I hate to say this, but men are just scarier than wild animals.
With wild animals they will either flee or attack. Men are capable of deception and cruelty for the sake of pleasure, and sadists can get disgustingly creative. Even if there is a chance the man is safe to be around, the potential danger he poses just overall outweighs that of the bear, hence why a woman would choose the bear.
Yeah, I get that. And I’m not taking it personally either because I’ve seen my fair share of that.
But let’s be honest, women have at least the same capacity for deception and cruelty as men do, if not more because of their lower capacity for physical violence. A man should be at least as concerned about that as a woman is when it comes to choosing whom to spend their time with.
The original hypothetical doesn’t discuss anything beyond a “would you prefer” scenario, and women responding to it are simply stating they’d prefer to encounter a bear in the woods rather than a strange man.
Naturally both genders are capable of duplicity and cruelty, but it’s just not part of the original discussion, and so people aren’t discussing it.
Well, they SHOULD be. After all, what’s the point of discussing a hypothetical scenario except to find out what lessons can be learned from it? If people aren’t curious enough to ask these sorts of questions, they will learn nothing about each other, and we’ll all end up spending the night with a bear in the woods.
Honestly I think the current situation probably needs more unpacking before moving onto other points. It’s understandable that many men are indignant that women are saying they’d rather run into a bear, but it brings to the forefront that - for women - random strange men are considered less safe to be around than a large wild animal.
The reasoning can generally be boiled down to the possibility of premeditated violence. The majority of men don’t pose a threat, but those that do pose so much of a threat that women are given pause about men as a whole.
Honestly I think the current situation probably needs more unpacking before moving onto other points.
Yes, precisely. That’s what I meant by being willing to learn from it. When a woman publicly says a thing like this, there ought to be a big discussion where all viewpoints are heard, including those of men.
But what generally happens is that a million women will say “yes, I agree, men are awful and violent and cause nothing but heartache and trouble”, a couple of white knights will jump up and pound their chests saying “if you disagree, YOU’RE part of the problem”, and then everyone moves on to the next viral happening, and nobody ends up any better or wiser.
The reasoning can generally be boiled down to the possibility of premeditated violence.
As a man, I think I can safely say that it takes a LOT of consistent and unrelenting abuse to make someone consider being violent towards a woman, much less in a premeditated fashion. I don’t have any data on this but I’d be willing to bet that the majority of violence against women is likely only the result of someone losing their patience or composure, i.e. they are crimes of passion, not persuasion.
Also, I’m fairly sure the woman who made that statement was likely worried about being raped, and essentially saying she would prefer only getting beaten up (or worse case, mauled to death) instead. At least that’s how I read it. I’m not a woman, of course, so forgive me for my careless assumption, but it is my understanding that sexual assault is generally their no. 1 concern.
The majority of men don’t pose a threat, but those that do pose so much of a threat that women are given pause about men as a whole.
Right, but how is making a sweeping statement like this helping the situation? Isn’t that unjustly condemning the vast majority of men who would not take advantage of her along with the tiny minority who would? What message does that communicate to men, and do you think it’s productive?
I hate to say this, but men are just scarier than wild animals.
With wild animals they will either flee or attack. Men are capable of deception and cruelty for the sake of pleasure, and sadists can get disgustingly creative. Even if there is a chance the man is safe to be around, the potential danger he poses just overall outweighs that of the bear, hence why a woman would choose the bear.
Yeah, I get that. And I’m not taking it personally either because I’ve seen my fair share of that.
But let’s be honest, women have at least the same capacity for deception and cruelty as men do, if not more because of their lower capacity for physical violence. A man should be at least as concerned about that as a woman is when it comes to choosing whom to spend their time with.
The original hypothetical doesn’t discuss anything beyond a “would you prefer” scenario, and women responding to it are simply stating they’d prefer to encounter a bear in the woods rather than a strange man.
Naturally both genders are capable of duplicity and cruelty, but it’s just not part of the original discussion, and so people aren’t discussing it.
Well, they SHOULD be. After all, what’s the point of discussing a hypothetical scenario except to find out what lessons can be learned from it? If people aren’t curious enough to ask these sorts of questions, they will learn nothing about each other, and we’ll all end up spending the night with a bear in the woods.
Honestly I think the current situation probably needs more unpacking before moving onto other points. It’s understandable that many men are indignant that women are saying they’d rather run into a bear, but it brings to the forefront that - for women - random strange men are considered less safe to be around than a large wild animal.
The reasoning can generally be boiled down to the possibility of premeditated violence. The majority of men don’t pose a threat, but those that do pose so much of a threat that women are given pause about men as a whole.
Yes, precisely. That’s what I meant by being willing to learn from it. When a woman publicly says a thing like this, there ought to be a big discussion where all viewpoints are heard, including those of men.
But what generally happens is that a million women will say “yes, I agree, men are awful and violent and cause nothing but heartache and trouble”, a couple of white knights will jump up and pound their chests saying “if you disagree, YOU’RE part of the problem”, and then everyone moves on to the next viral happening, and nobody ends up any better or wiser.
As a man, I think I can safely say that it takes a LOT of consistent and unrelenting abuse to make someone consider being violent towards a woman, much less in a premeditated fashion. I don’t have any data on this but I’d be willing to bet that the majority of violence against women is likely only the result of someone losing their patience or composure, i.e. they are crimes of passion, not persuasion.
Also, I’m fairly sure the woman who made that statement was likely worried about being raped, and essentially saying she would prefer only getting beaten up (or worse case, mauled to death) instead. At least that’s how I read it. I’m not a woman, of course, so forgive me for my careless assumption, but it is my understanding that sexual assault is generally their no. 1 concern.
Right, but how is making a sweeping statement like this helping the situation? Isn’t that unjustly condemning the vast majority of men who would not take advantage of her along with the tiny minority who would? What message does that communicate to men, and do you think it’s productive?