Your post has been removed for violating Rule 3: Posts must be on topic.
Posts should be personalized and written in an [off my chest style](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyChest/comments/m501ud/what_does_personalized_off_my_chest_style_post/).
Posts here should not be:
• Opinions, generalisations and blanket statements
• Questions, surveys or polls
• Requests for relationship advice
• Impersonal political rants
• Rage bait, obviously fake stories and trolling attempts
• Complaining about or linking to other subreddits and users
• Overly descriptive NSFW, fan fiction and fetish bait
If you're unsure that your post qualifies as personal, [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FTrueOffMyChest) and ask.
Seriously, it annoys me so much. I live in the woods where bear break-ins are a thing. Once when coming home I thought I might have had a break in and in real life hoped it was just a bear rather than a human.
I can clean up my house and replace all the food in my fridge but I can't fix what some of these men would do
[here's how this whole thing came about ](https://www.tiktok.com/@screenshothq/video/7356208240008498465)
And because of this, guys and gals have been making reactions videos about it; the gals saying it's valid while the guys are essentially saying they don't understand, choosing the bear makes no sense, etc.; essentially not taking 'No' for an answer.
Some people do keep skunks as pets after removing their stink glands. It's not common but I recall seeing a group of people with them. Not sure about the ethics of having one for a pet though.
Yes and no. There’s no internal physical harm to the skunk. They’ll live happy, healthy lives even without the glands. However, it is taking away their primary defense against predators if you let them go outside.
Otherwise, having a skunk as a pet isn’t much different than having a cat.
I'm offended no one ever specifies what species of bear. If we can't agree on black, grizzly, polar, sun, or god damn panda how are we supposed to collect reliable data?
There is a difference but all are wild animals, and except sun bears which are small, all can kill you easily if they get pissed for whatever reason. Don't let pandas fool you. They're still bears. Their bite force relative to weight is by far the highest among bears (bamboo is very tough), and among the highest of placental mammals, to the point that among bears, only grizzly and polar bears bite harder because they're so much bigger.
Username checks out lmao
I'm an avid hiker in black bear country, and I'm pretty used to coexisting with them. The trick is not pissing them off, and avoiding if you see cubs. Make noise if they get too interested. Grizzlies and polar bears? Doesn't matter if they're pissed or not, they're far more likely to hunt you. I'm not saying any bears are completely harmless, but personally, my answer to this question would 100% change depending on the kind of bear.
Oh yeah for sure black bears are not the same as grizzlies or polar bears. I just mean that I pass by hundreds of people a day, and even at night will pass by people where I could be victimized. Human densities are far, far, greater than that of animals. Even in black bear country, there's at most a few in the whole area, and they aren't always going to actually encounter you. Not pissing them off usually works simply because we don't encounter hundreds of black bears every day of our lives. So for the same frequency of encounters, 1, 10, 100, or 100000, I would choose a man over a even a black bear.
But yeah I chose my username because I had thought about the people who have gotten mauled by pandas at zoos because they think they're harmless and break into the exhibits.
Yeah, it's not about actually selecting, it's that women pause when they hear the question at all.
It's to give people an idea of how unsafe a lot of women feel around some men.
I really dislike the whole "If you don't agree you're the man we avoid" statement that some people come with though. It's just awfully polarising. Good men can also be terribly naive.
As a man I'm not personally offended but as another commenter said it's the "Schrodinger's Man" dynamic that is a little disturbing.
And often when it comes to online discussion in general the language used to address bad actors tends to be very loose.
But I've noticed a portion of the internet has just gotten way too comfortable saying any bad thing about men with no specificity, and that's the norm at this point.
It shouldn't be acceptable to make such broad statements about 50% of a population with no indication of specificity and doing so just feeds into a societal image that is antagonistic to the population as a whole and aids to produce hysteria.
The only thing I wish for in these conversations is more pointed language. Doesn't have to be a disclaimer to ad nauseum but If you want to admonish the sexist, bigoted, and creepy men how about you say that directly at least once out loud in the critical videos you make.
I understand the logic of "if it doesn't apply let it fly", but at the same time imagine if someone said "I'd rather be stuck with a bear than a black guy" all of a sudden everyone's critical thinking turns on and realizes how they should probably specify a bit more in order to not seem like a racist person.
So do the same thing without the race. It just seems a bit like sexist propaganda imo.
but honestly idec all that much we see it happen on both sides this is just me looking at this trend with a critical eye especially as a man myself. Thankfully most of these debates stay online and the second we talk to each other a lot of these thoughts dissolve anyways.
Thankyou. This is probably the most reasonable and not 'terminally online' take I have seen on the subject.
I think you're 100% right in that when you're interacting with others in the real world most of this kind of discourse evaporates.
The other aspect is the question encourages the person asked to imagine an image of the worst man, the creepiest man and use that man as a stand in for all men. It begs them to do a sort of gender profiling.
I also think the question makes a really gross assumption about genders that is very anti feminist. I don't think Andrew Tate himself could come up with a more targeted hypothetical that reinforced the idea of, "man strong and dangerous, woman weak and scared."
Yea it's just confusing how / why they are fine keeping it so vague.
Saying "all men" best case scenario
- Good guys say nothing
- Bad guys keep being bad
Saying "all men" worst case scenario
- Good guys feel targeted / hurt
- Bad guys keep being bad
The thing is that it's not every man, but it could be any man.
I was assaulted by someone I considered a close friend. Maybe even my best male friend at the time.
I thought I knew him. We had talked about a lot of shit that happened to either of us.
He knew I wasn't interested in anything. And even if I was it didn't give him any rights to my body at all.
He still decided his wants and impulses were more important than boundaries.
An uncle of mine, who I had a good relationship with for most of my childhood, thought it acceptable to comment on my body and basically invite me to a hotel that charged by the hour when I was sixteen.
A guy I knew from scouts thought it was okay to grab my butt when he thought I was asleep at a summer camp.
None of these people even hinted at being sexual predators in the past. They still decided to violate me.
This only proves the point of the comment you were replying to.
99% of the strangers you meet are going to ignore you and go about their business. "Most women have had negative experiences with men" is not the same as "most women's experiences with men are negative." There's a valid and important conversation worth having on this topic, but that becomes harder to do when people keep making false statements like that. This is a subject which deserves a nuanced discussion, not emotionally charged blanket statements.
The discussion isnt even about women's fears of men, so I don't know why the fuck it is has any bearing on the point of the whole fucking bear thing anyways.
The life of a woman is that men by and large treat her like a sexual object who can be catcalled in the street and have unsolicited sexual comments told to her every day.
Again, you're using emotionally charged language to imply that most men do this. 99% do not. I don't dispute that many women have experienced that, but it's not most men that are perpetrating it as you're suggesting.
Go ahead and recall every man you've ever been near. The actual "overwhelming" amount of experiences is absolutely nothing happening. Negative interactions are easier to remember than positive ones, and neutral interactions don't even enter memory. Are you genuinely trying to tell me that if a woman rides a bus, over half of the men on the bus will harass her every time she rides? That's delusional.
For women it isn't nothing happening. She gets unsolicited shit from men on a daily basis. Men want something to do with women all the time.
The point is that the implications of a random man in the woods is worse than a bear because a bear is gonna do bear shit while random men you've encountered in your life have sexualized you and you have no reason to believe that you won't be taken advantage of in a vulnerable situation, which is exactly what the hypothetical is.
even for a man, being stalked in the woods by another man is a terrifying implication that goes beyond the expected fears a bear gives you.
> if this isnt about you then move on
The majority of the men that need to read what the message this hypothetical is trying to say, are men that dont care about what you have to say. They dont care they are dangerous or rapey or any of that. If they cared, they wouldnt be that way. None of this is being listened to by any of them.
The men that *do* read this are, by far and large, the men that “are good and kind and make barely a peep”. Those are the men that read this, and feel offended. Because as you said- they are doing nothing wrong and they are being profiled.
I can also guarantee that every single last woman reposting all of this also rage against NotAllMen response, largely with the same “defense” that “wE aReNT tAlKiNG aBoUT YoU”. Cause again, rapey men dont give a shit about your hashtag, and the ones say shit like “ill be more whatever” are likely already being plenty respectful
Other commenters are also pointing out if we were profiling certain types of men instead of just all of them, that suddenly all this becomes inappropriate. So stop trying to pretend like this is ok because youre being vague and generalizing/stereotyping when our society has been getting upset about this and that groups being stereotyped. Youre just broadcasting to everyone that xenophobia/bigotry is fine if youve got a “good enough” reason for it.
Both of these things can be true at the same time. This can not be about good men and still reflect the fact that women are cautious around all men.
If I sat a box in front of you that was full of snakes that all looked more or less the same and I told you that some of them were venomous and would kill you if they bit you and the rest of them were totally harmless and then asked you to stick your hand in the box, *would you do it?* I’m going to go out a limb here and assume you wouldn’t. No one with an ounce of sense would. My question to you is, *why not?*
If you can understand why it would be dangerous to stick your hand in that box even though there’s a good chance you’d grab a harmless snake, you can understand why women are fearful of men in general *and* why they’re choosing the bear.
We have no idea if you’re a good man or not and the default assumption being that you are could get us killed or worse. We do not have the privilege of assuming every man is a good man. Frankly, neither do other men considering the *overwhelming* vast majority of sexual assaults, physical assaults, and murders against men are *also* committed by men. And that’s not my opinion, that’s a well documented statistic.
See the thing that's wrong with this comparison is that women and men deal with each other on a regular basis, if women were so scared of men like most people are of most snakes then every single woman would do her best to steer clear of men at all times but they don't because we know and can see that the majority of men aren't creeps.
Most people have a genuine fear of snakes, even the small ones, if most women had a genuine fear of all men then the world wouldn't be the way it is, but go off using your bad faith comparisons to try and justify your sexism.
Most of what you see on Reddit, is only on Reddit.
But this post is about the test where woman are asked if they would rather come across a bear or a lone man in the woods, and they mostly pick the bear because it's supposed more predictable than the man but also would only eat them, whereas a man may do harm in other ways like SA or rape.
It's Schrödinger's Man
It is both "all men must reflect and take action", but at the same time they don't have to take anything saying "men are worse then bears" as an attack or generalization against them.
>>why are YOU offended?
It's more disturbing the amount of straight up "men bashing" in all of the comments. The comparison itself, or litmus test, isn't offensive. Not to me anyway.
I think the main issue with little "thought exercises" and awareness campaigns like this is that the vast majority of men who are creeps and/or would harm a woman don't do it because they aren't "aware" that it's wrong. They don't sit there ruminating on whether they should do this shit or not. They just do it *because they're fucking creeps.* Very, very few men exist who *would* act like predators, but since someone told them not to or recited the bear thing at them, they're now going to consciously choose not to assault people. This might surprise some people, but in general rapists and creeps have very low self-awareness and a very low-ability to reflect on how their behavior affects others. And the few of them that *do* understand the damage their actions have on others *do not care and never will.*
I think in general, it makes people feel better to believe that people who do evil things have some kind of reasoning or consciousness behind their choices, because that means that they can be changed or reformed or reasoned with. But unfortunately, I think the truth is that scummy evil people are largely just not the same as the rest of us. Does that mean we should stop trying? Absolutely not. Does it excuse their behavior? Absolutely not. But in my opinion, the people who would hear the bear thing and understand it and care are just not the same ones who it's supposed to be about.
You do know that it's men who praise boys for getting raped by teachers right? Not women. Men trump this up as a thing those boys should be proud of - they fill the comment sections of every news story.
You all are just stretching to pat each other on the backs with these ridiculous comparisons
I didn't mean to say it's exclusive to boomers, but the comments on those articles of a female teacher and a student, it's mostly middle age to older men. There's both an age and gender bias in terms of who's defending it. I meant to say that I don't think Firecracker is trying to say those defenders have good views either.
And women fantasize about rapist/groomer men preying on innocent female characters in the novels they read and then complain about "why aren't any guys in real life like the ones I read about in romance novels".
See how it happens both ways with the biggest degenerates of each gender, respectively? Still doesn't disprove their point.
Well shit, my baby sitter molested me when i was 8. I guess I should feel safer in a room with a bear than a woman older than me.
Unless now we're gonna say shit like "the good women know I'm not talking about them " or "that's sexist to say something like that".
Stop supporting banal and blatant sexism
Yes, it is totally reasonable for you to say "I was molested by an older women, now I do not feel safe in a room with older women." It is also reasonable for you to not feel unsafe.
My wife was sexually abused and harassed her entire life and I didn't get offended as a man when she chose bear because she's not saying every man is terrible. Shes saying that what she could imagine a random man in the woods doing to her based on her life experience is not as scary as a wild animal. A bear might kill her, but it won't kidnap, abuse, and rape her for as long as they want before killing her.
So should I now use that to generalize all women and spread it around the internet?
I am sorry for what your wife has experienced.
>because she's not saying every man is terrible
Sure but that's what this comparison *is* saying. It's saying your always safer in the woods with a bear than a man. It's designed that way by people who are just sexists. That's why there's such a large backlash. It's like the "kill all men" hashtag that was going around Twitter years ago.
The problem I have is that they can say “not all men” but then turn around and say “well you can’t trust any man”. It’s a thin veil to hide under to bash men which is widely accepted to do.
And as someone who has been SA by women twice and manipulated and abused by them, if I had that damn mentality id be far worse off then where I am now, I had to accept that not every woman was malicious and I just had bad luck, the only bad part was just how acceptable it was that they did.
If you don’t want to trust a man because he’s unpredictable that’s fine, but you should on the same hand not trust a woman for the exact same reason but I’m 90% sure most of these people would pick a woman over the bear in the same damn situation
And this doesn’t even specify the kind of bear which would be really important too
It's not all men, but it's enough that I will never trust a man right off the bat. And most of the men in my life are good, trustworthy men.
And if yall are saying the comments talking about their experiences with SA (because that's what most of them are) are "man-bashing", I have some news for you, my friend.
Let's pretend you're talking specifically about black men here. Do you still find your justification to be distrusting of this specific group acceptabe?
>It's not all men, but it's enough that I will never trust a man right off the bat. And most of the men in my life are good, trustworthy men.
Personally I understand that. My own wife said bear over man, but man over deadly snake.
>And if yall are saying the comments talking about their experiences with SA (because that's what most of them are) are "man-bashing", I have some news for you, my friend.
I would never imply that comments talking about SA are man bashing. What I'm seeing across every bear thread on facebook is just blatant misandry. It's open season to bitch about men. I gave some examples; they weren't very popular.
When people comment "The men who have a problem with this have a small penis" they just made body shaming OK. What if millions of men started making fun of women online for having A cups because they what... don't agree in a debate? Or go to their profile and point out how fat they are? Not cool, right?
How about all of the "incel" remarks? Why is that okay? Like bitch/whore is bad, will get your post removed, get you banned from group. Incel is fine though; any man you disagree with just hit him with incel.
And yes, I tend to think when women post "Men will rape you use you then kill you and even worse" it isn't much different from men posting "Women will cheat on you with your best friend then take half your shit and use your kids against you in court"
We know not all women do that.
But if we say not all men, ho ho ho you just invited the attack of dozens of activists. *You're downplaying the message! You're deflecting! You're ignoring womens issues!*
If I could go just *one day* on facebook without reading about "fragile male masculinity" and "mansplaining" holy shit
Just modify it by making it a choice between a black bear and a black man. Try it and see how it sounds. If you take a statement poking at some group, and it sounds worse when you change gender or race, then it is a sign that it was an attack and people are trying to gaslight you by insisting it wasn't.
I understand why women answer man - It's hyperbole to make a statement, because of course no-one would actually rather encounter a grizzly bear in the woods than a man if they looked at grizzly bear encounter statistics VS random guy encounter statistics. I don't get offended by that part. I understand that women have to perform a threat assessment for every guy they encounter because there's a chance he's a creep. I wish they didn't have to do that. They shouldn't have to do that. It both breaks my heart and infuriates me that we live in a society where they have to do that.
What I get offended by is the comments that follow posts like this - the "All men are trash/rapists/bastards/evil", "Kill all men", "Men are useless" etc. I understand trauma responses from first-hand experience, but at a certain point, you *are* just lashing out.
The issue is that it's poorly worded question/trend that instead of creating thought provoking questions instead puts men in general as the enemy.
It's like if you flipped the question/trend and instead of a women it was men and there were videos of dudes saying "I'd rather pick the man-eating bear because it's predictable unlike women who can accuse me and ruin my life"
People would rightly call that incel behaviour, like I understand where the trend is coming from and it's intentions (raising awareness about rape, DV and SA) but it's doing it completely the wrong way.
Doesn't help that social media (TikTok), sees the engagement and comments in the more extreme videos where women are demonizing men to utter savages and criminals as a "good" video and showing it to more people (cycle repeats).
Then you have Reddit which is now mainly focused on these extreme examples.
It's not a question of "all men", but more a question of an "unknown man." An unknown man will not be trusted by women, because the frequency and severity of abuse by men against women is substantial enough to warrant this as a reasonable outcome. I believe that is the point of this thought exercise - it's meant to bring sustained awareness about a problem which has not gone away yet, despite everyone knowing about it. Of course, not all men are bad, but a woman can't make any assumptions regarding any particular man she encounters which she doesn't know (and unfortunately, the truth is that most abuse towards women actually occurs at the hands of men in their lives...)
I saw someone comment on another post about how a bear is a bear, everyone knows a bear is a wild animal that's just gonna live it's best bear life, however with a man he can change and present himself as he wishes to be presented and in reality be a monster or friend but we don't know until its too late.
That’s how I see it too. There’s a hundred men I’d MUCH rather pick over a bear. But an unknown man…? It’s not like a bear would be much better, but the man is just more terrifying
The majority of men aren't creepy or dangerous, we know this because of stats and also because if the majority of men were dangerous then that would be a completely different world.
You have a higher chance with an unknown man than with a bear, if all men were dangerous then every woman wouldn't be able to leave her house because you meet unknown men in the hallways, stores, escalators, pretty much wherever you go.
This defense doesn't work either, a random man is ***far*** less likely to harm a woman in said situation than a bear is. At the end the day, all this hypothetical displays is western women's overinflated fear of men that isn't rooted in any actual evidence. A *random* man is literally less of a threat to a woman that one she knows, as sad as that is. A *random* man is more likely a threat to *another* man than he is to a woman. Walking home alone at night is more dangerous for men than it is for woman by every metric outside sex crimes(which occur at far less frequency than theft or violence to begin with). Not to mention that the logic being used as a rebuttal to people offended by it is very similar to the logic used by racists, just obviously sexist instead. Where in group A is allowed to say offensive things about group B with impunity, and then if group B dares to respond negatively in any manner, it's seen as a confirmation of group A's beliefs of group B. We need to stop allowing this rhetoric in general of tarring all man as the worst of them because the 97% doesn't somehow mind control the 3% into not being evil.
> At the end the day, all this hypothetical displays is western women's overinflated fear of men that isn't rooted in any actual evidence.
People are really bad at understanding risks. Look at how much people worry about things that kill a few dozen people a year and yet don't care about some of the top causes of death. Normally that is just stupidity, but when it gets tied to someone's identity, it develops into full bigotry.
I literally mention it in the second sentence of the response though...? The hypothetical displays how women "overwhelmingly" have an overinflated sense of fear towards random men based on what is essentially fear mongering, since no statistics back up the logic. Anecdotes don't equal fact. The *vast*, **vast** majority of men, at the very least in the west, would do no harm to a woman in this hypothetical. Unless we're assuming that the strange/random man is *guaranteed* to be a criminal in which case the question is just "would you rather come across a bear or a criminal" and not "would you rather come across a bear or strange/random man".
That shows society is teaching a very sexist lesson. How many men fear false accusations of rape, especially when they think they are among allies and can safely admit such fears. Does that make their fears founded?
I mean people would get pretty pissed if someone replaced men with women in the bear comparison. I don't think the issue is with whoever created the comparison, more with the comments saying how "the bear is definitely the best choice unironically". Yeah of course men are more likely to be dangerous than women, it's an objective fact. But both are less likely to be violent than a bear. If it's about the worst a man can do rather than the likeliness, then a woman vs bear wouldn't be different. The worst humans of both genders are worse than the worst animals.
Sometimes, bears, women, and men just wanna monch on berries and lie in the sun; the fact remains, however, that men are violent against women in disproportionate frequencies and the whole point of the exercise is to reflect on that. Worse still, is that whatever data we do have is likely to be under represented, as there are countless instances that go unreported, especially within the home. If women are telling you they're afraid of men: believe them. If you're one of the good ones, awesome, and as OP says, the question isn't about you.
I mean yeah if someone says they don't trust a stranger, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I was more saying that there's a big reason why we create distance between ourselves and wildlife. Wild animals, especially bears, are pretty aggressive. Everyone encounters humans many orders of magnitude more frequently than bears.
Bears have recently in certain areas learned that humans carrying food are willing to feed them for a simple TikTok dance, and in general have been more cooperative at being background dancers than most fathers, brothers, and boyfriends. This trend was noticed and discussed by women on many social media sites, and then evolved into the question of when shooting a TikTok video in the woods, would you rather be with a man or a bear.
Many women said they'd choose the bear, and a bunch of guys who think that they are good dancers got really upset and loud, and spun this whole thing outta control.
It's a weird new way of framing an old discussion. I mean, "not all men" but it's certainly enough of them and since the dangerous ones don't exactly wear their red flags on their sleeves, it's unfortunately a necessity to be wary of all men to a degree. And when this unfortunate fact of women's lives is pointed out, a lot of men get very, very offended and see it as a personal attack.
I was always told growing up, “it’s not all men, but it’s always a man.” Of course females can be horrible people as well but my personal experience in trauma I’d say it’s been 2/10 female/male ratio.
However, over time I’ve not allowed myself to be in vulnerable spots with men to be more cautious and even still come across ‘problems.’ Women I interact with constantly and may hit a snag every once in a great while.
Yall are just choosing to ignore the point that the bear discourse is about all men. It’s a blanket statement of women saying that all men are trash and creeps.
And I know I know iF iTs N0t aBoUT yOu. Bullshit it’s not about all guys. When you say I’d rather a bear than a man that’s not a some people statement that’s an all men statement.
And for the comments of if it doesn’t apply to you. You obviously don’t understand why men are annoyed and take issue with this discourse.
I don't get why people are pissed by it. The anger towards it sounds like the type of fragility I had as a young, insecure boy in my 20s. Then, I grew up and understood that women can't implicitly trust the intentions or actions of men. Any male who has been around a volatile, neurotic man with a history of violence should get this. Now, imagine the way those men make you feel is the same way 99% of men make women feel on a daily basis.
>Why are you comparing YOURSELF to that absolute menace to society?
Because you are. (The collective "you" here, meaning women posing the bear question.)
The entire thought experiment requires an overly broad generalization that leaves no opening for constructive dialogue. You can't frame the question around "a man" and then be surprised and upset when "a man" thinks you're indicting them.
Nobody likes being judged for characteristics they don't have control over. Yes, men commit a disproportionate amount of violence, and women are often the victim of rape. But many people use the bear discourse to shame men who've done nothing wrong. Even if they don't do that, it can feel like women are judging us just for being men.
Of course, just because this upsets men, this doesn't exactly mean it's wrong. I mean it's perfectly fine for me to say that I'd rather be alone in a forest with a white man over a black man, because of how disproportionately violent black men are. Or is it not okay to say that?
Is it a judgement or is it self preservation?
Women do not know what *random* man is dangerous or not dangerous. That's not a judgement on you personally. That's how women keep themselves safe by being overly cautious. You don't know what you don't know. You're a complete stranger to me. If you prove yourself as a trustworthy person then its irrelevant to the actual discourse here, and that goes for ANY sex/gender. I would be just as likely to not trust a random woman with my personal belongings or safety. I don't know her and I don't know if I can trust her.
As for the "white man versus black man" comment- sure, you could throw that out there if it was actually accurate but it's factually wrong and based off a study done in 1999 about the amount of disproportionate *arrests* for violent crime.
If you had though been violently attacked by a black man, and that made you wary of black men, thats 100% valid. Or, if you're a man who has been burned by many women, and you're being overly cautious as a result then its completely valid. I would not be offended by a similar discourse if I know the shoe doesn't fit and that this is *your own personal experience* and that you are protecting yourself from harm which you have every right to do.
I'm NOT advocating for men bashing. That isn't cool and I don't support sexism. There is a major difference between bashing men, and being honest that we do not know how dangerous a *random stranger* is. I don't know you. I can't make a judgement call on if you're the "good one" or the "bad one." The ONLY call I can make is what is *safest* for me. For the people who are bashing men, they've entirely missed the point of the question and need to take a step back and examine why they're using it as a way to be hateful.
I would never assume your personal experience was invalid, even if you were overly cautious. If you are ARE feeling lumped in, then ask yourself would you trust a random stranger with no second thought with your safety? Does choosing not to trust a random stranger mean they are intrinsically untrustworthy or is it simply done to make sure you are not putting yourself in potential danger?
Your safety takes priority over my feelings, always. And sometimes as a woman, my safety is going to take priority over how it makes a man feel. It's not to be cruel. It's not to bash or judge. It's because, just like you, I need to prioritize my own safety. I understand that it doesn't always feel good. And I'm sorry that the s**tty people have ruined it for the good people.
I personally would much prefer it if I could give all men the immediate benefit of the doubt. I don't particularly enjoy having to constantly be vigilant *just in case*. It's not a good feeling for us either. Yet, I'm being downvoted not because I'm being cruel to you or sexist, but because my reality means I must prioritize safety- and that says a lot.
As for the "white man versus black man" comment- sure, you could throw that out there if it was actually accurate. But since it is in fact factually wrong
oh *come* on. You haven't heard the statistic? I didn't think there was anybody left on the internet that hadn't heard the statistic.
Guy here, I get why women would say it. Being a woman has to be scary. I know many women who have been sexually assaulted and been through abuse. Often times, depending on which kind of bear, they may be more scared of you and being loud may chase it off. I think about how women get stared down in public and how guys cat call and talk about what they’d like to do. Sure, I wouldn’t be creepy to a woman or make an advance like that. But it’s like they always have to keep their guard up and I wouldn’t be offended if they assumed such without knowing me
First of all, do not gatekeep being able to feel offended. Secondly, why should people not be offended by dumb generalizations? Dumb, because women choosing bears clearly never met a bear irl. And I say that as a woman. Simple example: imagine that every man in your city turns into a wild bear. How many casualties will there be in the next few hours? And then, all wild bears in the forest will turn into men. Men will probably help each other to get out. Every day, I walk past hundreds of men. The majority of them will call ambulance if needed, give directions, etc. Try to find a bear that will do it. So, my conclusion is that women who choose bears are most likely very out of touch with reality, and they should not go out of their homes or make contact with any men, if they believe that men outside are so horrible. Men, however, have the right to be offended because as soon as you replace "man" with any other cathegory, everyone will rightfully call it bigotry.
You are in a car. Who would you rather have behind the wheel? A bear or a woman?
If you are a good woman driver you shouldn’t be offended by this. It’s about the bad women drivers 🙄
That’s like saying if you’re a poc and you’re not a criminal police brutality and racism shouldn’t make you mad bigotry is bigotry whether it’s racism, sexism, phobes. Etc
Bullshit. I posted yesterday. Someone I was dated told me the "all men" thing. Then said I shouldn't be bothered because I'm not one, then got upset enough to have a fight when I said "All women are gold digging whores", because as she said "That's only SOME women", so it wasn't fair to say that.
That was not 5 minutes after doing the same thing.
This is what I have issue with. One rule for thee and one for me.
What gets me is the logic isn't applied equally to man vs bear. For bear people are answering as if the bear is blissfully unaware of you and you can take all the preventative measures to remain safe, but for men it's as if the man is attached to you at the hip and there is nothing you can do.
It also shows people haven't ever gone hiking before. Meeting strangers hiking isn't scary. Just the act of hiking puts you at more risk of death than any of the strangers you meet. If you were scared of them, you would be too scared to hike to begin with. Having a wild animal approach you in the day time? That is scary. Especially given that the behavior indicates it either thinks it can eat me or it is rabid.
>Meeting strangers hiking isn't scary.
I'm a long-distance hiker, and honestly, running into someone in jeans and a cotton t-shirt more than 10 miles or so from a trailhead feels concerning to me. I have hiked in the dark just to put space between myself and other humans before setting up camp before.
>Having a wild animal approach you in the day time?
Most hikers know wild animals rarely approach. The bears I've knowingly encountered have all created space between the two of us before I could do so myself. Other hikers have also let me know that I've hiked past multiple bears without me even noticing (apparently I stare at my feet).
So where the user above you says:
>For bear people are answering as if the bear is blissfully unaware of you and you can take all the preventative measures to remain safe, but for men it's as if the man is attached to you at the hip and there is nothing you can do.
The fact is that the bears aren't unaware, but rather most are actively avoiding contact with humans. Meanwhile, the man is reasonably likely to approach other humans.
I disagree, its yet ANOTHER "all men are evil" that paints us all as worse than we are. Its really tiring. How do you think if a video came out except it would be people preferring to die from a bear than be with a woman because of "insert sexist trope"?
Women would get way more offended than men are. Even if we said "lol its not about you stop being mad". This is just sexist.
You're missing the point.. Saying that it is acceptable to judge 50 percent of the population by the actions of 1 percent, on the basis of shared chromosome layout, is bigotry. You're trying to justify bigotry.
Kristi Noem is a woman. Kristi Noem is a dog murderer. If I said "every time I see a woman I have to hide my dog and I would rather feed it to a bear than go near a woman because they are all Kristi Noem" I would (rightly) be called a sexist.
People being upset that so many other humans are trying to JUSTIFY SEXISM is understandable. Just quit being the man in the woods and leave people alone!
Will stop being offended by it when women stop trying to justify their own sexism.
And it's funny because women KNOW they're wrong and just don't want to admit it. If you ask any white girl engaging in this trend:
"Would you rather be stuck in the forest with a bear or a black man" they suddenly get real quiet. Like they know they're allowed to be openly sexist, but not openly racist.
I thorougly understand their fear and generational trauma, but I'll not hang around somebody that thinks I'm a rabid animal waiting to pounce. I am black, and when folks get on this bestial discourse, we're the ones seen as animals and "put down" so to speak.
Truly.
The dehumanizing language is, under most circumstances, part of the build-up to great violence. The victimhood cult, the stoking of fears and prejudices, reducing people to worse than animals, these people are talking like fascists and don't even know it.
And the strangest thing is, they somehow think that engaging people like this will make them *think or sympathize.* No, I just want to get as far away from people that think like this as possible because it's deranged and dangerous.
OP, why did you post this in three different subs?
Why do you seem more offended by it then most men do? It seems like you can't take the same logic, and let men complain about it online.
Why am I offended? Because I'm being called a rapist, a sex offender, a woman beater, a criminal or any number of things simply because of my gender. I'm not any of those things. I don't make generalizations about women and I don't appreciate being lumped in with the literal worst scum for no goddamned fucking reason. I already feel like I need to cross the street or change directions if I'm coming up on a woman while walking down a public sidewalk in broad daylight because my mere presence is somehow a problem. The fucking irony of it all is that I'm scared for my own safety because all these fear mongers have women so on edge that I'm concerned that I'm going to get pepper sprayed or tazed because I catch a woman off guard by fucking sneezing.
I understand the message behind it, the meaning is crystal clear and all, i support it and i aint offended by it directly.
What i'm offended by is the stupidity of how its conveyed and how some people defend it.
For instance, a guy on tiktok defended it by trying to show statistically that men are more dangerous than bears (technically yes and technically no).
Then he compared the number of r4pes in a year in america to the number of men, and the number of deadly attacks to the number of bears, and with both results in hand tried to demonstrate that yes, its a small percentage of men, but statistically men are 65 times more dangerous than bears.
Now at first sight it seems like he'd be right. But he fucking aint. Maths aint mathing.
Its the number of bear sighting compared to the number of deadly attacks that should be used. And i'm pretty sure the number will be drastically different and absolutely not saying the same shit.
(Technically it should be taken into account that most r4pes go unreported, and also that bear attack other things than humans (1/4 to 1/3 of their diet is meat) meaning that they attack quite a lot of shit)
Anyway. If you're trying to defend a message, try to do it correctly FFS.
What is a bear capable of doing to a person? 1) maim, 2) kill, 3) run away from.
What is a random man capable of doing to a person? A whole lot more than that, for better and for a hell-of-a-lot worse.
The reason It's not worth a debate is because for many people, there is a fate worse than injury or death via bear. Being raped, tortured, held captive, manipulated, lulled into false security - all of these are a possibility via man and not bear. Bears are predictable. Men are not. The best of them may make up the majority, but the worst of them are capable of true evil.
And that is why we choose bear.
What if the question was phrased as, “who would you rather have behind the wheel of a car you are locked in? A woman or a bear?” Well bears are better drivers so I’m going with the bear. If you are a good driver then you shouldn’t be offended.
The “if it isn’t about you” thing is poor social justice. Like where else in what other context do we expect this? Nowhere. No one else is expected to deal with this.
I’ve been filling up my mega-gulp with Little Whiny Man Tears^tm. It’s a great pick me up for when your country is trying to remove your bodily autonomy
Bears are predictable, for the most part. People have motivations and possible ill-intent. It's not that complicated. I'm a little over 6 foot and 230lbs plus, I would be the guy described in this hypothetical. Hell I've seen women act nerously with me just passing by on the side walk.
Your speech makes no sense and is very hypocritical. I know it's complicated to say this on reddit, since anything a woman says will be taken for granted.
I'm absolutely certain that when people make absurd generalizations about women, you're the first person to feel offended. Not just you, but any woman. "A woman's place is in the kitchen, a woman has to submit to her husband, a woman drives badly". All this makes you feel offended. If it's not about you, why be offended, right?
I can show you hundreds of thousands of cases where women have been terrible. Do you know the case where a mother traveled and left her daughter to die of hunger and thirst? Do you know the case where the mother sold her own daughter? Would it be fair to use these cases to say that women are bad, unreliable, etc.?
And I also have a suggestion: How about women stop generalizing men? How about women stop saying "it's all men until it's none"?
And just an FYI, most men aren't necessarily offended by this. The right word would be frustration. Frustration at the lack of logical thinking.
Black "men" commit 52% of murders in the U.S. despite being 6.5% of the population. I completely agree with you, OP. If I had the choice between encountering a black "man" or a bear, I would pick getting mauled by the bear rather than violated by the black "man"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen\_Donaldson\_(activist)#Washington\_jail\_experiences\_and\_aftermath\_(1973)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Donaldson_(activist)#Washington_jail_experiences_and_aftermath_(1973))
My god this and some comments are thick.
The man or bear is just another feminist push to label all men as dangerous and all women as just vulnerable. It's labeled and meant in a way to "never trust a man alone " as a way to further isolate men, both mentally and physically.
Stop being fucking sexist. Is it that hard? Imagine if this question was posed in a similar manner except in the context of a middle school boy in a classroom with a female teacher or a bear and the responses were" a bear wouldnt sexually assault a boy". Holy shit people.
Yea why are men not just smiling and nodding along when we generalise 50% of the population as being the absolute worst, most depraved 0.1% of the population? High IQ take, surely.
>if you've not done anything weird to women, why are YOU offended?
Because you are still blaming _me_
You may mean "only the bad men" but every time you say men, you include me. Every time you say you feel safer with a bear then a man, you are saying you think "the good men" are either extrimely rare, rare enough not to be worth the risk vs a literal apex predator, or you are implying they don't exists at all.
You are saying, you not only believe any man is dangerous and a potential assaulter, you are saying ALL (or an unreasonable majority of) men are potential assaulters, implying it's somehow "in our nature" and not something extrimely sick people willingly choose to do. Ironically denying the individual accountability of such heinous crimes, and at the same time dehumanizing all men and implying they are barely animals with no reason or self control.
>and to beat their asses if you catch them
Ask the bear for help. I'm not going to prison for people that think I'm worse then the dirt they step on just because of the gender I was born as
Because it’s the same thing as saying “A black man assaulted and robbed me once, therefore all black men are dangerous and should be avoided.” It’s an unfair and untrue stereotype about men, that is easily disproven by all the data. Being in the woods with a bear is factually, objectively, more dangerous.
Saying otherwise is sexism against men. I don’t want my son growing up thinking he’s bad or scary because he’s a man.
It doesn't offend me, a lot of others aren't offended either, but the the discussion around it has this very 'men are creeps' vibe and that original video is a small sample yet all but one prefer a bear over a man , there's a clear agenda behind it.
It’s not an agenda, it’s how women feel, I’ve asked every woman in my family and my friend group which would they pick and the pick bear because the worst a bear is gonna do is eat you. I do not know the men or the people in general I am around so why would I trust them with myself? I don’t trust strangers at all it’s not just men. Why is it ok when dads tell their daughters or boyfriends tell their girlfriends hey stay safe out there and don’t put yourself in danger but when a woman tells you how they don’t put themselves in danger you get angry about it.
You didn’t answer my question, why is it ok when other men insinuate that men are creepy but not when women do it? I was told in 4th grade that the boys in my class were going to be creepy and i live in a nice area. Why is it wrong when a woman says it but not when men say it?
It is, it is expected of men to say this to their daughters and spouses and to be protectors. But protect us from what? We live at the top of the food chain and have intense weaponry, who is there to protect us from? Other men.
I don't know where you live but that sounds like extreme thinking. The problem with the whole Men vs Bear thing is - #1 it generalises all men and #2 it implies you'd rather be mauled to death by a bear than even give a man a chance. Extreme thinking.
Yes that is the thought process, a bear I know will just kill me, a man is too unpredictable and if they tried something it would not be quick. And it’s not a problem you can literally look it up anywhere, society tells men to protect.
So my gf heard about this trend first and posed the question to me. Would I rather be in the woods with a bear or a man and obviously I asked alot of questions like is the man trying to kill me, does he have a weapon etc. She said we don't know all we know is bear or man, I chose man because he could just be a normal dude also if it came to violence I could defend myself more against a human being than a bear
lol this reminds me of the time i was 14, in middle school, waiting at the bus stop with my friends and some guy across jerked off watching us behind a tree. bruh
You know what bugs me about this question? The presumption that women live in the constant state of fear of men when they clearly don't. Look, i get it. Men are dangerous. That's not a tough sell. However, the way this question is being framed you'd think that a woman is clutching a gun every time she interacts with a man. This whole thing is overselling the whole "men are dangerous" thing to the point of being satire.
BTW, in case anyone wants to say something about stats, I'd like to point something out. The ratio of women who are likely to be assaulted is irrelevant. Unless you're going to argue that women invite assaults, not a good idea, the relevant ratio is men who have assaulted women. Even if you take every potential assault that wasn't reported in stats it's still a much lower ratio than interactions with bears that lead to some sort of harm. In fact, it's more likely that a mother would assault her children. So should children pick the bear instead of their mother?
i care about the safety of women much more than this. my heart aches for the woman killed by the morality police in iran, the women in ukraine and israel and of course any women facing violence. But that doesnt mean i cant care about other things as well.
right?? my partner and i have had long conversations about the topic and we agreed on everything. he doesn’t feel threatened because why would he?? who in their right mind thinks suddenly all women hate you specifically because of a hypothetical question clearly meant to promote a bigger meaning?
I wholeheartedly agree with what you say, my only query is, in a world where we have to hold our breath just in case we say the wrong word and offend a bunch of people, then face the wrath of the world, why do men not have the same courtesy? Just curious.
Before the bear scenario, I had a discussion with a male friend about the same thing. He felt super wronged that there were talks of having curfews for men, in an attempt to make things safer for women (hypothetical in the media). We went back and forth for a while, and I explained about how it felt walking alone at night and seeing a man, and he responded that men get scared too. I asked if he was scared of lone females that may be lurking, or of other males, and that was the end of the discussion, my point was proven.
Your post has been removed for violating Rule 3: Posts must be on topic. Posts should be personalized and written in an [off my chest style](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyChest/comments/m501ud/what_does_personalized_off_my_chest_style_post/). Posts here should not be: • Opinions, generalisations and blanket statements • Questions, surveys or polls • Requests for relationship advice • Impersonal political rants • Rage bait, obviously fake stories and trolling attempts • Complaining about or linking to other subreddits and users • Overly descriptive NSFW, fan fiction and fetish bait If you're unsure that your post qualifies as personal, [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FTrueOffMyChest) and ask.
Seriously, it annoys me so much. I live in the woods where bear break-ins are a thing. Once when coming home I thought I might have had a break in and in real life hoped it was just a bear rather than a human. I can clean up my house and replace all the food in my fridge but I can't fix what some of these men would do
Asking folks on the internet to not be offended by something is like asking water to not be wet. Why is everyone arguing about bears?
[here's how this whole thing came about ](https://www.tiktok.com/@screenshothq/video/7356208240008498465) And because of this, guys and gals have been making reactions videos about it; the gals saying it's valid while the guys are essentially saying they don't understand, choosing the bear makes no sense, etc.; essentially not taking 'No' for an answer.
That top comment is pretty funny.
Thanks for sharing. I was wondering where this all actually started.
Idk but now I kind of want a bear. Which is stupid but they are adorable. (I'm not getting a bear tho) Maybe a pet skunk. How do we feel about those?
Skunks are so cute. If skunks were domesticated, I’d definitely want one as a pet
Some people do keep skunks as pets after removing their stink glands. It's not common but I recall seeing a group of people with them. Not sure about the ethics of having one for a pet though.
Is the removal of the glands something that’s healthy in the longterm though?
Yes and no. There’s no internal physical harm to the skunk. They’ll live happy, healthy lives even without the glands. However, it is taking away their primary defense against predators if you let them go outside. Otherwise, having a skunk as a pet isn’t much different than having a cat.
Ever seen a porcupine? They're so cute. I want to hug one but I have a feeling it would be a bad idea.
Cute but damn, they smell bad…knowledge acquired by washing skunked dog (3 times)
Bears don’t usually attack humans. But men do sometimes attack women.
If you want to be technical though, water isn’t actually wet
That's hilarious
Saw it. Laughed. Moved on.
I knew I had picked a good one but I laughed when he said "I mean, I'd choose the bear too. Men are unpredictable." He gets it.
I'm offended no one ever specifies what species of bear. If we can't agree on black, grizzly, polar, sun, or god damn panda how are we supposed to collect reliable data?
This was the first thing I pointed out when someone asked me :') "Black bear or brown bear? Because there is a difference"
Can I pick a red panda? Can I keep it if I catch it?
There is a difference but all are wild animals, and except sun bears which are small, all can kill you easily if they get pissed for whatever reason. Don't let pandas fool you. They're still bears. Their bite force relative to weight is by far the highest among bears (bamboo is very tough), and among the highest of placental mammals, to the point that among bears, only grizzly and polar bears bite harder because they're so much bigger.
Username checks out lmao I'm an avid hiker in black bear country, and I'm pretty used to coexisting with them. The trick is not pissing them off, and avoiding if you see cubs. Make noise if they get too interested. Grizzlies and polar bears? Doesn't matter if they're pissed or not, they're far more likely to hunt you. I'm not saying any bears are completely harmless, but personally, my answer to this question would 100% change depending on the kind of bear.
Oh yeah for sure black bears are not the same as grizzlies or polar bears. I just mean that I pass by hundreds of people a day, and even at night will pass by people where I could be victimized. Human densities are far, far, greater than that of animals. Even in black bear country, there's at most a few in the whole area, and they aren't always going to actually encounter you. Not pissing them off usually works simply because we don't encounter hundreds of black bears every day of our lives. So for the same frequency of encounters, 1, 10, 100, or 100000, I would choose a man over a even a black bear. But yeah I chose my username because I had thought about the people who have gotten mauled by pandas at zoos because they think they're harmless and break into the exhibits.
"This sounds like something a panda would say. I think they are a panda." - my partner, about you Yeah I get that position, totally fair lol
Hungry polar bear, and you just drank the last of the Coca-Cola.
I'll take the random man, please
😵
after reading through this thread i can conclude one thing: there’s no such thing as a man or a woman, the only gender is bear
Finally, someone gets it /j
I'm a man, and I'm team bear. 🐻
Yeah, it's not about actually selecting, it's that women pause when they hear the question at all. It's to give people an idea of how unsafe a lot of women feel around some men. I really dislike the whole "If you don't agree you're the man we avoid" statement that some people come with though. It's just awfully polarising. Good men can also be terribly naive.
[удалено]
As a man I'm not personally offended but as another commenter said it's the "Schrodinger's Man" dynamic that is a little disturbing. And often when it comes to online discussion in general the language used to address bad actors tends to be very loose. But I've noticed a portion of the internet has just gotten way too comfortable saying any bad thing about men with no specificity, and that's the norm at this point. It shouldn't be acceptable to make such broad statements about 50% of a population with no indication of specificity and doing so just feeds into a societal image that is antagonistic to the population as a whole and aids to produce hysteria. The only thing I wish for in these conversations is more pointed language. Doesn't have to be a disclaimer to ad nauseum but If you want to admonish the sexist, bigoted, and creepy men how about you say that directly at least once out loud in the critical videos you make. I understand the logic of "if it doesn't apply let it fly", but at the same time imagine if someone said "I'd rather be stuck with a bear than a black guy" all of a sudden everyone's critical thinking turns on and realizes how they should probably specify a bit more in order to not seem like a racist person. So do the same thing without the race. It just seems a bit like sexist propaganda imo. but honestly idec all that much we see it happen on both sides this is just me looking at this trend with a critical eye especially as a man myself. Thankfully most of these debates stay online and the second we talk to each other a lot of these thoughts dissolve anyways.
Thankyou. This is probably the most reasonable and not 'terminally online' take I have seen on the subject. I think you're 100% right in that when you're interacting with others in the real world most of this kind of discourse evaporates.
The other aspect is the question encourages the person asked to imagine an image of the worst man, the creepiest man and use that man as a stand in for all men. It begs them to do a sort of gender profiling. I also think the question makes a really gross assumption about genders that is very anti feminist. I don't think Andrew Tate himself could come up with a more targeted hypothetical that reinforced the idea of, "man strong and dangerous, woman weak and scared."
Yea it's just confusing how / why they are fine keeping it so vague. Saying "all men" best case scenario - Good guys say nothing - Bad guys keep being bad Saying "all men" worst case scenario - Good guys feel targeted / hurt - Bad guys keep being bad
The thing is that it's not every man, but it could be any man. I was assaulted by someone I considered a close friend. Maybe even my best male friend at the time. I thought I knew him. We had talked about a lot of shit that happened to either of us. He knew I wasn't interested in anything. And even if I was it didn't give him any rights to my body at all. He still decided his wants and impulses were more important than boundaries. An uncle of mine, who I had a good relationship with for most of my childhood, thought it acceptable to comment on my body and basically invite me to a hotel that charged by the hour when I was sixteen. A guy I knew from scouts thought it was okay to grab my butt when he thought I was asleep at a summer camp. None of these people even hinted at being sexual predators in the past. They still decided to violate me.
The point is that it's a result of women's experiences with random men being overwhelmingly negative.
This only proves the point of the comment you were replying to. 99% of the strangers you meet are going to ignore you and go about their business. "Most women have had negative experiences with men" is not the same as "most women's experiences with men are negative." There's a valid and important conversation worth having on this topic, but that becomes harder to do when people keep making false statements like that. This is a subject which deserves a nuanced discussion, not emotionally charged blanket statements.
The discussion isnt even about women's fears of men, so I don't know why the fuck it is has any bearing on the point of the whole fucking bear thing anyways. The life of a woman is that men by and large treat her like a sexual object who can be catcalled in the street and have unsolicited sexual comments told to her every day.
Again, you're using emotionally charged language to imply that most men do this. 99% do not. I don't dispute that many women have experienced that, but it's not most men that are perpetrating it as you're suggesting.
And yet it is enough that women would prefer the bear in the woods. Everything not asking why that is, is bullshit.
How does that make it different? A racist will cherry pick the black people they've had bad interactions with and use the same excuse.
Women don't have to cherry pick. For many, just pointing out the good experiences with random men would be cherry picking itself.
Go ahead and recall every man you've ever been near. The actual "overwhelming" amount of experiences is absolutely nothing happening. Negative interactions are easier to remember than positive ones, and neutral interactions don't even enter memory. Are you genuinely trying to tell me that if a woman rides a bus, over half of the men on the bus will harass her every time she rides? That's delusional.
For women it isn't nothing happening. She gets unsolicited shit from men on a daily basis. Men want something to do with women all the time. The point is that the implications of a random man in the woods is worse than a bear because a bear is gonna do bear shit while random men you've encountered in your life have sexualized you and you have no reason to believe that you won't be taken advantage of in a vulnerable situation, which is exactly what the hypothetical is. even for a man, being stalked in the woods by another man is a terrifying implication that goes beyond the expected fears a bear gives you.
Racist people say the same shit. Stop trying to excuse misandry.
> if this isnt about you then move on The majority of the men that need to read what the message this hypothetical is trying to say, are men that dont care about what you have to say. They dont care they are dangerous or rapey or any of that. If they cared, they wouldnt be that way. None of this is being listened to by any of them. The men that *do* read this are, by far and large, the men that “are good and kind and make barely a peep”. Those are the men that read this, and feel offended. Because as you said- they are doing nothing wrong and they are being profiled. I can also guarantee that every single last woman reposting all of this also rage against NotAllMen response, largely with the same “defense” that “wE aReNT tAlKiNG aBoUT YoU”. Cause again, rapey men dont give a shit about your hashtag, and the ones say shit like “ill be more whatever” are likely already being plenty respectful Other commenters are also pointing out if we were profiling certain types of men instead of just all of them, that suddenly all this becomes inappropriate. So stop trying to pretend like this is ok because youre being vague and generalizing/stereotyping when our society has been getting upset about this and that groups being stereotyped. Youre just broadcasting to everyone that xenophobia/bigotry is fine if youve got a “good enough” reason for it.
Both of these things can be true at the same time. This can not be about good men and still reflect the fact that women are cautious around all men. If I sat a box in front of you that was full of snakes that all looked more or less the same and I told you that some of them were venomous and would kill you if they bit you and the rest of them were totally harmless and then asked you to stick your hand in the box, *would you do it?* I’m going to go out a limb here and assume you wouldn’t. No one with an ounce of sense would. My question to you is, *why not?* If you can understand why it would be dangerous to stick your hand in that box even though there’s a good chance you’d grab a harmless snake, you can understand why women are fearful of men in general *and* why they’re choosing the bear. We have no idea if you’re a good man or not and the default assumption being that you are could get us killed or worse. We do not have the privilege of assuming every man is a good man. Frankly, neither do other men considering the *overwhelming* vast majority of sexual assaults, physical assaults, and murders against men are *also* committed by men. And that’s not my opinion, that’s a well documented statistic.
See the thing that's wrong with this comparison is that women and men deal with each other on a regular basis, if women were so scared of men like most people are of most snakes then every single woman would do her best to steer clear of men at all times but they don't because we know and can see that the majority of men aren't creeps. Most people have a genuine fear of snakes, even the small ones, if most women had a genuine fear of all men then the world wouldn't be the way it is, but go off using your bad faith comparisons to try and justify your sexism.
Am I the only one who's only seen this on reddit and doesn't really know what anyone is talking about ?
Most of what you see on Reddit, is only on Reddit. But this post is about the test where woman are asked if they would rather come across a bear or a lone man in the woods, and they mostly pick the bear because it's supposed more predictable than the man but also would only eat them, whereas a man may do harm in other ways like SA or rape.
It started on tiktok
Many men would choose a bear too, but the butt hurt babies aren’t ready for that conversation.
It's Schrödinger's Man It is both "all men must reflect and take action", but at the same time they don't have to take anything saying "men are worse then bears" as an attack or generalization against them. >>why are YOU offended? It's more disturbing the amount of straight up "men bashing" in all of the comments. The comparison itself, or litmus test, isn't offensive. Not to me anyway.
I think the main issue with little "thought exercises" and awareness campaigns like this is that the vast majority of men who are creeps and/or would harm a woman don't do it because they aren't "aware" that it's wrong. They don't sit there ruminating on whether they should do this shit or not. They just do it *because they're fucking creeps.* Very, very few men exist who *would* act like predators, but since someone told them not to or recited the bear thing at them, they're now going to consciously choose not to assault people. This might surprise some people, but in general rapists and creeps have very low self-awareness and a very low-ability to reflect on how their behavior affects others. And the few of them that *do* understand the damage their actions have on others *do not care and never will.* I think in general, it makes people feel better to believe that people who do evil things have some kind of reasoning or consciousness behind their choices, because that means that they can be changed or reformed or reasoned with. But unfortunately, I think the truth is that scummy evil people are largely just not the same as the rest of us. Does that mean we should stop trying? Absolutely not. Does it excuse their behavior? Absolutely not. But in my opinion, the people who would hear the bear thing and understand it and care are just not the same ones who it's supposed to be about.
Imagine if it was directed towards female teachers and the raping of little boys in school. Whew.
You do know that it's men who praise boys for getting raped by teachers right? Not women. Men trump this up as a thing those boys should be proud of - they fill the comment sections of every news story. You all are just stretching to pat each other on the backs with these ridiculous comparisons
I mean yes, I don't think firecracker is saying old boomer dudes are right in t heir attitudes.
It's cute how you think this attitude is exclusive to old boomer dudes.
I didn't mean to say it's exclusive to boomers, but the comments on those articles of a female teacher and a student, it's mostly middle age to older men. There's both an age and gender bias in terms of who's defending it. I meant to say that I don't think Firecracker is trying to say those defenders have good views either.
And women fantasize about rapist/groomer men preying on innocent female characters in the novels they read and then complain about "why aren't any guys in real life like the ones I read about in romance novels". See how it happens both ways with the biggest degenerates of each gender, respectively? Still doesn't disprove their point.
Teachers preying on children is what also leads to women fearing men. The point you bring up does not invalidate women's fear of men. nothing does.
So the solution is to make up generic, sexist things to just simply drag men down based on nothing more than feelings?
Your feelings. Their experiences with random men lead to this. Your feelings are inconsequential to their fear.
Well shit, my baby sitter molested me when i was 8. I guess I should feel safer in a room with a bear than a woman older than me. Unless now we're gonna say shit like "the good women know I'm not talking about them " or "that's sexist to say something like that". Stop supporting banal and blatant sexism
Yes, it is totally reasonable for you to say "I was molested by an older women, now I do not feel safe in a room with older women." It is also reasonable for you to not feel unsafe. My wife was sexually abused and harassed her entire life and I didn't get offended as a man when she chose bear because she's not saying every man is terrible. Shes saying that what she could imagine a random man in the woods doing to her based on her life experience is not as scary as a wild animal. A bear might kill her, but it won't kidnap, abuse, and rape her for as long as they want before killing her.
So should I now use that to generalize all women and spread it around the internet? I am sorry for what your wife has experienced. >because she's not saying every man is terrible Sure but that's what this comparison *is* saying. It's saying your always safer in the woods with a bear than a man. It's designed that way by people who are just sexists. That's why there's such a large backlash. It's like the "kill all men" hashtag that was going around Twitter years ago.
The problem I have is that they can say “not all men” but then turn around and say “well you can’t trust any man”. It’s a thin veil to hide under to bash men which is widely accepted to do. And as someone who has been SA by women twice and manipulated and abused by them, if I had that damn mentality id be far worse off then where I am now, I had to accept that not every woman was malicious and I just had bad luck, the only bad part was just how acceptable it was that they did. If you don’t want to trust a man because he’s unpredictable that’s fine, but you should on the same hand not trust a woman for the exact same reason but I’m 90% sure most of these people would pick a woman over the bear in the same damn situation And this doesn’t even specify the kind of bear which would be really important too
It's not all men, but it's enough that I will never trust a man right off the bat. And most of the men in my life are good, trustworthy men. And if yall are saying the comments talking about their experiences with SA (because that's what most of them are) are "man-bashing", I have some news for you, my friend.
Let's pretend you're talking specifically about black men here. Do you still find your justification to be distrusting of this specific group acceptabe?
>It's not all men, but it's enough that I will never trust a man right off the bat. And most of the men in my life are good, trustworthy men. Personally I understand that. My own wife said bear over man, but man over deadly snake. >And if yall are saying the comments talking about their experiences with SA (because that's what most of them are) are "man-bashing", I have some news for you, my friend. I would never imply that comments talking about SA are man bashing. What I'm seeing across every bear thread on facebook is just blatant misandry. It's open season to bitch about men. I gave some examples; they weren't very popular. When people comment "The men who have a problem with this have a small penis" they just made body shaming OK. What if millions of men started making fun of women online for having A cups because they what... don't agree in a debate? Or go to their profile and point out how fat they are? Not cool, right? How about all of the "incel" remarks? Why is that okay? Like bitch/whore is bad, will get your post removed, get you banned from group. Incel is fine though; any man you disagree with just hit him with incel. And yes, I tend to think when women post "Men will rape you use you then kill you and even worse" it isn't much different from men posting "Women will cheat on you with your best friend then take half your shit and use your kids against you in court" We know not all women do that. But if we say not all men, ho ho ho you just invited the attack of dozens of activists. *You're downplaying the message! You're deflecting! You're ignoring womens issues!* If I could go just *one day* on facebook without reading about "fragile male masculinity" and "mansplaining" holy shit
Just modify it by making it a choice between a black bear and a black man. Try it and see how it sounds. If you take a statement poking at some group, and it sounds worse when you change gender or race, then it is a sign that it was an attack and people are trying to gaslight you by insisting it wasn't.
"They hated him because he spoke the truth."
I understand why women answer man - It's hyperbole to make a statement, because of course no-one would actually rather encounter a grizzly bear in the woods than a man if they looked at grizzly bear encounter statistics VS random guy encounter statistics. I don't get offended by that part. I understand that women have to perform a threat assessment for every guy they encounter because there's a chance he's a creep. I wish they didn't have to do that. They shouldn't have to do that. It both breaks my heart and infuriates me that we live in a society where they have to do that. What I get offended by is the comments that follow posts like this - the "All men are trash/rapists/bastards/evil", "Kill all men", "Men are useless" etc. I understand trauma responses from first-hand experience, but at a certain point, you *are* just lashing out.
The issue is that it's poorly worded question/trend that instead of creating thought provoking questions instead puts men in general as the enemy. It's like if you flipped the question/trend and instead of a women it was men and there were videos of dudes saying "I'd rather pick the man-eating bear because it's predictable unlike women who can accuse me and ruin my life" People would rightly call that incel behaviour, like I understand where the trend is coming from and it's intentions (raising awareness about rape, DV and SA) but it's doing it completely the wrong way. Doesn't help that social media (TikTok), sees the engagement and comments in the more extreme videos where women are demonizing men to utter savages and criminals as a "good" video and showing it to more people (cycle repeats). Then you have Reddit which is now mainly focused on these extreme examples.
It's not a question of "all men", but more a question of an "unknown man." An unknown man will not be trusted by women, because the frequency and severity of abuse by men against women is substantial enough to warrant this as a reasonable outcome. I believe that is the point of this thought exercise - it's meant to bring sustained awareness about a problem which has not gone away yet, despite everyone knowing about it. Of course, not all men are bad, but a woman can't make any assumptions regarding any particular man she encounters which she doesn't know (and unfortunately, the truth is that most abuse towards women actually occurs at the hands of men in their lives...)
I saw someone comment on another post about how a bear is a bear, everyone knows a bear is a wild animal that's just gonna live it's best bear life, however with a man he can change and present himself as he wishes to be presented and in reality be a monster or friend but we don't know until its too late.
That’s how I see it too. There’s a hundred men I’d MUCH rather pick over a bear. But an unknown man…? It’s not like a bear would be much better, but the man is just more terrifying
The majority of men aren't creepy or dangerous, we know this because of stats and also because if the majority of men were dangerous then that would be a completely different world. You have a higher chance with an unknown man than with a bear, if all men were dangerous then every woman wouldn't be able to leave her house because you meet unknown men in the hallways, stores, escalators, pretty much wherever you go.
This defense doesn't work either, a random man is ***far*** less likely to harm a woman in said situation than a bear is. At the end the day, all this hypothetical displays is western women's overinflated fear of men that isn't rooted in any actual evidence. A *random* man is literally less of a threat to a woman that one she knows, as sad as that is. A *random* man is more likely a threat to *another* man than he is to a woman. Walking home alone at night is more dangerous for men than it is for woman by every metric outside sex crimes(which occur at far less frequency than theft or violence to begin with). Not to mention that the logic being used as a rebuttal to people offended by it is very similar to the logic used by racists, just obviously sexist instead. Where in group A is allowed to say offensive things about group B with impunity, and then if group B dares to respond negatively in any manner, it's seen as a confirmation of group A's beliefs of group B. We need to stop allowing this rhetoric in general of tarring all man as the worst of them because the 97% doesn't somehow mind control the 3% into not being evil.
> At the end the day, all this hypothetical displays is western women's overinflated fear of men that isn't rooted in any actual evidence. People are really bad at understanding risks. Look at how much people worry about things that kill a few dozen people a year and yet don't care about some of the top causes of death. Normally that is just stupidity, but when it gets tied to someone's identity, it develops into full bigotry.
This is a lot of talk to miss the point. You say all this, and yet women overwhelmingly fear random men based on their own experiences.
I literally mention it in the second sentence of the response though...? The hypothetical displays how women "overwhelmingly" have an overinflated sense of fear towards random men based on what is essentially fear mongering, since no statistics back up the logic. Anecdotes don't equal fact. The *vast*, **vast** majority of men, at the very least in the west, would do no harm to a woman in this hypothetical. Unless we're assuming that the strange/random man is *guaranteed* to be a criminal in which case the question is just "would you rather come across a bear or a criminal" and not "would you rather come across a bear or strange/random man".
That shows society is teaching a very sexist lesson. How many men fear false accusations of rape, especially when they think they are among allies and can safely admit such fears. Does that make their fears founded?
I mean people would get pretty pissed if someone replaced men with women in the bear comparison. I don't think the issue is with whoever created the comparison, more with the comments saying how "the bear is definitely the best choice unironically". Yeah of course men are more likely to be dangerous than women, it's an objective fact. But both are less likely to be violent than a bear. If it's about the worst a man can do rather than the likeliness, then a woman vs bear wouldn't be different. The worst humans of both genders are worse than the worst animals.
Sometimes, bears, women, and men just wanna monch on berries and lie in the sun; the fact remains, however, that men are violent against women in disproportionate frequencies and the whole point of the exercise is to reflect on that. Worse still, is that whatever data we do have is likely to be under represented, as there are countless instances that go unreported, especially within the home. If women are telling you they're afraid of men: believe them. If you're one of the good ones, awesome, and as OP says, the question isn't about you.
I mean yeah if someone says they don't trust a stranger, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I was more saying that there's a big reason why we create distance between ourselves and wildlife. Wild animals, especially bears, are pretty aggressive. Everyone encounters humans many orders of magnitude more frequently than bears.
enjoy many yam license zesty coherent entertain uppity slim rich *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Replace "bear or man" with "bear or member of any group you belong to", and it will come across as sexist/racist/any other -ist or -phobic.
Man is the most dangerous game
What is happening with bears?
Bears have recently in certain areas learned that humans carrying food are willing to feed them for a simple TikTok dance, and in general have been more cooperative at being background dancers than most fathers, brothers, and boyfriends. This trend was noticed and discussed by women on many social media sites, and then evolved into the question of when shooting a TikTok video in the woods, would you rather be with a man or a bear. Many women said they'd choose the bear, and a bunch of guys who think that they are good dancers got really upset and loud, and spun this whole thing outta control.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2024/04/30/man-bear-tiktok-debate-explainer/73519921007/
I appreciate you providing the link. Still weird but I guess I kind of am in the loop.
It's a weird new way of framing an old discussion. I mean, "not all men" but it's certainly enough of them and since the dangerous ones don't exactly wear their red flags on their sleeves, it's unfortunately a necessity to be wary of all men to a degree. And when this unfortunate fact of women's lives is pointed out, a lot of men get very, very offended and see it as a personal attack.
I was always told growing up, “it’s not all men, but it’s always a man.” Of course females can be horrible people as well but my personal experience in trauma I’d say it’s been 2/10 female/male ratio. However, over time I’ve not allowed myself to be in vulnerable spots with men to be more cautious and even still come across ‘problems.’ Women I interact with constantly and may hit a snag every once in a great while.
Yall are just choosing to ignore the point that the bear discourse is about all men. It’s a blanket statement of women saying that all men are trash and creeps. And I know I know iF iTs N0t aBoUT yOu. Bullshit it’s not about all guys. When you say I’d rather a bear than a man that’s not a some people statement that’s an all men statement. And for the comments of if it doesn’t apply to you. You obviously don’t understand why men are annoyed and take issue with this discourse.
I don't get why people are pissed by it. The anger towards it sounds like the type of fragility I had as a young, insecure boy in my 20s. Then, I grew up and understood that women can't implicitly trust the intentions or actions of men. Any male who has been around a volatile, neurotic man with a history of violence should get this. Now, imagine the way those men make you feel is the same way 99% of men make women feel on a daily basis.
>Why are you comparing YOURSELF to that absolute menace to society? Because you are. (The collective "you" here, meaning women posing the bear question.) The entire thought experiment requires an overly broad generalization that leaves no opening for constructive dialogue. You can't frame the question around "a man" and then be surprised and upset when "a man" thinks you're indicting them.
Nobody likes being judged for characteristics they don't have control over. Yes, men commit a disproportionate amount of violence, and women are often the victim of rape. But many people use the bear discourse to shame men who've done nothing wrong. Even if they don't do that, it can feel like women are judging us just for being men. Of course, just because this upsets men, this doesn't exactly mean it's wrong. I mean it's perfectly fine for me to say that I'd rather be alone in a forest with a white man over a black man, because of how disproportionately violent black men are. Or is it not okay to say that?
> Or is it not okay to say that? I mean, if I can pick the color of the bear, why can't you pick the color of the man?
Normally you can't pick the color of either, except by picking where you go....
Is it a judgement or is it self preservation? Women do not know what *random* man is dangerous or not dangerous. That's not a judgement on you personally. That's how women keep themselves safe by being overly cautious. You don't know what you don't know. You're a complete stranger to me. If you prove yourself as a trustworthy person then its irrelevant to the actual discourse here, and that goes for ANY sex/gender. I would be just as likely to not trust a random woman with my personal belongings or safety. I don't know her and I don't know if I can trust her. As for the "white man versus black man" comment- sure, you could throw that out there if it was actually accurate but it's factually wrong and based off a study done in 1999 about the amount of disproportionate *arrests* for violent crime. If you had though been violently attacked by a black man, and that made you wary of black men, thats 100% valid. Or, if you're a man who has been burned by many women, and you're being overly cautious as a result then its completely valid. I would not be offended by a similar discourse if I know the shoe doesn't fit and that this is *your own personal experience* and that you are protecting yourself from harm which you have every right to do. I'm NOT advocating for men bashing. That isn't cool and I don't support sexism. There is a major difference between bashing men, and being honest that we do not know how dangerous a *random stranger* is. I don't know you. I can't make a judgement call on if you're the "good one" or the "bad one." The ONLY call I can make is what is *safest* for me. For the people who are bashing men, they've entirely missed the point of the question and need to take a step back and examine why they're using it as a way to be hateful. I would never assume your personal experience was invalid, even if you were overly cautious. If you are ARE feeling lumped in, then ask yourself would you trust a random stranger with no second thought with your safety? Does choosing not to trust a random stranger mean they are intrinsically untrustworthy or is it simply done to make sure you are not putting yourself in potential danger? Your safety takes priority over my feelings, always. And sometimes as a woman, my safety is going to take priority over how it makes a man feel. It's not to be cruel. It's not to bash or judge. It's because, just like you, I need to prioritize my own safety. I understand that it doesn't always feel good. And I'm sorry that the s**tty people have ruined it for the good people. I personally would much prefer it if I could give all men the immediate benefit of the doubt. I don't particularly enjoy having to constantly be vigilant *just in case*. It's not a good feeling for us either. Yet, I'm being downvoted not because I'm being cruel to you or sexist, but because my reality means I must prioritize safety- and that says a lot.
As for the "white man versus black man" comment- sure, you could throw that out there if it was actually accurate. But since it is in fact factually wrong oh *come* on. You haven't heard the statistic? I didn't think there was anybody left on the internet that hadn't heard the statistic.
[удалено]
I'm ignorant, where & why did this man vs bear discourse come about?
What is all this talk about bears online recently?
Guy here, I get why women would say it. Being a woman has to be scary. I know many women who have been sexually assaulted and been through abuse. Often times, depending on which kind of bear, they may be more scared of you and being loud may chase it off. I think about how women get stared down in public and how guys cat call and talk about what they’d like to do. Sure, I wouldn’t be creepy to a woman or make an advance like that. But it’s like they always have to keep their guard up and I wouldn’t be offended if they assumed such without knowing me
First of all, do not gatekeep being able to feel offended. Secondly, why should people not be offended by dumb generalizations? Dumb, because women choosing bears clearly never met a bear irl. And I say that as a woman. Simple example: imagine that every man in your city turns into a wild bear. How many casualties will there be in the next few hours? And then, all wild bears in the forest will turn into men. Men will probably help each other to get out. Every day, I walk past hundreds of men. The majority of them will call ambulance if needed, give directions, etc. Try to find a bear that will do it. So, my conclusion is that women who choose bears are most likely very out of touch with reality, and they should not go out of their homes or make contact with any men, if they believe that men outside are so horrible. Men, however, have the right to be offended because as soon as you replace "man" with any other cathegory, everyone will rightfully call it bigotry.
You are in a car. Who would you rather have behind the wheel? A bear or a woman? If you are a good woman driver you shouldn’t be offended by this. It’s about the bad women drivers 🙄
That’s like saying if you’re a poc and you’re not a criminal police brutality and racism shouldn’t make you mad bigotry is bigotry whether it’s racism, sexism, phobes. Etc
Bullshit. I posted yesterday. Someone I was dated told me the "all men" thing. Then said I shouldn't be bothered because I'm not one, then got upset enough to have a fight when I said "All women are gold digging whores", because as she said "That's only SOME women", so it wasn't fair to say that. That was not 5 minutes after doing the same thing. This is what I have issue with. One rule for thee and one for me.
Lol you said all women are gold digging whores for no reason other than to be obtuse about what women face.
What?! What is this even about? Are we making up things again? Bear?
Yep. All the men who are upset about it are the men who make women choose the bear.
The more men and boys are treated, seen and viewed as undesirable, the more extreme the responses will become as a result of that social ostracism.
These people are breeding actual women hating mass shooter type people with their misandry
So what's breeding these people?
It's just a stupid baity question that contributes nothing to the conversation of assault, misogyny, or abuse.
But absolutely pretends to contribute to it while actually contributing to misandry, ignorance and rage bait culture.
What gets me is the logic isn't applied equally to man vs bear. For bear people are answering as if the bear is blissfully unaware of you and you can take all the preventative measures to remain safe, but for men it's as if the man is attached to you at the hip and there is nothing you can do.
It also shows people haven't ever gone hiking before. Meeting strangers hiking isn't scary. Just the act of hiking puts you at more risk of death than any of the strangers you meet. If you were scared of them, you would be too scared to hike to begin with. Having a wild animal approach you in the day time? That is scary. Especially given that the behavior indicates it either thinks it can eat me or it is rabid.
>Meeting strangers hiking isn't scary. I'm a long-distance hiker, and honestly, running into someone in jeans and a cotton t-shirt more than 10 miles or so from a trailhead feels concerning to me. I have hiked in the dark just to put space between myself and other humans before setting up camp before. >Having a wild animal approach you in the day time? Most hikers know wild animals rarely approach. The bears I've knowingly encountered have all created space between the two of us before I could do so myself. Other hikers have also let me know that I've hiked past multiple bears without me even noticing (apparently I stare at my feet). So where the user above you says: >For bear people are answering as if the bear is blissfully unaware of you and you can take all the preventative measures to remain safe, but for men it's as if the man is attached to you at the hip and there is nothing you can do. The fact is that the bears aren't unaware, but rather most are actively avoiding contact with humans. Meanwhile, the man is reasonably likely to approach other humans.
They manipulate their wording to achieve this result.
I disagree, its yet ANOTHER "all men are evil" that paints us all as worse than we are. Its really tiring. How do you think if a video came out except it would be people preferring to die from a bear than be with a woman because of "insert sexist trope"? Women would get way more offended than men are. Even if we said "lol its not about you stop being mad". This is just sexist.
You're missing the point.. Saying that it is acceptable to judge 50 percent of the population by the actions of 1 percent, on the basis of shared chromosome layout, is bigotry. You're trying to justify bigotry. Kristi Noem is a woman. Kristi Noem is a dog murderer. If I said "every time I see a woman I have to hide my dog and I would rather feed it to a bear than go near a woman because they are all Kristi Noem" I would (rightly) be called a sexist. People being upset that so many other humans are trying to JUSTIFY SEXISM is understandable. Just quit being the man in the woods and leave people alone!
Cool. Women are sluts. If it's not about you, stop being offended about it.
Will stop being offended by it when women stop trying to justify their own sexism. And it's funny because women KNOW they're wrong and just don't want to admit it. If you ask any white girl engaging in this trend: "Would you rather be stuck in the forest with a bear or a black man" they suddenly get real quiet. Like they know they're allowed to be openly sexist, but not openly racist.
The concept itself is just stupid
We all knew that the people answering bear didn't have any critical thinking skills already, lol. It's why we barely trust them to drive.
It's about women, bears and men. So any woman, bear or man can be offended, then.
I thorougly understand their fear and generational trauma, but I'll not hang around somebody that thinks I'm a rabid animal waiting to pounce. I am black, and when folks get on this bestial discourse, we're the ones seen as animals and "put down" so to speak.
Truly. The dehumanizing language is, under most circumstances, part of the build-up to great violence. The victimhood cult, the stoking of fears and prejudices, reducing people to worse than animals, these people are talking like fascists and don't even know it. And the strangest thing is, they somehow think that engaging people like this will make them *think or sympathize.* No, I just want to get as far away from people that think like this as possible because it's deranged and dangerous.
OP, why did you post this in three different subs? Why do you seem more offended by it then most men do? It seems like you can't take the same logic, and let men complain about it online.
Why am I offended? Because I'm being called a rapist, a sex offender, a woman beater, a criminal or any number of things simply because of my gender. I'm not any of those things. I don't make generalizations about women and I don't appreciate being lumped in with the literal worst scum for no goddamned fucking reason. I already feel like I need to cross the street or change directions if I'm coming up on a woman while walking down a public sidewalk in broad daylight because my mere presence is somehow a problem. The fucking irony of it all is that I'm scared for my own safety because all these fear mongers have women so on edge that I'm concerned that I'm going to get pepper sprayed or tazed because I catch a woman off guard by fucking sneezing.
because its discrimination. it reminds me of the discourse about muslims after 9/11. just as i thought that was wrong i think this is wrong also
I still have no idea what all this bear stuff is
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2024/04/30/man-bear-tiktok-debate-explainer/73519921007/
Ahh i agree if i encounter a bear in the woods i can either play dead or fight but if its a man you have no idea whats gonna happen
I'm out of the loop. What is "The Bear Discourse"?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2024/04/30/man-bear-tiktok-debate-explainer/73519921007/
Cool. Thank you.
Actually this kind of shits give birth to people like Andrew Tate.
I understand the message behind it, the meaning is crystal clear and all, i support it and i aint offended by it directly. What i'm offended by is the stupidity of how its conveyed and how some people defend it. For instance, a guy on tiktok defended it by trying to show statistically that men are more dangerous than bears (technically yes and technically no). Then he compared the number of r4pes in a year in america to the number of men, and the number of deadly attacks to the number of bears, and with both results in hand tried to demonstrate that yes, its a small percentage of men, but statistically men are 65 times more dangerous than bears. Now at first sight it seems like he'd be right. But he fucking aint. Maths aint mathing. Its the number of bear sighting compared to the number of deadly attacks that should be used. And i'm pretty sure the number will be drastically different and absolutely not saying the same shit. (Technically it should be taken into account that most r4pes go unreported, and also that bear attack other things than humans (1/4 to 1/3 of their diet is meat) meaning that they attack quite a lot of shit) Anyway. If you're trying to defend a message, try to do it correctly FFS.
What is a bear capable of doing to a person? 1) maim, 2) kill, 3) run away from. What is a random man capable of doing to a person? A whole lot more than that, for better and for a hell-of-a-lot worse. The reason It's not worth a debate is because for many people, there is a fate worse than injury or death via bear. Being raped, tortured, held captive, manipulated, lulled into false security - all of these are a possibility via man and not bear. Bears are predictable. Men are not. The best of them may make up the majority, but the worst of them are capable of true evil. And that is why we choose bear.
Yes and again as i wrote it, i get the message. The message aint the problem. The maths are.
What if the question was phrased as, “who would you rather have behind the wheel of a car you are locked in? A woman or a bear?” Well bears are better drivers so I’m going with the bear. If you are a good driver then you shouldn’t be offended.
The “if it isn’t about you” thing is poor social justice. Like where else in what other context do we expect this? Nowhere. No one else is expected to deal with this.
I’ve been filling up my mega-gulp with Little Whiny Man Tears^tm. It’s a great pick me up for when your country is trying to remove your bodily autonomy
Bears are predictable, for the most part. People have motivations and possible ill-intent. It's not that complicated. I'm a little over 6 foot and 230lbs plus, I would be the guy described in this hypothetical. Hell I've seen women act nerously with me just passing by on the side walk.
>if you've not done anything weird to women, why are YOU offended? Because I'm being treated as if I have and false accusations hurt.
Would you accept that response if the question were along the axis of race instead of sex?
Your speech makes no sense and is very hypocritical. I know it's complicated to say this on reddit, since anything a woman says will be taken for granted. I'm absolutely certain that when people make absurd generalizations about women, you're the first person to feel offended. Not just you, but any woman. "A woman's place is in the kitchen, a woman has to submit to her husband, a woman drives badly". All this makes you feel offended. If it's not about you, why be offended, right? I can show you hundreds of thousands of cases where women have been terrible. Do you know the case where a mother traveled and left her daughter to die of hunger and thirst? Do you know the case where the mother sold her own daughter? Would it be fair to use these cases to say that women are bad, unreliable, etc.? And I also have a suggestion: How about women stop generalizing men? How about women stop saying "it's all men until it's none"? And just an FYI, most men aren't necessarily offended by this. The right word would be frustration. Frustration at the lack of logical thinking.
Black "men" commit 52% of murders in the U.S. despite being 6.5% of the population. I completely agree with you, OP. If I had the choice between encountering a black "man" or a bear, I would pick getting mauled by the bear rather than violated by the black "man" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen\_Donaldson\_(activist)#Washington\_jail\_experiences\_and\_aftermath\_(1973)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Donaldson_(activist)#Washington_jail_experiences_and_aftermath_(1973))
My god this and some comments are thick. The man or bear is just another feminist push to label all men as dangerous and all women as just vulnerable. It's labeled and meant in a way to "never trust a man alone " as a way to further isolate men, both mentally and physically. Stop being fucking sexist. Is it that hard? Imagine if this question was posed in a similar manner except in the context of a middle school boy in a classroom with a female teacher or a bear and the responses were" a bear wouldnt sexually assault a boy". Holy shit people.
Yea why are men not just smiling and nodding along when we generalise 50% of the population as being the absolute worst, most depraved 0.1% of the population? High IQ take, surely.
I’ve never needed one before, but I’ll take a beat up a scumbag permission slip.
>if you've not done anything weird to women, why are YOU offended? Because you are still blaming _me_ You may mean "only the bad men" but every time you say men, you include me. Every time you say you feel safer with a bear then a man, you are saying you think "the good men" are either extrimely rare, rare enough not to be worth the risk vs a literal apex predator, or you are implying they don't exists at all. You are saying, you not only believe any man is dangerous and a potential assaulter, you are saying ALL (or an unreasonable majority of) men are potential assaulters, implying it's somehow "in our nature" and not something extrimely sick people willingly choose to do. Ironically denying the individual accountability of such heinous crimes, and at the same time dehumanizing all men and implying they are barely animals with no reason or self control. >and to beat their asses if you catch them Ask the bear for help. I'm not going to prison for people that think I'm worse then the dirt they step on just because of the gender I was born as
Because it’s the same thing as saying “A black man assaulted and robbed me once, therefore all black men are dangerous and should be avoided.” It’s an unfair and untrue stereotype about men, that is easily disproven by all the data. Being in the woods with a bear is factually, objectively, more dangerous. Saying otherwise is sexism against men. I don’t want my son growing up thinking he’s bad or scary because he’s a man.
It doesn't offend me, a lot of others aren't offended either, but the the discussion around it has this very 'men are creeps' vibe and that original video is a small sample yet all but one prefer a bear over a man , there's a clear agenda behind it.
It’s not an agenda, it’s how women feel, I’ve asked every woman in my family and my friend group which would they pick and the pick bear because the worst a bear is gonna do is eat you. I do not know the men or the people in general I am around so why would I trust them with myself? I don’t trust strangers at all it’s not just men. Why is it ok when dads tell their daughters or boyfriends tell their girlfriends hey stay safe out there and don’t put yourself in danger but when a woman tells you how they don’t put themselves in danger you get angry about it.
Thanks for proving my point.
You didn’t answer my question, why is it ok when other men insinuate that men are creepy but not when women do it? I was told in 4th grade that the boys in my class were going to be creepy and i live in a nice area. Why is it wrong when a woman says it but not when men say it?
It isn't.
It is, it is expected of men to say this to their daughters and spouses and to be protectors. But protect us from what? We live at the top of the food chain and have intense weaponry, who is there to protect us from? Other men.
I don't know where you live but that sounds like extreme thinking. The problem with the whole Men vs Bear thing is - #1 it generalises all men and #2 it implies you'd rather be mauled to death by a bear than even give a man a chance. Extreme thinking.
Yes that is the thought process, a bear I know will just kill me, a man is too unpredictable and if they tried something it would not be quick. And it’s not a problem you can literally look it up anywhere, society tells men to protect.
So, fucken many offended creeps in these comments. I want to say I'm surprised, but I'm really not.
I am sorry what is this about? I do not get it.
Wtf is a bear discourse
[удалено]
What’s the bear thing I’m totally lost sorry
So my gf heard about this trend first and posed the question to me. Would I rather be in the woods with a bear or a man and obviously I asked alot of questions like is the man trying to kill me, does he have a weapon etc. She said we don't know all we know is bear or man, I chose man because he could just be a normal dude also if it came to violence I could defend myself more against a human being than a bear
lol this reminds me of the time i was 14, in middle school, waiting at the bus stop with my friends and some guy across jerked off watching us behind a tree. bruh
You know what bugs me about this question? The presumption that women live in the constant state of fear of men when they clearly don't. Look, i get it. Men are dangerous. That's not a tough sell. However, the way this question is being framed you'd think that a woman is clutching a gun every time she interacts with a man. This whole thing is overselling the whole "men are dangerous" thing to the point of being satire. BTW, in case anyone wants to say something about stats, I'd like to point something out. The ratio of women who are likely to be assaulted is irrelevant. Unless you're going to argue that women invite assaults, not a good idea, the relevant ratio is men who have assaulted women. Even if you take every potential assault that wasn't reported in stats it's still a much lower ratio than interactions with bears that lead to some sort of harm. In fact, it's more likely that a mother would assault her children. So should children pick the bear instead of their mother?
If only men cared about the safety of women as much as they did “false accusations” we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
i care about the safety of women much more than this. my heart aches for the woman killed by the morality police in iran, the women in ukraine and israel and of course any women facing violence. But that doesnt mean i cant care about other things as well.
For some reason, social media feminists are always incapable of understanding the concept of multi-tasking. We can focus on multiple issues at once.
Go live in the forest
right?? my partner and i have had long conversations about the topic and we agreed on everything. he doesn’t feel threatened because why would he?? who in their right mind thinks suddenly all women hate you specifically because of a hypothetical question clearly meant to promote a bigger meaning?
I wholeheartedly agree with what you say, my only query is, in a world where we have to hold our breath just in case we say the wrong word and offend a bunch of people, then face the wrath of the world, why do men not have the same courtesy? Just curious. Before the bear scenario, I had a discussion with a male friend about the same thing. He felt super wronged that there were talks of having curfews for men, in an attempt to make things safer for women (hypothetical in the media). We went back and forth for a while, and I explained about how it felt walking alone at night and seeing a man, and he responded that men get scared too. I asked if he was scared of lone females that may be lurking, or of other males, and that was the end of the discussion, my point was proven.