And yet...neither side is willing to understand why the other side would say that. You refuse to understand why a women would rather take her chances with a bear in the woods, and women refuse to understand why the average man trying his best would be offended by the implication.
The good thing is - this is all online. In real life, friends of colleagues barely talk about politics and aren't nearly as extreme in their views. Women will happily go out with guys for drinks and banter etc. Its all from people always online, that've forgotten what the real world was like, or keep thinking that their one negative experience is the world as a whole.
I don't refuse to understand anything. The contention is nonsensical; it's a conclusion born from an echo chamber that's been uncontested for so long it's warped the egalitarian views of feminism.
Choosing a 100% chance of being eaten alive versus a less than 1% chance of being raped is an illogical byproduct of the argument that 3rd wave feminism uses to undermine men to continue pushing for reform just for women. For decades, the implication that rape and slightly lower pay is WORSE than literal death and low life expectancy has been pushed so that society can ignore the fact that the way men are treated by society is absolutely heinous. It's honestly appalling, and what makes it worse is the total lack of acknowledgement that it exists.
Asking men to "try and see the female perspective" of the Bear Scenario is like trying to ask a minority to understand why people cross the street to get away from them. It's exceedingly insulting. But no one thinks it's problematic because the echo chamber hasn't been challenged in the main stream without the challenger being made an example of.
I don't think it's the same as asking that, coming from a guy. I don't know where the 100% chance to get ate comes from at all though.
Normally you're not gonna get raped in the middle of no where, it'll be some place where you just got caught alone, or at home to a family member. You get raped in a forest it's not gonna stop there😠You'll either end up tortured some more or just killed. They often have to rely on you not knowing their identity, or you being manipulated. If you're alone in a forest? They've got no worries. That's ignoring the main reason people would pick the bear, honestly the rest of what I type could be ignored.
You get mauled by a bear and die, well that's it. You're dead. A bear isn't going to film your mauling, you won't have to sit down with your family and talk about and try to get over the fact a bear killed you, no one is gonna say "what were u wearing". A bear won't ever really think about calling a friend over. It's just on autopilot to kill your ass. You won't have the bear killing you ruin your psyche for a long ass time, making it so any good relationship you had with a bear goes away, your trust of bears goes away. You won't have to think about killing yourself in the end. Because you're fucking dead. It is legitimately the most dehumanizing thing for another human to sit there and sexually torture you for what can be a few minutes that feel like forever, to actual hours and hours. If you're alone in a forest with no traffic? Fuck who knows how long. No one wants to go through that.
Personally for me it'd depend on the forest. I'd pick man or bear it just depends. I'd get lonely in the forest, so maybe a guy and pray he's not some Dahmer type, but I don't like going off of odds so maybe a bear.
-12
u/DO_NOT_AGREE_WITH_U Dec 17 '24
I dunno.
What I do know is that women are lauded when say they'd rather stand next to a bear than a man if they were in the woods.