A) it’s much less about whether the bear is a bigger threat and much more about how fucking awful men must treat women for the average woman to go “hmmm… Maybe the bear, tbh?” The fact that it’s even something women have to think about for more than a split second is a dramatic failure of our society. THAT is the point, and any discussion of “well you don’t know about bears then…” is reply-guy shit that misses the entire point and simply serves to further solidify how blind most men are to what goes on in the day to day life of women.
B) An aggressive bear is a known quantity. Is it a threat? Obviously. But it’s a threat that we understand extremely well. Like, a quick Google search will teach you everything you need to know about what to do if you see a bear. But a strange, unknown man? Who the fuck knows. They might seem perfectly pleasant and reasonable, act like your friend, and then flip the fuck out when the woman refuses to sleep with him that night in return for all that manly protection he provided during the day or whatever. THAT is why women pick the bear: a known problem is often preferable to uncertainty that could lead to being extremely vulnerable against a really smart attacker.
Remember, the question wasn’t “would you rather be in a locked room with a bear or a man?” It was “would you rather be stuck on an island with a strange bear or a strange man?”
And to your final question, why can’t we just respect other humans? Great fucking question, but the misogynists should be the ones facing that inquiry, not the people on the internet trying to point you towards them. It may be more uncomfortable and even dangerous to confront them, but don’t take the easy way out by asking victims and their allies to be “nicer” instead
Considering no one I’ve met so far that I’ve told “a grizzly bear can bend steel bars” knows that - no, most people don’t know much about bears, or how dangerous a bear is. Heck most don’t know how fast a bear can run or swim. Heck there’s people who constantly get injured or killed because they want to pet a wild bear.
This doesn’t negate point A that you made, but the other huge factor is, most women, men, and everything in between don’t really know much about bears, or have been exposed to bears, and that’s a gigantic reason why so many women picked the bear too. Heck, your point B proves that - you clearly don’t understand the threat, or you’d know that it’s not a threat, it’s a death sentence. You are not, in virtually any scenario of being stuck on an island with a ever growingly hungry bear, going to live. You can’t swim away, you can’t climb a tree to escape. You’d have a much better chance of killing an openly hostile man than surviving a wild bear. You basically just said “yeah, I know how missiles work, they fly in the air and go boom when they land - that’s why I can survive a missile”.
And the question was designed to create this divide, because had this question instead been with something that IS perceived as more dangerous (like, would you rather be stuck in the middle of a large pool with a shark of a man), it wouldn’t have received the same amount of replies, since sharks are seen and portrayed as scarier than bears. It wasn’t designed to actually improve society, it was designed to drive another wedge and make us forget that the real danger is the wealthy and corporations that literally kill and poison us daily.
And the question was designed to create this divide
It’s literally just a classic page from the bigot’s playbook, but since it’s being used against cishet men for some reason that makes it okay?
If JK Rowling said she would rather go to a bathroom with a bear than a trans woman I think we would all rightfully call that hate speech.
If a white supremecist said this about black people it would be dismissed as racist nonsense. I’ve seen a lot of defenders saying that this is somehow different because violence by cishet men against women is real. How many years have racists loved to use the good ol’ “did you know x% of crimes are committed by x% of the population” tactic for?
And I see the “not all men” getting tossed around. How is that any different from saying “I know not all Muslims are terrorists. The good ones know we aren’t talking about them”? Change the conversation from cis men to anything else and it gets called out as hate speech. It does nothing to help solve any issues or lead to a better society.
Does the question say “with a bear, in an enclosed space, where the bear only has you as a source of food?” No, it didn’t. Your entire argument is based on “women - and people like you - are dumb and don’t know what they’re talking about if they think men are less scary than bears.” But the truth is, YOU don’t understand the question being posed. You are literally doing the thing that people have a problem with. You aren’t asking questions. You aren’t seeking clarification. You aren’t giving the benefit of the doubt. You aren’t trying to understand. You aren’t doing anything to indicate that you aren’t exactly the reason why so many women picked the bear.
You could have said all of this in a way that wasn’t being an ass. But you chose not to. Thank you for self-identifying as part of the problem.
Does the question also say “on an island, the size of Ireland”? If you’re going to argue in bad faith, we can be here all day, because if it’s just you and some man in Madagascar, you’re equally as safe as sharing that island as with a bear or much anything really.
But then, you knew that and are being purposefully obtuse, since “island” type questions are usually about being in a limited amount of space (btw - bears hunt in forests, known not enclosed spaces, so kinda still proving my point most people really don’t understand the danger a bear poses).
Either way, you’re falling for the trap I just mentioned. It’s not to further discussion on the problem, because it doesn’t actually address the problem. Secondly, there’s no reason I need to prove I’m the “reason” so many women picked the bear. That’s a logical fallacy designed to inflame, not unite. And at it’s core, you’re proving what some have said, and showing how this question is malicious - it’s designed to paint men as bad by default, rather that what the real problem is - statistically more likely to be abusive than the other sex. And before you misinterpret that, statistically significant ≠ everyone. It means to practice caution, of course, because the problem is there. It doesn’t mean assume every single man will be evil, because then you won’t be able to have healthy relationships (and I’m not even talking romantic ones here, but familial, social, professional) if by default you assume you will be in danger. That is, after all, the only logical conclusion to thinking a random man is more dangerous than one of the strongest predatory mammals on earth.
That you then dismiss someone simply because they didn’t tow some now created narrative is exactly what identity politics also wants. Because then you’re not open to dialogue that might fix the problem, and you’re also preventing focus from the true root of virtually all modern societal issues: the wealthy ruling class. They are, end of the day, the ones that tip the scales of power so that things are the way they are.
Just as one example - does roe v Wade being overturned help in any way with the current fear many women have of men? No, it doesn’t, because now rape becomes even more horrific without access to abortion. So why would Republicans appoint members to a supreme court that would do such a thing?
Well, we don’t have to guess, because they’ve even said the quiet part out loud - to create more cheap human labor for the economy. And that’s not the only thing it does - it’s harder for a worker taking care of a child to quit a job where she’s being mistreated or underpaid. It’s harder for her to risk her job to join a union.
And that’s just one part of the multifaceted issue that is (especially American) women being afraid of men in general, regardless of the bear or not. And it, like most societal issues, come back to the wealthy ruling class. But instead of that, they’ve managed to get people like you to play identity politics. Solve the real problem - an oligarchy that wants people divided - and most of the other issues go away.
This furthering of a perception of men being more dangerous than a bear is just another scheme to prevent us from working together.
Yikes. That’s a while lot of words just to show exactly how much you are part of the problem.
This isn’t about you. It was never about you. Your desire to pivot this to a class issue is some hardcore mansplaining. Get over yourself and listen to victims instead of thinking you know better than everyone.
I understand that it wasn’t your intention, but by shifting the conversation towards “have these people been near an angry bear? Well I have” you inadvertently detract from the issue at hand. It misses the point of the conversation: everyone knows an angry bear in your face is a more immediate threat than an unknown average male on the street. That’s not why the women pick the bear.
Here’s what you’re missing:
A) it’s much less about whether the bear is a bigger threat and much more about how fucking awful men must treat women for the average woman to go “hmmm… Maybe the bear, tbh?” The fact that it’s even something women have to think about for more than a split second is a dramatic failure of our society. THAT is the point, and any discussion of “well you don’t know about bears then…” is reply-guy shit that misses the entire point and simply serves to further solidify how blind most men are to what goes on in the day to day life of women.
B) An aggressive bear is a known quantity. Is it a threat? Obviously. But it’s a threat that we understand extremely well. Like, a quick Google search will teach you everything you need to know about what to do if you see a bear. But a strange, unknown man? Who the fuck knows. They might seem perfectly pleasant and reasonable, act like your friend, and then flip the fuck out when the woman refuses to sleep with him that night in return for all that manly protection he provided during the day or whatever. THAT is why women pick the bear: a known problem is often preferable to uncertainty that could lead to being extremely vulnerable against a really smart attacker.
Remember, the question wasn’t “would you rather be in a locked room with a bear or a man?” It was “would you rather be stuck on an island with a strange bear or a strange man?”
And to your final question, why can’t we just respect other humans? Great fucking question, but the misogynists should be the ones facing that inquiry, not the people on the internet trying to point you towards them. It may be more uncomfortable and even dangerous to confront them, but don’t take the easy way out by asking victims and their allies to be “nicer” instead
Considering no one I’ve met so far that I’ve told “a grizzly bear can bend steel bars” knows that - no, most people don’t know much about bears, or how dangerous a bear is. Heck most don’t know how fast a bear can run or swim. Heck there’s people who constantly get injured or killed because they want to pet a wild bear.
This doesn’t negate point A that you made, but the other huge factor is, most women, men, and everything in between don’t really know much about bears, or have been exposed to bears, and that’s a gigantic reason why so many women picked the bear too. Heck, your point B proves that - you clearly don’t understand the threat, or you’d know that it’s not a threat, it’s a death sentence. You are not, in virtually any scenario of being stuck on an island with a ever growingly hungry bear, going to live. You can’t swim away, you can’t climb a tree to escape. You’d have a much better chance of killing an openly hostile man than surviving a wild bear. You basically just said “yeah, I know how missiles work, they fly in the air and go boom when they land - that’s why I can survive a missile”.
And the question was designed to create this divide, because had this question instead been with something that IS perceived as more dangerous (like, would you rather be stuck in the middle of a large pool with a shark of a man), it wouldn’t have received the same amount of replies, since sharks are seen and portrayed as scarier than bears. It wasn’t designed to actually improve society, it was designed to drive another wedge and make us forget that the real danger is the wealthy and corporations that literally kill and poison us daily.
It’s literally just a classic page from the bigot’s playbook, but since it’s being used against cishet men for some reason that makes it okay?
If JK Rowling said she would rather go to a bathroom with a bear than a trans woman I think we would all rightfully call that hate speech.
If a white supremecist said this about black people it would be dismissed as racist nonsense. I’ve seen a lot of defenders saying that this is somehow different because violence by cishet men against women is real. How many years have racists loved to use the good ol’ “did you know x% of crimes are committed by x% of the population” tactic for?
And I see the “not all men” getting tossed around. How is that any different from saying “I know not all Muslims are terrorists. The good ones know we aren’t talking about them”? Change the conversation from cis men to anything else and it gets called out as hate speech. It does nothing to help solve any issues or lead to a better society.
deleted by creator
Does the question say “with a bear, in an enclosed space, where the bear only has you as a source of food?” No, it didn’t. Your entire argument is based on “women - and people like you - are dumb and don’t know what they’re talking about if they think men are less scary than bears.” But the truth is, YOU don’t understand the question being posed. You are literally doing the thing that people have a problem with. You aren’t asking questions. You aren’t seeking clarification. You aren’t giving the benefit of the doubt. You aren’t trying to understand. You aren’t doing anything to indicate that you aren’t exactly the reason why so many women picked the bear.
You could have said all of this in a way that wasn’t being an ass. But you chose not to. Thank you for self-identifying as part of the problem.
Does the question also say “on an island, the size of Ireland”? If you’re going to argue in bad faith, we can be here all day, because if it’s just you and some man in Madagascar, you’re equally as safe as sharing that island as with a bear or much anything really.
But then, you knew that and are being purposefully obtuse, since “island” type questions are usually about being in a limited amount of space (btw - bears hunt in forests, known not enclosed spaces, so kinda still proving my point most people really don’t understand the danger a bear poses).
Either way, you’re falling for the trap I just mentioned. It’s not to further discussion on the problem, because it doesn’t actually address the problem. Secondly, there’s no reason I need to prove I’m the “reason” so many women picked the bear. That’s a logical fallacy designed to inflame, not unite. And at it’s core, you’re proving what some have said, and showing how this question is malicious - it’s designed to paint men as bad by default, rather that what the real problem is - statistically more likely to be abusive than the other sex. And before you misinterpret that, statistically significant ≠ everyone. It means to practice caution, of course, because the problem is there. It doesn’t mean assume every single man will be evil, because then you won’t be able to have healthy relationships (and I’m not even talking romantic ones here, but familial, social, professional) if by default you assume you will be in danger. That is, after all, the only logical conclusion to thinking a random man is more dangerous than one of the strongest predatory mammals on earth.
That you then dismiss someone simply because they didn’t tow some now created narrative is exactly what identity politics also wants. Because then you’re not open to dialogue that might fix the problem, and you’re also preventing focus from the true root of virtually all modern societal issues: the wealthy ruling class. They are, end of the day, the ones that tip the scales of power so that things are the way they are.
Just as one example - does roe v Wade being overturned help in any way with the current fear many women have of men? No, it doesn’t, because now rape becomes even more horrific without access to abortion. So why would Republicans appoint members to a supreme court that would do such a thing?
Well, we don’t have to guess, because they’ve even said the quiet part out loud - to create more cheap human labor for the economy. And that’s not the only thing it does - it’s harder for a worker taking care of a child to quit a job where she’s being mistreated or underpaid. It’s harder for her to risk her job to join a union.
And that’s just one part of the multifaceted issue that is (especially American) women being afraid of men in general, regardless of the bear or not. And it, like most societal issues, come back to the wealthy ruling class. But instead of that, they’ve managed to get people like you to play identity politics. Solve the real problem - an oligarchy that wants people divided - and most of the other issues go away.
This furthering of a perception of men being more dangerous than a bear is just another scheme to prevent us from working together.
Yikes. That’s a while lot of words just to show exactly how much you are part of the problem.
This isn’t about you. It was never about you. Your desire to pivot this to a class issue is some hardcore mansplaining. Get over yourself and listen to victims instead of thinking you know better than everyone.
Well, I guess you at least proved to everyone here that you’re arguing in bad faith and not reading any responses.
Oh I read the whole thing. Doesn’t change my opinion of your behavior one bit
I didn’t mean to diminish any of that. I agree - the fact that so many women would answer that way is distressing.
I understand that it wasn’t your intention, but by shifting the conversation towards “have these people been near an angry bear? Well I have” you inadvertently detract from the issue at hand. It misses the point of the conversation: everyone knows an angry bear in your face is a more immediate threat than an unknown average male on the street. That’s not why the women pick the bear.