You must log in or register to comment.
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” ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In this scenario you are also “just existing out there.”
i mean yeah, but if i was just existing out there alone that would be fucking weird. But only just fucking weird. If i was out there but WITH someone else, i would be REALLY fucking confused.
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.
obviously. I wonder what the statistics would be though. Since it’s a “random” person, i wonder how likely you would actually be to get a shitty person. Bear stats are even harder though. So it’s not even like you could compare it.
people often sight that 1 in 3 woman experience sexual assault (i think that’s the correct phrasing) but that’s a basic collective stat. And given the fact that it’s just a random man. I would have to assume the chances of getting someone who isn’t going to fuck your shit up is pretty good. I’d be surprised if it was less than 50% frankly. Now when it comes to bears, there are a few bears, but assuming black bears, grizzly bears, and brown bears, black bears are pretty chill from what i’ve heard. Grizzly bears tend to be problematic. Brown bears are generally docile, but can be temperamental apparently. So for statistical simplicity we’ll just say you’ve got a 25% chance of getting cocaine bear’d because likewise, the bear doesn’t know why it’s there. I would feel like if you were to select a man at random from society, you’ve probably got equal to marginally better chances. I mean you’d have to get a pretty fucked up individual to just throw them in there and the first thing they decide to do is commit rape, or worse.
And presumably there aren’t any established rules for how you got there, i like to think of it as if you were just teleported there, and i suppose that’s unrealistic, but the alternative is walking into the forest with a fucking bear lmao. Or just being in a forest while a bear is also in the forest, and at that point, i don’t think it would make a difference anymore. Given that you’re likely to be too far away from each other to be an immediate danger. So i’m presuming we’re just dropped within visual/hearing distance of each other.
but naturally, that’s not the point of this thought experiment. The whole point is to make a point, because it’s actually a bit of societal quip more than anything. But i like thinking about this shit like a thought experiment because i prefer to not think about being murdered generally.
Also here’s a fucking nitpick if i’ve ever had one “any” is literally a synonym to “random” Any is quite literally describing “any one of these things that you could possibly select will do the job” and random is quite literally" pick one of them, at random, in a mathematical sense" So from the point of the argument, they mean the same thing.
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
It’s too big of a group to generalise. Your seemingly utter lack of understanding will only help drive the wedge between the genders even further.
It’s genuinely sad to see how annoyed and bitter some of my older male relatives have become due to people like you acting as if only 1 gender matter. Back in the days they would have called themselves feminists, but now their perception is that that group hates them instead.
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?
deleted by creator
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.
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.
deleted by creator
By what metrics do men dominate society?
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.
See, the difference is that the OP didn’t use the word “all” anywhere. If you’re not one of the untrustworthy men, then it isn’t about you.
Would you accept this logic about any other group like that?
if someone said “Black people are thieves” then when you called them out they said “I didnt say ALL black people are thieves. If you’re one of the good ones, then its not about you.” would you just accept that as a perfectly reasonable statement or would you still call them racist?
If someone has been frequently harassed and endangered only by black people, I’m not going to tell them they can’t be cautious of black people.
Bruh
so you believe racism is/can be justified?
No. But I’m also not going to undermine other people’s lived experience like that.
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! ❤️
I don’t see why you think the author is rage-baiting, rather than stating a simple truth.
“no bears have written in”
I don’t feel any rage about that. Not even a hint of any possibility of anger, regardless of mood or whatever. I don’t think it is rage-baiting. The point isn’t to induce rage. The point is just that men are dangerous and often don’t acknowledge it.
If any man reads that and has rage in their hearts over it and they’re exactly the kind of people you aren’t safe in the woods with.
Posts bait. Catches idiots. Stays relevant.
Words to live by
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.
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
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.
tending to do something is not being a robot, a robot does what it is programmed to do, theres no might in that equation.
there is no IF DISTANCE > 60m DO NOT CHARGE or IF CHILD(WITH[BERRIES]) (EAT)
Are you a robot?
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?”
If you don’t fuck with the bear, the bear probably won’t fuck with you. Just steer clear of it you’ll be fine.
Humans on the other hand, could do anything.
You don’t hike in bear country obviously
I mean is the bear hungry or the man horny? These are critical questions.
I mean is the bear hungry or the man horny? These are critical questions.
The fact that those two are given equal weight in your post speaks volumes.
Just once I would like to open one of these threads and not see a bunch of lemmites embarrassing themselves by deliberately misinterpreting something.
Yeah, I was kinda hoping for better when I posted. Seems like many of the sons who need this talk are on here.
The sad part is, you can tell some of them understand the point being made. But are either over reacting and making this about gender warfare. Or taking the scenario seriously, and trying to mock it that way.
Its disparaging to an entire gender. I would argue lots of people need many talks. Lots of evil out there and many of it goes unnoticed or is accepted due to current cultural climate. Including passive aggressive disparaging questions meant to vilify men.
I’d say we’re right to be disparaged against, up until we get our collective act together as men. Women should be wary of us for the simple fact that it aids in their survival. A comment like hers is at the very bottom of my list of things to change.
deleted by creator
We have to keep trying. Speaking as a black American who knows America’s history with black people, it’s important that we don’t give up just because we haven’t succeeded yet. Change of this magnitude takes a proportional amount of time.
Yep. “Not all _____” just sidesteps the point and tries to make it all about you. When someone not of my demographic says people in my demographic are hurting them, it’s time for me to shut up and listen. It’s not about me.
Seriously OP, what did you expect by posting the textbook a example of a clickbait article?
That at least one comment would get that men need to start challenging other men to get this problem solved?
How does hyperbole help foster an open conversation?
I’m male, though I consider myself non-conforming, for context. I’ve ridden home on the metro with coworkers in their thirties because it’s 8 PM and they don’t feel safe - and I have friends that are SA survivors. The difference in perception is absolutely something to be aware of and if you think most women can enjoy a nice 3 AM walk without massive anxiety you’re clearly out of touch.
This is an important conversation to have and it’s important to be more aware of what gestures we might make that can be perceived as threatening, however, this article was posed with such a hyperbolic title that it won’t ever spur those conversations. Were the misogynistic assholes that responded with “You’re gonna wish you had a man” to the author assholes? Absolutely. But even a charitable reading of the title doesn’t yield a helpful place to start a conversation.
Thank you to the men in the comments who react like humans with empathy!
But god damn there are a lot of people on this thread that are taking this VERY personally.
-
Nobody is denying that men in our society deserve to be respected, nobody is saying IF YOU’RE A MAN FUCK YOU ID RATHER BE MAULED, and nobody is saying that women are always right no matter what.
-
Of course the man could be weaker/not a threat. Of course he should be assumed safe. Of course everyone should respect all genders. And, OF COURSE, some women lie about rape! Yes! You do in fact have valid concerns!
HOWEVER, It is really shitty some people commenting decide to take a clear example with obvious intentions and then make it about themselves, and then abuse women in the comments… you are proving the point, and in fact, you are a huge red flag already.
This question already sets the scene, you are alone in the woods: there is a strange man OR you are alone in the woods: there is a strange bear. The man’s intentions (AND the bear’s intentions) is not clear, we only know that he is there, and he is strange. No need to make up reasons why the guy is OK, minding his business, etc. Because in the situation given, the point of the question was to ask people how they would feel lost in the woods with a man or a bear, with such a small amount of information!
The question is trying to shed light on WHY the women asked said they prefer the bear. Do they think every man -at all- is a threat? Do they think that all men will overpower and harm them"because all men want to use their strength to rape/hurt women" because they are "biologically meant to*?* and, then, where do the fears come from and what can we do to change that? Why assume the worst when everything could be just fine?
I wish people would react more like “this is very depressing, and I understand why women are sometimes afraid of men in situations out of their control” or "I am doing my part to be a safe man ". But ask yourself, “do I know someone that would clearly make a woman feel unsafe to be around?” You might know more than one person like this, and they are why we talk about this in the first place.
The best way I’ve ever heard to describe this fear women live with is this: "when I approach a bees nest, it is highly unlikely they will attack me, they are usually docile!. That does not mean I won’t try to avoid being stung. "
-
I mean, do I know if the bear is hungry? What type of bear? I’d take a well fed black bear over a random person, they ain’t gonna fuck with you. Pretty much any other scenario and I ain’t messing with the bear.
Water bear. Ravenously hungry.
Awh. Cute lil guy
Though honestly same could be said about the man in question, is he nice or hostile, can he control his urges or not, is he stable or a complete psycho. This question really goes both ways
Yeah but a well fed black bear isn’t going to try to make small talk
Neither will a socialy anxious person… Or a mute
A spectacled bear that has eaten his fill of marmalade sandwiches.
Gummy bear. It’s not hungry, but you are.
Ah just what we need, more gender warfare, rather than focusing on the 1% who increase inflation and make wars, and steal your paychecks.
Our society is f*cked
Mostly by the likes of iNews who are giving up the opportunity to report some actual news, in favor of whatever the hell this is.
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.
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
If I mer another man in the woods I would say hi and walk by. Bears are fucking dangerous. I really dont understand why all of you are so afraid of other people.
Black bears are less dangerous than nearly every other larger mammal. They are terrified of everything and not violent. Grizzly attacks are caused by you being perceived as a threat, if given the perceived option, most grizzly bears will run away. Fatal attacks are far more rare than people think 3 in all of north america in the last year. Humans are far far more dangerous to encounter.
As someone who hikes the Canadian Rockies on the regular, I can tell you statistically I’ve walked by thousands of people on the trails and maybe 3 grizzlies. The grizzlies were far more likely to attack but due to distance and spotting them early to avoid there was no issue.
The grizzlies were far more likely to attack but due to distance and spotting them early to avoid there was no issue.
They are not more likely to attack, you just perceive them that way. As long as you don’t do something that makes them feel threatened you are statistically in far more danger around the humans you cross paths with. I don’t remember where I read it, but even with the tiny amount of bear attack, even those attacks are most often the result of human fear causing humans to be aggressive and then lose the fight they started. For instance a hunter with a gun may get scared, shoot the grizzly, and then hit it without a fatal shot. They just created a danger that wasn’t there. “Fear is the mind killer”.
Met a bunch of bears, never been attacked. Shrug
Been mugged 4 times by people, tho. A few others attempted.
I’ll take my chances with the bear.
Damn, you’ve only met four people in your life, and all of them mugged you?
Can you show me where I’ve said that? Also 0 out of 10 is still less than 4 out of 8 billion. And I haven’t met most people.
Because the women who answered bear on the survey have extreme contempt for men. They see men as evil predators and not people.
20% of women in the US have been sexually assaulted, almost entirely by men. 80% have been sexually harassed, almost entirely by men. Based on the number of bear attacks that occur annually in the US, approximately .000001% of women have had a negative encounter or any kind with a bear.
How about if we conduct an experiment: replace all men with bears so the amount of time spent in close proximity to bears is equal, and see how the numbers shake out then, eh?
Sure.
I live in close proximity to bears, and see them regularly. Quite often a sow with young cubs or yearlings. I’m not overly concerned.
This is the exact same logic that racists use to excuse their prejudice against others. They assume black people are criminals because “FBI crime statistics”. You are using tragedy to excuse your hatred for half of the human population.
Assuming every man is a rapist is prejudice and is both morally and practically wrong. Men are half the population of the world.
Also, this is not a reason to answer bear on the survey unless you’re just trying to stick it to men (because of your prejudice). If you prefer to be in the company of an extremely powerful animal that is likely to maul you to death than a member of half the population, you are absolutely out of your mind and are obscenely sexist.
You’re being willfully blind.
They assume black people are criminals because “FBI crime statistics”.
::sigh:: Most people that aren’t racist are able to understand that black people are more likely to be targeted by law enforcement, and are thus more likely to be arrested, even when they commit crimes at similar or lower rates than non-black people. People that pay attention have also noted that black people are more likely to get jail time, and more amounts of jail time, than while people that commit substantially identical crimes with similar aggravating circumstances. (The effect is reduced at the federal level due to sentencing guidelines, but is still present.)
Assuming every man is a rapist is prejudice and is both morally and practically wrong.
It’s not every man, no. And no one is even claiming that, except incels and incel-adjacent men. On the other hand, almost all rapists are men. Almost all people that commit sexual assault are men. (Of the men that are sexually assaulted, most are, yes, assaulted by other men.) Keeping in mind that >80% of all women have been the target of unwanted sexual attention from a man, how would you expect them to identify and avoid threats?
If you prefer to be in the company of an extremely powerful animal that is likely to maul you to death
My dude, I live in bear country. I see black bears on the reg. They’re easier to run off than raccoons (but not nearly as easy to run off as the deer that ate my spouse’s hostas). The average number of people killed by bears each year in the US is 1.6. That’s it. Not even two people, on average, per year, in a country of 340,000,000 people. So, no, they are not likely to maul you to death.
It’s not every man, no.
The survey said “man or bear”. Not “rapist or bear”. So yes, this is absolutely targeting men as a whole. Don’t piss in my mouth and call it lemonade.
. Almost all people that commit sexual assault are men. (Of the men that are sexually assaulted, most are, yes, assaulted by other men.)
All that has been reported, yes. It is a common occurrence for men to not report being sexually assaulted, and there have been cases where they were literally turned away. I’m by no means an extrovert, and I know at least 3 men who were sexually assaulted by WOMEN as children and it never resulted in any form of justice. One of them was laughed at when they told a trusted adult.
Keeping in mind that >80% of all women have been the target of unwanted sexual attention from a man, how would you expect them to identify and avoid threats?
Assuming unwanted sexual attention includes any form of unwanted sexual advances, unwanted sexual attention is NOT equivalent to rape and you are doing rape victims a massive disservice by trying to lump them into the same issue.
My dude, I live in bear country
That’s awful convenient
The average number of people killed by bears each year in the US is 1.6. That’s it. Not even two people, on average, per year, in a country of 340,000,000 people. So, no, they are not likely to maul you to death.
None of this changes the fact that they would trust a wild animal as powerful as a bear to over a fellow human being they know nothing about. It’s sexism. Naked sexism. You can try to justify and twist it, but it’s sexism all the same. I apply my principles evenly. Do you?
I know at least 3 men who were sexually assaulted by WOMEN
My dude, almost every woman I know has been assaulted.
Assuming unwanted sexual attention includes any form of unwanted sexual advances
No, I mean things like sexual harassment.
That’s awful convenient
No, it was intentional. I didn’t want to live in cities anymore. I live in Appalachia now. Moved here from Chicago; i’d def. rather deal with bears than CPD.
