bear impacts are better outcomes than a bad man impacts
I’ve HEARD a lot of women talk about how they’d rather be with a bear. I haven’t actually SEEN any leaving society to go live in the woods with a bear. Nor have I seen many of the men supporting them cut off their testicles and dress as bears.
Now, that leaves me in a pickle. Should I conclude a lot of women are hypocrites and a lot of men are just white knighting, since none of them are actually putting their money where their mouth is? Should I begin questioning if all women talk out of their ass and only take their input to be true if they provide signed statements, ideally notarized?
Nah. Probably not. I’m gonna choose to believe #notAllWomen lie. Just, like, the ones talking about bears.
Very true, but the overwhelming majority of women interact with men overwhelmingly frequently compared to bears.
Almost as if the whole thing is a light hearted way of drawing attention to a very real fear women live with every day, that stats posted above bear (get it?) witness to.
Plus, if we are being pedantic, it’s not “interactions with men”. It’s “would you, as a woman, feel safer encountering a man or a bear when you are alone in the woods”.
If only it were possible to make points without inventing goofy and easily ridiculed scenarios.
I mean… it is tho innit? But when it comes to topics that people have actual PTSD over, sometimes inventing goofy scenarios makes the hard conversations easier.
So maybe the problem isn’t the goofy scenario, but the fact that people feel the need to ridicule rape and sexual assault fears regardless of how they are presented?
Any woman who says “the bear” honestly, I have to assume" has never once actually encountered a bear in the woods.
Prolly has had extremely few encounters with anything in the woods.
People hang out on trails all the time, and are alone with another stranger on the trails extremely often, and the extremely vast majority of those interactions are overwhelming positive in all configurations. The vast majority of humans are helpful at worst, for all genders.
People like to help other people out.
Yes, I would vastly prefer to encounter a gun toting right wing MAGA nut on the trail than a fucking bear, thats not even a hard question to answer, its a fucking bear.
Im left wing by a long shot but I still know that even the average right wing MAGA nut is actually prolly still gonna be, on average, helpful and/or friendly, or maybe just cold and indifferent towards me, out in the wilderness.
Hell I’d actually honestly say this scenario is one of the few times I’d choose a MAGA right wing nut over a fellow left leaning fellow.
I love my fellow liberals but I also have to acknowledge the vast majority of us are city slickers, many many of which prolly couldnt even start a fire if their life depended on it (cuz its just not a thing that matters in the city)
Meanwhile the odds the random selected MAGA right wing gun nut prolly shows up with hunting equipment and knows how to do shit like make a lean to and skin a rabbit.
If I got to pick between the two, I’d choose the gun nut cuz Id rather risk surviving with a gun nut than dying with a fellow city slicker, love yeah all but like, we aint fuckin surviving in the woods long, thats just a fact lol.
Edit:
If you seriously think this sort of statement is okay to make, I dare you to replace “man” with “black man” and go post it to prove how it’s totally not a bigoted statement
Cuz any argument you try and make about “man” in this statement should hold water even if you change it to “black man” without suddenly sounding super fuckin racist.
i have to assume you never were a woman… is that correct assumption, smartass?
Don’t get me wrong, in your situation, where you are man alone in the wilderness, meeting another person is really not so terrifying of a concept. Bears aren’t likely to attack and maul you tbh, but neither is the “gun nut” in your hypothetical.
This isn’t what women are talking about when they say “I’d choose the bear”. They are actually referencing a genuine fear many of them have being alone around men. Reportedly 14.8%, or roughly 1 out of every 6, women in America has been raped. And between the ages of 16-24, they are 3-4 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted. Meaning these fears are at their peak during formative years.
We could argue till we are blue in the face over which is more likely to attack, a bear or stranger in the woods, but it would be completely missing the point of the discussion.
Many women have genuine fears and/or PTSD regarding being alone with men, and so when asked what they would feel safer encountering alone in the woods, they choose the bear. Even if you believe their choice is the “wrong one”, please try to understand what they are trying to communicate by making it.
It still makes you sound stupid, tbh, when you admit you haven’t a clue how much more threatening a fucking bear is.
A man, no matter how scary, isn’t going to tear your fucking arms off with one hand lol
It demonstrates a degree of naivety that you truly have never actually seen a bear in person.
It just makes the person sound stupid.
At least pick an animal that is less of an instant threat. Like a cougar.
A bear will literally reduce you to multiple pieces without a second thought, and with barely any effort. It’s a bear
To be honest, being so unable to grasp the point being made makes you sound… stupid tbh. But I don’t actually think you are stupid, so I assume you are just really dug in deep with how much “choose the bear” annoys you (maybe because you are offended on behalf of men, or on behalf of bears?).
So you want to call it stupid instead of just being willing to acknowledge “choosing the bear” is a polite way of saying “men assault women at such a high rate that women are genuinely terrified to be alone with them.” And honestly, it demonstrates a degree of naivety that you have never truly experienced the constant threat of sexual assault for you to consistently think this was ever about bears.
No.
I get the point, I have always gotten the point.
My point is it’s a stupid sounding way to try and make the point, because it doesn’t actually translate well.
Instead you just sound like a naive inexperienced idiot and make yourself look bad.
You either come across as so hyperbolic you just sound sexist, or, you sound like a naive idiot.
Let me demonstrate for you.
If soneone told you given the choice of being alone in the woods with a black man or a bear, they’d feel safer with a bear, how does that sound now?
Do you still think that sounds “hyperbolic”, or do you maybe now see how fucked up and stupid it makes you sound?
That’s how women who genuinely say that shit sound.
See, I knew it couldn’t be because you are stupid! But then why did you waste both of our time talking about bear survival?
Oh, maybe you are stupid… Like, to try and conflate the fear of rape to racism… talk about fucked up and stupid. I’m getting embarrassed for you…
You keep trying so hard to change the idea being expressed when women “choose the bear”. Let’s take your demonstration to it’s logical conclusion. Let’s say a stranger demands to be let into your home at night, or asks you to come alone into a dark alley, would you do it, would you feel safe? Now let’s say the stranger was black, did that change literally anything? Or is it a dangerous situation regardless of race, and you would still prioritize your safety?
Women are not being bigoted when they express concerns over sexual assault. They aren’t trying to take men’s rights away, they aren’t saying “all men are rapists”. They are sharing the very real fear they feel from the very real threat of sexual assault. And they know not every man is going to assault them, but they also know that given the chance, a frighteningly large number will. Since they can’t know which one until it’s to late, they have to play by gun safety rules and treat all men like they might. Not to be mean, but to stay safe.
Now if you would get your head out of your rear, you might start to actually hear women when they “choose the bear”, and what they are really saying. So even if you think the thought experiment is dumb, please try to grasp that it is just light-hearted way to bring up a real issue facing women. And your points about bear safety and it being hyperbolic are so unimportant and miniscule compared to the actual conversation at hand, that you are just wasting everybody’s time.
Imagine seriously thinking the most important thing you can add to the conversation is that you think women are expressing their fears over being raped in a “fucked up and stupid” way.
All that typing but you wouldn’t write it.
Deep down inside you know it’s a sexist statement, but you’ll twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify it.
It’s sexist, get over it and just admit it. It’s a shitty thing to say.
Fear is fear, you can’t pretend justifying sexism with fear is any better or worse than justifying racism with fear or justifying any other type of bigotry with fear.
If some TERF shithead posted “I’d feel safer alone in the woods with a bear than with a trans woman in the bathroom” or some shit you know how bad that would be.
You have to sit and look in the mirror and confront the fact that you think sexism directed towards men “doesn’t count”.
It does. And until the general public wraps their heads around what should be a very simple concept, shitheads like Trump are going to keep getting elected by reactionaries
Removed by mod
If we are talking about odds, I’d rather run into a bear than any human being in the woods regardless of skin color because humans kill humans in an exponentially greater number than bears kill humans.
So sure. I’d rather run into a bear than a black person in the woods. Or a white person. Or a brown person. Or even a blue person. And you do have a small chance running into one of the blue ones in one area that’s bear country.
This is wrong reasoning though. The only reason why bears kill less humans is because like you say, less bears interact with humans. But if you go with the premise of putting a bear and a human next to each other, then a bear is always more dangerous.
It’s like saying ingesting cyanide kills less people than car accidents. That doesn’t mean ingesting cyanide is less dangerous than driving a car.
I thought we were talking about odds?
Why did you bring up odds if this was about the “right” reasoning?
Oh I thought you were talking about smurfs and not the Fugates and I’m delighted when I see smurfs. It means the drugs are working
What’s a “black prison”? Is that like an off-the-books CIA site where they keep people who won’t be found? I’d definitely take the bear, the CIA would probably torture me to get me to tell them how I found their black prison.
I’m about to have a violent interaction…
Please don’t hurt a woman for no reason
Only if they voted for trump
Political violence has only led to good things throughout history
Political violence has sometimes led to good things
And as bad as it is, i think reducing the amount of nazis before they take power will always be a good thing.
What if they’re at the receiving end?