Important clarification/FAQ
I am not calling to coddle or excuse the behavior of bigoted men in any way!
I am calling to be kind and understanding to young men (often ages 10-20) who are very manipulable and succeptible to the massive anti feminist propaganda machine. Hope this clarifies that very important distinction. :)
Very good comments that express key points:
- Detailed summary of the situation if you’re wondering what’s going on
- The rhetorical value of the bear hypothetical and what this means for you
- One example of why the long-term rhetorical value of the hypothetical is poor, in the context of intersectionality
- What does disenfranchisement mean in this context?
- The importance of not asking women to tone down their expressions of fear and frustration
- “But why can’t they just say it nicely?”
- The importance of participation in kindness toward young men, specifically outside the context of people speaking their experiences
Edit: This post has now been removed and restored twice. I want to encourage you all:
Be decent to one another
I think this post is a valuable thing given the current state of the Fediverse, please don’t fuck it up for us by being toxic in the comments.
there is only one truth, and it is that there is no gender war, only misdirection from class warfare that has monetized and monopolized even our interpersonal, romantic, and sexual connection.
when people don’t have problems, you can’t sell them solutions.
The shackles of sexism, racism, and homophobia do not simply fall off when you accept class consciousness. These are still fights for awareness which must continue to be fought. Otherwise, we risk allowing toxic mentalities into our midst, which will only serve to alienate and expel our minority brethren.
The cages built by the state which cordon us off from one another exist in the mind, but they are very real in impact. We must fight by destroying the cages in each of our thoughts, and pass our knowledge to others so they can do the same. That is the only means to stand as one.
Let’s also not forget that there are very real shackles placed on many groups - many real cages - which we must work to destroy as well.
Those who do not move do not notice their chains.
Noticing your chains and beginning to rattle them, and encouraging your peers to do the same, is the first step to releasing yourself from them, but it is not the only step.
It’s like when a woman goes to the doctor with terrible pain and the doctor says it’s just menstrual cramps and to go home and take an advil.
Us: “hey there’s a problem we should address”
You: “Silly
womanproletariat, justtake an advilseize the means of production”Hey, been trying to meet you
Hey, must be a devil between us
Or whores in my head
Whores at the door
Whore in my bed
But hey!
Where have you been?
If you go, I will surely die
We’re chained
We’re chained
We’re chained
Chained
Here’s Orwell in “Homage to Catalonia”:
“There were perhaps a thousand men at the barracks, and a score or so of women, apart from the militiamen’s wives who did the cooking. There were still women serving in the militias, though not very many. In the early battles they had fought side by side with the men as a matter of course. It is a thing that seems natural in time of revolution. Ideas were changing ready, however. The militiamen had to be kept out of the riding-school while the women were drilling there because they laughed at the women and put them off. A few months earlier no one would have seen anything comic in a woman handling a gun.”
This was in an overwhelmingly leftist camp. Orwell sees glimpses of an anarchist collective based on mutual aid popping up. Yet, sexisim clearly persisted after a period where it had been pushed aside.
These issues don’t go away just because people become class conscious.
Even if we take gender-based issues as very real (which is often not quite true since we target a demographic of literally half the planet, which is never representative), they come second to the class warfare.
A poor male worker holds way less power than a rich businesswoman.
epic intersectionality moment
If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.
No, we also have a sickle
I’ve got a guillotine in the garage I can break out, too, but I might need you guys to help me move it.
i can weld. we’ll build you a little cart with wheels so we can roll it to where it is needed.
I’ve got a trebuchet in storage, but I need a crew to man it.
The superior seige weapon, of course.
We can lift the guillotine into a cart, and haul it behind the trebuchet as we pick everyone up.
So who’s driving? I’ve got a license but no experience with 50ft trailers (which I assume we will need for the trebuchet?)
I don’t think this is a good example of class struggle, at least not directly. The bear meme is valid in as much as it describes one woman’s feelings, but the truth is that in 85-90% of cases, the woman knows her attacker1. The random man is simply not the issue.
The issue is power disparity. Teacher vs student, employer vs worker, landlord vs tenant. It’s difficult to reduce the power difference due to physical strength, but the others are all changeable. More (meaningful) oversight for police, better tenancy boards, and stronger unions are all examples of structures that might make it harder to victimize women.
Class struggle explains economic, and maybe political power, but those are not the only types of power in play.
And if I’m wrong? Then we’ve made a better society for nothing.
1 https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/most-victims-know-their-attacker
i fundamentally agree with you. i think it depends on how loosely you define ‘direct’. class struggle has its fingers in many pies including
- marketing saturation / materialism
- mental health availability
- quality of education
- overall day-to-day stress levels
all of which are at odds with encouraging a more empathetic, happy, and healthy population of men. people who are angry and fearful and deprived are easier to control and sell products to than people who are kind and understanding and satisfied. a higher quality of life breeds a higher quality of people and interpersonal interactions.
Social media doesn’t often reward kindness, but that’s what is needed. Show kindness to young men, when you can. They need better guidance.
So much this. ❤️ But it’s tough.
I am making this post coming out of a comment section where women expressing their most personal and horrific experiences are getting majority downvotes, while men are yapping on and on about “the problem with feminism these days” over them and getting no shortage of likes. It’s frankly disturbing to witness.
I am trying to be kind with this (and all) posts because I recognize it is what is needed. But I also fully understand the plight of other women who get frustrated or even lash out.
Take a deep breath. Listen to one another. Be kind.
Many people conflate kindness with weakness, however, in reality it is the opposite. It is easier to tear someone down, than to build something. The tendency to tear other people down comes from a need to feel higher in the social pecking order which they cannot attain with their lack of ability.
Needing to be rewarded in order to act is a property of children
You forget that the internet is indeed full of actual children
It’s true that nuance does indeed often get lost in online debates, so I appreciate you for making this post.
thanks! i hope this format can catch on im kind of proud of it lol
Its a fun format, I like it :)
keep doing it and it probably will to be honest.
This meme is based AF
no u ❤️
we need a nuance posting rule on the internet i think.
For every sensational shitpost you must provide at least one nuance.
honestly i would smash the subscribe button so hard on a c/nuanceposting community. verbose and carefully worded memes are my absolute jam. 😎🙂↕️
eudaimonia on dbzer0 has what is essentially the spiritual precedent to that community. You’d probably like it, it’s not super busy or anything right now, but we could always use more users over there.
No memey shit over there though, it’s pretty explicitly focused on the underlying aspects of this kind of stuff.
subscribed!
thats the one! Hope to see you around there someday. I’m semi active whenever i feel like being mad about something lol.
It wouldn’t work, unless it was pretty heavily moderated a la askhistorians, or what have you. You’d probably just get like, AITA level nuance shit, where people drone on about like, things that are “common sense”, or commonly accepted talking points that have the pretense of nuance, but none of the actual weight. Maybe just like, mild centrism.
The thing about valuable, nuanced thought is that it’s mildly chafing in that it’s foreign and novel, introduces something new into the mix, but not so chafing that it’s impossible to accept from the current POV. Social media operates in contextually eliminating extremes, when you automate it all, you either get a system where people only push around stuff that’s highly agreeable, or stuff that’s extremely disagreeable. Nuance is basically anathema to automated online spaces.
probably be better than extremely partisan posting alone though.
I feel like you could totally monetize nuance, i’m just not sure how you would go about it, satire maybe?
I mean something that satire gets pretty rightfully dogged for a lot of the time, as a schtick, is a lack of nuanced understanding of an issue. Like south park’s manbearpig schtick, or maybe like, I dunno, borat. Idiocracy. Office space, maybe, dunno, haven’t seen that one, don’t know too much satire. Tropic thunder, I guess, right. None of these are really nuanced portrayals of what they’re satirizing, because to do so is kind of antithetical to the genre.
I mean something that satire gets pretty rightfully dogged for a lot of the time, as a schtick, is a lack of nuanced understanding of an issue.
that’s exactly the point, you provide a point that is so aggressively anti-nuance, that it forces people to reckon with the concept of nuance internally. Because obviously they shouldn’t be believing what you say.
Satire is hard, you have to do it correctly, and once done correctly it can be a very powerful tool. Everyone cites a modest proposal as a really good example of satire, because it is. You can’t just walk up to someone and exclaim yourself to be a nazi, walk away, and then go “no actually that was satire”
Ah, yeah, I see. I think if you’re going for that, the satire has to be more well-calculated than most tends to be. It can’t just be like, an extreme portrayal of opinions, because then you’ll either Poe’s law yourself into getting people that agree, or you’ll offend perhaps a target audience that needs their mind changed. I think I have noticed that I have had more success trying to kind of like, find a gap there, and then turn it around. Shitting in the street is likely to get you arrested sort of thing, if done as protest, RIP modern diogenes. But filling a cup with your own spit and then drinking it, that’s very weird, not something that anyone can really verbalize any logical opposition to, and is offensive. I don’t have any like, good political illustrations of that kind of satire, but, I’d go with something along those lines, something that can very obviously point out a flaw.
that’s kind of my problem with satire, is that i don’t think most people truly understand what satire is, they just write shitty humor and go “it’s satirical” when in reality, it’s just incredibly laden in irony, and you don’t understand the difference.
True satire IMO, is something that is so reprehensible, that it is literally impossible to believe, but not so reprehensible that it’s forbidden speak.
I’ve been toying with political satire myself, a couple good examples i’ve drummed up over the years are “human rights were a mistake” “i think eugenics is good actually” (although i don’t really like that one tbh) currently my favorite is what i refer to as “weaponized apathy” which is more performative satire than anything. You find something that you shouldn’t be apathetic to, and then become apathetic to it, and everything immediately surrounding it, preferably that includes the potential for your death. (you’re making a point, not an argument here) though the difficulty with the last two are contextual bindings, because it’s not trivial to just slot those in to everyday speak, you have to lead in and out from them. Otherwise they fall flat.
For me it’s less pointing out a flaw, and forcing people to think about things, because i think that helps. Also lets be honest, it’s funny watching people react.
Yeah see the problem with the first two examples you came up with is that I can count a lot of people I’ve interacted with that believe that shit. Maybe I need to get new friend groups, but it’s really hard to avoid poe’s law online, because you can find basically anyone who will believe any random shit you come up with, if you try hard enough. There aren’t any strawmen online anymore, there’s just viewpoints. Weaponized apathy is pretty good though I like that one. Going to a protest and just like bringing a grill and being like “I just want to grill for god’s sake”. You’ve arrived at the function to grill but also to be apathetic in public where people will see your apathy, very nice, very absurd.
Ooh, new strat I just remembered exists that might solve this issue a little bit, self-contradictory satire. It gets everyone really mad, but also it’s impossible to conceptualize of what’s actually being said without putting in a little bit of thought to actually sus out what’s happening there. Being a pro-life fundamentalist christian that thinks of life as happening at conception, but also being early term pro-abortion and pro stem cell research, pro-test tube babies, pro-genetic modification. God creates the man at conception, and we are trying to act more in the image of god, it’s only right to toy with life in the same way, maybe. I dunno, just spitballing, but maybe something like that could work as a satire. A satire of nothing, a satire of someone that doesn’t exist, I guess. A satire of everyone, total hypothetical.
Those young men should also choose the bear. If we explained that to them, and why, maybe the next generation wouldn’t need to.
I mean, I’m a man getting to the point where I’m entering the “No longer young” decade, but I’d take the bear. People are less predictable than bears. I don’t want to be isolated from civilization with ANY stranger.
It’s exactly this. A bear is a bear. Known quantity. Likely to leave you alone, and you’re in his space. A man? Possibly fine. Possibly gonna do some bad stuff. Why is he even there? Who knows!
People are really bad at risk calculations. Bears just aren’t that risky by comparison.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/bears/safety.htm
Somebody on youtube really needs to do a skit where a woman treats a random dude in the woods the same way they would a real bear encounter.
Women receive more training on men safety. Keys in hand between their fingers. Eyes averted. Never walk alone. Don’t go out at night. Cross the Street if men are coming. Cover your drinks. Cross your legs. Don’t dress provocatively. Don’t reject them outright.
Women are on high alert all the time. That’s why the bear threat is meaningless to them.
Honestly I think if you gave them the same choice, they’d pick bear too. Bear or a man who has on average 75% more muscle mass and 90% more strength than you. He is also 93% likely to be gay. Now you might be in the forest with your nice and normal gay neighbor and have a totally lovely time! Or you might get one of those gay priests who just want to rape you repeatedly. Which do you pick? Man or bear?
That’s a lot closer to the choice women are making.
Source on average difference of male to female strength https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205132404.htm
What the fuck is any of this
it’s a poorly framed joke about gay subculture, in which a “bear” is a big burly hairy gay dude.
I think you’re misunderstanding the point of the meme then
Not really. It’s saying to soften the language. I disagree. I say explain the language and why that level of anger is justified. The boys will quickly realize and be told that it’s not about them. They’ll likely also be just as mad at the s*** that goes on.
Kids are smart. If you tell them that women would pick a bear because a small percentage of men rape a large percentage of women, they’ll get that.
Removed by mod
Dogs bite people. Never pet a dog you don’t know.
Outlets shock people. Always check the fuse is off at the circuit breaker.
Men are strong and brave. We draft them for war.
You’re hearing a sound bite and jumping to conclusions because your brain thinks it’s about you and gets defensive. It’s not about you. Not everything is about you. That’s was the hardest thing for me to learn as a generic white dude. Some things aren’t about me, aren’t for me, and that’s ok.
I feel like you are overlooking the fact that bears are dangerous too! Yeah, you will probably be fine. But you might get mauled. I don’t think anyone is arguing there is zero risk to being alone in the woods with a random man. It’s a question of which is more dangerous. The original bear vs man statement is so vague that it’s hard to answer scientifically but I maintain my original stance that most women who were alone in the forest with a random bear would choose to switch to a random man once they realized what that felt like.
I think what many men, myself included, find rather upsetting is the assessment of the risk men represent by feminists. If someone said “I would rather jump out of an airplane with a trash bag for a parachute than fly next to a Muslim” that would be offensive to Muslims. Even if you tried to justify that statement with your reply above… it would still be offensive.
Let’s assume, though it’s silly, that death is inevitable in the scenario. A bear isn’t going to torture you or rape you. It’s a quick death. Can man guarantee me the same?
Making some weird race comparison is racist because someone’s race doesn’t dictate their maximum cruelty. However, their species does.
But if there were some religion where you only got into heaven by torturing people slowly, then your analogy would be apt. Those people on a whole would have a higher maximum cruelty.
A bear isn’t going to torture you or rape you. It’s a quick death.
This isn’t really true though? Bears aren’t cold calculated killers. If you were to fully accept death, slit your own carotid, whatever, sure, that would work, you’d die within like the next thirty seconds, whatever, which, I guess you could do in either scenario really, so, kind of a moot point. But bears, man, getting attacked by a bear is brutal. I dunno how many post-bear attack victims you’ve seen but it’s not pretty or quick. Bears will bat at you with their claws defensively if you try to defend yourself at all, down to the bone, they’ll put their weight on top of you and crush in your ribcage making it extremely hard to breathe and impossible to scream, leading to internal bleeding, and then when you’re incapable of movement because your spinal column is crushed and the adrenaline starts wearing off, it drags you off where it can start gnawing on you and ripping out your entrails.
Bear attacks are pretty horrifying, getting attacked by wildlife is no joke. I feel like a lot of people don’t have firsthand knowledge, but the bears, they are grisly.
Some things aren’t about me, aren’t for me, and that’s ok.
Most countries literally have laws against that, they’re just not applied to straight white men😂
Dogs bite people. But better to pet a dog than a lion.
Outlets shock people. I’d rather use an electric heater than set a fire in my house.
This is the bear meme. It’s not about the thing. It’s about the comparison.
Many do. Why is why we have MGTOW and Andrew Tate
Because…men…make up ~80% of all murder victims, in addition to 90% of the perpetrators? According to the UN’s 2019 homicide study?
That’s why men fall into frothing inceldom and whatever Andrew Tate is doing? Because they share statistically just as much risk regarding other men as women face from men, just for a predominantly different crime?
Because that’s why they need to be choosing the bear, and that just doesn’t sound right…
You’re using the bear analogy wrong. If the bear analogy was about statistics, they’d choose the human because statistically speaking, many, many more people are helpful than harmful. Especially compared to a dangerous wild animal.
People pick the bear because they themselves have been hurt too many times or have heard of people being hurt too many times. There is a perception that the bear is safer.
That can go both ways. And often people choosing the bear can be in a vulnerable state, which the likes of Andrew Tate preys on.
If the bear analogy was about statistics, they’d choose the human because statistically speaking, many, many more people are helpful than harmful. Especially compared to a dangerous wild animal.
By its nature, there can’t be an “if.” Any conversation based around assessed probability of violence will at some point necessarily revolve around violence statistics. One cannot make an accurate decision otherwise, and it would cease to be any sort of statement at all. Would you rather choose between gleeps or glorps.
You’re not incorrect in the other points you’re making. I highly appreciate them, they’re well said, and you come off like you’ve given this considerable thought and attention. But the perception is there because it’s also a reality. The stories everyone has or knows someone who has are not fairy tales far away wherever they film the news and, statistically speaking, a random bear in the vicinity is leagues more predictable than a human, less aggressive as a result, and less dangerous should it become aggressive on account of the possibility of rape and torture.
Given the choice – while it isn’t nearly as likely from an animal that doesn’t know what humans are and mostly wants to avoid the whole mess as much as I do if allowed – I would also elect to be killed by the bear. That should be giving people pause and encourage them to reflect on the current dynamic and what can be done to fix it, and I would charitably like to think that it does. I’ve also met people before and they tend to dig in when they hear things they don’t already agree with instead of becoming as curious as they should, but I’d like to think that it does, at least for one person.
The way one deals with bears does not work for men, because there IS no reliable way to deal with men should they turn aggressive. Not even pepper spray, if they’ve experienced it before or are just particularly plucky that day. You’re supposed to run afterwards because your assailant can and will fight through it in much the same way a bear will not. I learned both these facts at about the same age, and I’m angry about that, and I’m angrier that there’s not a women in my family, or even a woman that I know, that hasn’t been assaulted at least once and/or subsequently murdered.
Your standing argument about the whole deal, if I understand it, boils down to, “Yes, but how many men didn’t rape you when they could have? Talking about your experiences is making them more likely to choose that path themselves out of insult, but probably if you’re nice enough they’ll rape you less.” …And I’m hoping you can see how that thought process sounds insultingly unhinged as well as being a little bit to the left of the point.
In painting it as only an overactive perception, you don’t sound in my opinion like you think it’s as pervasive as it actually is, or that it should be the center of the problem. Your trick of the light is my maternal grandmother, whose crime scene got me interested in forensics. My mom. Her friend, killed after the divorce went through. My best friend when she was eight. Me.
I already know the risks, and I usually don’t get a say in whether I’m going to experience them. And yet, whenever I or anyone else ask why we as a society consider it completely normal to sell and carry Man Spray, more men than one would hope are going, “Violence? What violence? What you need to do is let your guard down around me specifically. I don’t like it. You wouldn’t want to keep making me upset.”
In regards to Andrew Tate, my understanding is his followers flock to him (and similar ideologies) because he makes them feel like they belong somewhere, gives them a checklist to follow defining what success looks like, and someone to blame. His draw is the utter blowing emotional wasteland men are trapped in, still expected to be soulless robotic workers but bereft of the worth their role as Man Of The House used to have.
The role a lot of them were raised to fill doesn’t exist anymore. A lot the things they were taught to value, women can provide for themselves if they even want those things at all. Can’t ask for help with the crushing weight of it, because they either fear being or absolutely have been rejected for daring to try. Can’t carry it alone, you’ll shoot yourself eventually.
Their needs are very real, and a severe problem. The way they’ve tried to cure it isn’t even a mistake, it’s just that the group they turned to for belonging happened to be predatory.
That said, the statement, “Women are so used to being assaulted and beaten to death that they lowkey never stop scanning for threats and would like to know: what if y’all stopped that?” and the statement, “men are so isolated and emotionally under-served that they buy muscle cars and perhaps tiki torches about it” are still two very different things. I’d say one of those groups isn’t meeting with violence nearly as often as the other, but they are. That’s the problem.
What if we looked at why people keep picking the bear and took stock of what needs to be done? No… we’ll just have more rage again. We had rage for dinner last night.
Removed by mod
Which is why the important lesson from the bear meme is that a whole lot of women are incredibly stupid.
Woah woah woah, hold the fuck on for two fucking seconds.
First of all, as I said before, this shit goes both ways. Men do this too.
Secondly, I did NOT say that using our perceptions is a bad way to make decisions. Multiple experienced incidents and multiple stories can create a perception of danger, and that perception may be wrong at times, but it can also be dead on at critical moments. It is a survival tactic that serves people well in general.
Ah, sorry, I took it for granted that we were on the same page about it being irrational. Taking the worst experience you’ve ever had, and expecting it to happen all the time, is a trauma response. It’s understandable, but it is in no way reasonable. I wish we could acknowledge that without women claiming we’re dismissing their lived experiences.
It’s a bit more complicated than simply taking the worst experiences someone has ever had.
Every experience, every story from friends, every story in the news, heck even portrayals in fiction, contribute to someone’s perception of an event, object, person or even group.
Now place yourself in the position of your average woman. You hear rape stories on the news, probably known a few people that have been SA’d if it hasn’t happened to you personally, and you’ve almost certainly had a few close calls at least. Are you telling me you wouldn’t have your guard up?
How are they choosing the bear? Both of those are actively hostile towards women, they don’t just “go their own way” to chill with the bear
Choosing the bear is how one starts on either path. Then they get manipulated by hate spreaders and fraudsters.
nuance:
You are all arguing about bears, but I am over here day dreaming
Uhhhhhhh…what a horrible day to be literate
Nothing like some vintage copy pasta to sear your brain
yeah, he spelled exquisite wrong, 0/10 would not read again
Hopefully people see this and stop posting ragebait 🙏
OK, seriously, I thought I’ve spent enough free time on Lemmy telling you to watch Barbie here for some of you here to, you know, actually watch Barbie.
So let me be clear: it is ultimately the Barbies’ complete disregard for the Kens’ feelings that led to the Kens being poisoned by the idea of the Patriarchy and all the subsequent mess in Barbieland, so way ahead of you on 2, to reiterate, what the Kens did was wrong, but you have got to take a nuanced approach to these things.
Also, on 1, all I said was that unlike the meme I feel that bears are terrifying, and then some weirdo came out of the woodwork and got really angry and start talking over me and calling me a dumbass and I was making it all about me somehow. The irony was so palpable I was at a loss for words.
This whole thing is completely blown out of proportion. The fact that young disenfranchised men are getting upset that women they don’t know are choosing a bear over them says that they are taking it personally when it’s not.
If you’re a young man, and the people around you have decided they would rather choose the bear over you, that’s a sign that you need to sit down and take a hard look at yourself about why they would do that. What have you done that would make them decide that. And if you extend that feeling to random women that you don’t know, then you need to sit down and take a hard look at yourself why you feel that way. You don’t know the lived experience of random women. You don’t know why they would choose certain death over you. Taking it personally only shows your immaturity. You can’t control how other people feel. You can only control yourself. If you want to understand why women around you would choose the bear, maybe try asking them nicely and actually listen. Empathy works both ways. Showing some will encourage people to reciprocate.
Removed by mod
Way to purposely misinterpret what I said.
How are women “wrong” about feeling uncomfortable around unknown men? How are women asking you to fix that problem? None of what you just said is actually happening. Stop creating a fantasy where you’re perfect and it’s everyone else who has a problem.
Removed by mod
I feel uncomfortable around unknown women 🤷♂️
That’s fine. No one is forcing you to be around unknown women. And those women aren’t going to be offended that you don’t want to be around them. Those woman aren’t going to call you completely irrational for choosing not to be around them. Those women aren’t going to demand that you empathize with them. You are free to feel however you want.
That’s pretty dismissive. No one is forcing women to be around unknown men then.
Then why is this post filled with men upset that unknown women don’t want to be alone with them?
You tell me. People aren’t forced to be around unknown people. Ever. According to you.
I’m sure those unknown women would think I’m silly for just wanting to be in a room with people who aren’t going to sexually harass me.
It’s not certain death. Bears are predictable, you can easily scare a bear away or play dead. Random men are unpredictable. As a man, I would much rather ruin into a beat than some sketchy dude who wants to rob me or wear my skin as a coat.
But that’s just it. It’s not about the bear. It was never about the bear. It’s about women not trusting unknown men, and the men who get offended by that. Anyone that insists on predicting what the bear would do, or wants to discuss statistics of bear attacks, is missing the point. It’s distracting away from the actual conversation.
Women have the right to feel uncomfortable around unknown men. Men have the right to feel hurt by that sentiment. But it’s not the responsibility of women to coddle the men and make them feel better. The men need to understand that they can only control themselves. Part of controlling themselves is to empathize with women and try to understand why they would choose the bear. Not get upset that a random woman doesn’t want to be alone with them. Not proclaim they’d also choose the bear because they don’t want to be alone with some sketchy man. Not convince them that the bear is statistically more dangerous. Just simply listen and try to understand. That’s all. When you learn to control yourself and empathize, you’ll find others that will do the same. And then maybe some of those women will choose you over the bear…
Removed by mod
That would be cool and all if women reciprocated and listened to men for once.
One of the ways in which some men radicalize is through support towards women that is not appreciated nor reciprocated. Something like “duh, if you didn’t support us we’d call you the problem”.
Of course this gets personal. If women expect men to listen, could they please listen for once? I’m sure they’d get a lot of insights behind a lot of male behaviors, and particularly why we are upset and why some men turn aggressive and hostile and follow rapists and douchebags.
Want insights on abusive behaviors and how to prevent them? The answers are there. Heck, threads under this post contain the true answers. Listen.
You are not owed reciprocation. You are not owed appreciation. No one is asking you to listen to them. You’ve taken it upon yourself to respond to a woman making a general statement that’s not directed at you. You made that choice.
It’s not the responsibility of women to ensure that you do not become radicalized. You have to take ownership of your own life and the choices that you make. That includes the choice to become aggressive, or hostile, or to become a rapist. Women don’t make you do those things. You decide to do those things, no matter how you try to justify it. The choice is yours alone.
And women are not owed being listened to and cared for, exactly.
We do it not because we owe something to each other, but because we’re empathetic human beings able to listen and care for the discourse that is not about us. But we too have something to say, and it is directly relevant to the substance of the conversation.
And it gets more and more frustrating to see many women venting their anger without actually trying to listen up and see the other side of their story, gaining insights that are useful in combating the very issue they complain about. The solutions are there. It’s just that no one actually cares for them.
Nothing good comes from a discourse when one relevant side is shushed every time they speak up. And this is the case.
Now, what is more important to you - venting anger and shifting blame? Or listening in search of insights?
You want someone to listen to you? You want “respect”? You have to give it first. That’s how life works. You can either go around being respectful to other people, and if it’s reciprocated then great but if not then you move on. Or you can go around being disrespectful to everyone until you get respect first, and people will rightfully treat you the same way.
Women are not venting to you. They are just venting. You are choosing to inject yourself into the conversation and demand that they listen to you first. You’re demanding that they accept your solutions without question. And then you wonder why no one wants to listen to you. If you’re unwilling to see that, that’s your problem.
And that’s what men in the feminist conversations normally do - listen and care and respect. I am no exception. (By the way, the reciprocity on that barely ever comes, but that’s a topic for another conversation)
But this post isn’t just a vent. Would it be correct for me to publicly ask: “would you rather be alone in a forest with a bear or a black person”?
Those questions contain a simple subtext, a comparison of men to dangerous animals, irrespective of any nuance, which is a form of attack on a social group. And I doubt someone just got interested in stats on what women would choose. This is an act of, at best, rude behavior, and at worst, an active hostility, and men see it as such.
This is not a singular case by any means, and it continuously reiterates in one form or the other.
And that’s where we have to interject.
would you rather be alone in a forest with a bear or a black person”
Stop comparing yourself to black men. This isn’t about race.
And that’s what men in the feminist conversations normally do - listen and care and respect. I am no exception.
Yeah, except…
If women expect men to listen, could they please listen for once?
You don’t want to listen. You’re just waiting for your turn to talk.
a comparison of men to dangerous animals, irrespective of any nuance, which is a form of attack on a social group.
Again, you are purposely putting yourself in that group and getting offended by it. You are not being oppressed just because someone who doesn’t even know you exist would rather not be alone with you.
And that’s where we have to interject.
Which is why women are choosing the bear. Unfortunately you don’t seem to get that. You don’t have to interject, because it’s not about you.
Why should I not compare? Both are immutable traits people are born with, and both may serve as a basis for discrimination.
The single time men massively interject to stand up for themselves is immediately claimed as a hostile hijacking and an unwillingness to listen.
No, we do listen. But that doesn’t mean we will seal our mouths when we are blatantly attacked.
Purposefully putting myself to what group? Memes? This is not some obscure radfem space, this is a general purpose Internet place. And what’s happening here is not okay.
Nothing good comes from a discourse when one relevant side is shushed every time they speak up. And this is the case.
I mean I think it’s a pretty mutual like, set of actions that happens as a result of the initial framing of the conversation being like a stupid absurd obvious ragebait hypothetical more than like, a systematic failing in our society. Or, rather, I think the systematic failing of society is that these conversations are only allowed to come about, to blow up, out of those sorts of bad faith framings, rather than happening more naturally on even ground. I think that’s the root cause, which I think affects both people groups, rather than it just being like a cultural failing that you might attribute to. I dunno, something else, something not as good as that.
Undoubtedly, the original hypothetical is a ragebait - but it truly succeeds at forming people’s opinions, which is something that can’t be ignored when groups of people are attacked.
I’d much rather not have those hypotheticals at all, indeed, and have neutral and positive talks.
If all women listened to men for once?
Someone come out and tell me I’m on a Poe’s law hidden camera show.
What? Men are going to adopt shitty beliefs and exercise their privilege no matter what and nothing can be done about it. /s
The gamification of social media means any attempt to draw a bright line of social conduct will just end in people deploying that rule in the most cynical context.
“Believe all women” means we’re going to slap generic women’s faces in our Avis and lie out our asses.
“Let people enjoy things” means reframing the most deplorable and nakedly hostile conduct as some kind of secret fetish you have to support.
“Protect Kids” means posting baby pictures under every comment and saying “This is who you’re talking to”.
“Act like an adult” means getting CP in your DMs.
When its all a fucking game and you score points by causing other people mental anguish, the only thing any sane healthy person can do is log off, touch grass, and get as far away from the hellscape that is social media as possible.
That’s an interesting perspective. They would say the same thing about “touching grass” when tv became popular. The scenarios you describe are more extreme versions of beaver and butthole are corrupting your kids.
They would say the same thing about “touching grass” when tv became popular.
They’d be right. TV absolutely rots your perception of the outside world. I can’t count the number of elderly people who have become shut-ins, thanks to the continuous bombardment of Sinclair Media crime-blotter local news coverage. People ingest too much of this crap and suddenly they’re too terrified to leave their homes.
The scenarios you describe are more extreme versions of beaver and butthole are corrupting your kids.
The Christ-o-fascists who lost their shit over MTV didn’t want kids to stop watching TV entirely. They just wanted the kids to watch religious broadcasts instead.
Growing up with them I can certifiably say you’re wrong. As a result I was out in the world doing things I look back on and think were fucking insane.
Ever wonder how you survived? I certainly do
I know for the most part I was always trying to be conservative with my friends and though we were taking risks I would try to draw the line somewhere. I think that helped but a lot of the time I was encouraging it too. Otherwise just dumb luck.
I mean the phenomenon of televangelists and televangelical megachurch pastors that spread their messages and propaganda through the same avenues as conventional media is a pretty like, well documented thing, I’d say. Tune into AM radio or cable TV and you can probably still peep some of them doing their thing. I don’t think their point is necessarily invalid, but I also think there’s more of like a happy medium between, watching TV all day and going outside and bumming around town as a latchkey kid and frying your brain on spice in the back of a much older guy’s car, or like. Robbing a low rent low security corner store on the edge of town.
I’m not saying christian media didn’t exist I’m just saying at no point were we given the option to do that instead. TV was satanic and we should go outside and stay out of the way.
I’m not gonna lie, the grammar of that first sentence is quite confusing to simpleton like me.
fixed hopefully :)
Could someone explain number 2 to me? A lot of big words, and I have trouble to understand what it’s trying to say.
It’s claiming that pushing men out of civilized communities, spaces and conversations ultimately leads to them embracing more accepting alt-right ideologies and movements.
Thank you!
Follow up question: What would be a practical example on how to achieve this? To not push men out of civilized communities that is.
Let us talk, dont immediately shut us up if we aren’t actively harming the discussion, let men know that their feelings are valid too but that they dont overshadow others feelings (jumping straight to that second half is NOT helpful). Let memes like this one exist without deleting them for lumping them in with the angry assholes
👆👆🗣️🗣️
I think it has to happen in person.
At the heart of this is the unfortunate fact that nuance is lost in online discussion. The reason that the bear scenario is so notable is it is so polarising. “yes! That’s how I feel!” vs “you’re reducing me to a threat”
An honest and direct conversation between two peers is far more likely to have a lasting effect. Hearing what the lived experience is directly from the person who’s experiencing it is far, far more more compelling than the stark bear statement.
I don’t feel unsafe most of the time. But I have felt unsafe and vulnerable before. Thus when a female colleague told me about being followed by a guy in a park while walking her dog, and feeling torn between straight running away and keeping her pet safe, it resonated directly with me. I could see her reliving the experience and see her distress. She shouldn’t have to go through that. It’s not fair.
That conversation resonated far more completely than the bear tweet.
I don’t even think it has to be like, in person, necessarily, I just think it needs to be engaged with in good faith outside of like, the framing of the conversation as being spurned on by some sort of hypothetical, or being spurned on without like. Reportage between two people, without a relationship there pre-established. I’ve definitely had compelling conversations online, it’s just that it happens so often to be kind of, in spite of the larger machine they took place inside of.
The reason I say in person is because if the amount of information which is transmitted via direct conversation is orders of magnitude higher than through eye contact, tone, language and body language.
If you and I were talking right now, I could maintain eye contact, rotate my shoulders so I face you, position my head in a way that says I’m listening, use my voice to indicate that I’m contrite, or uncomfortable, or supportive.
It can be excruciatingly uncomfortable for people who are used to having virtual tools abstract away the hard parts of interaction. But that’s exactly what (in this case) women are saying they feel. They feel, in the real world, they’re not safe. To me, the weight of that comes from a direct interaction rather than a news article or twitter post.
My opinion etc
Young men are much more likely to be non-conforming to sexist cultural/gender norms and stereotypes, which often leads to them being ostracized more by general society and makes it easier for grifters (like manosphere influencers) to take ahold of them and radicalize them with alt-right and/or extremely misogynistic beliefs.
There are plenty of amazing feminist role models, but the right’s form of propoganda is so much more enticing because it tells you that everyone else is the problem and you’re superior to others, rather than ask you to give a shot at understanding reality like leftist influences do. That goes with anything on the right, fascists are a lot more motivating and good at gaining/rallying radical supporters because it’s so much easier to get people on your side if you’re allowed to lie about everything. So naturally, impressionable – and extremely vulnerable and emotionally volatile – young men gravitate towards the extreme negative influences due to how our society and education is poorly set up to prevent that.
And in this case how sexism and toxic masculinity is deeply ingrained into our society that so many of these young men are made to feel like they’re “not real men” by those around them, it really pushes them towards this even more. Rather than reject the idea of a “real man” or a “real woman”, they embrace them even more and convince themselves that they are the realest men, and OTHERS are pathetic.
It’s a lot easier to identify with the bad guys if you’re assumed to be a bad guy.
“Women think I’m more dangerous than a bear? What the hell? I never did anything”
Followed by
“hey what this guy on YouTube says is true, women sexualise themselves, I mean look at instagram. This isn’t my problem,.”
I know this is a bit of an over simplification but thought 1 is what I thought.
I’m a bit older, tho and my second thought was - “but ive never felt unsafe alone with a woman, definitely have felt unsafe around some men.”
It blames women who express their fear of being scared of men for the violence commited by men against women
I think your post is exactly what is criticized by OP. In the first part of the post it is explicitly stated men should not talk over the fear of women. A message like yours seems to blame people just because they criticize the way of discussion in some places. I think it is obvious that men are influenced in a possible negative way, when they are always seen as danger. At least for me it probably contributed to my low self esteem, especially in all sex/gender related topics. I think, we as men do so much harm, I don’t want to take part in this. But i took it to the extreme, so I was ashamed of everything sexual about me. But as OP said, all of this doesn’t invalidate the feeling of any woman. But for example this situation here is not governed by fear, still it seems you can’t discuss the social effects of this sentiment “against” man, without discrediting the other side. Sure, violence done mainly to women is the most important topic. But if men always get portrayed as danger, I can understand some are open to other, more misogynist worldviews.
Read their post history, it’s a troll
Gr8 b8 m8
Ah! Doublethink!
/s
i know ur meming but it’s good to know what doublethink is and how this is not that :)
