this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
746 points (86.0% liked)
Political Memes
5445 readers
3649 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Very true, but the overwhelming majority of women interact with men overwhelmingly frequently compared to bears.
Almost as if the whole thing is a light hearted way of drawing attention to a very real fear women live with every day, that stats posted above bear (get it?) witness to.
Plus, if we are being pedantic, it's not "interactions with men". It's "would you, as a woman, feel safer encountering a man or a bear when you are alone in the woods".
If only it were possible to make points without inventing goofy and easily ridiculed scenarios.
I mean... it is tho innit? But when it comes to topics that people have actual PTSD over, sometimes inventing goofy scenarios makes the hard conversations easier.
So maybe the problem isn't the goofy scenario, but the fact that people feel the need to ridicule rape and sexual assault fears regardless of how they are presented?
If we are talking about odds, I'd rather run into a bear than any human being in the woods regardless of skin color because humans kill humans in an exponentially greater number than bears kill humans.
So sure. I'd rather run into a bear than a black person in the woods. Or a white person. Or a brown person. Or even a blue person. And you do have a small chance running into one of the blue ones in one area that's bear country.
This is wrong reasoning though. The only reason why bears kill less humans is because like you say, less bears interact with humans. But if you go with the premise of putting a bear and a human next to each other, then a bear is always more dangerous.
It's like saying ingesting cyanide kills less people than car accidents. That doesn't mean ingesting cyanide is less dangerous than driving a car.
I thought we were talking about odds?
Why did you bring up odds if this was about the "right" reasoning?
Oh I thought you were talking about smurfs and not the Fugates and I'm delighted when I see smurfs. It means the drugs are working
What's a "black prison"? Is that like an off-the-books CIA site where they keep people who won't be found? I'd definitely take the bear, the CIA would probably torture me to get me to tell them how I found their black prison.
Any woman who says "the bear" honestly, I have to assume" has never once actually encountered a bear in the woods.
Prolly has had extremely few encounters with anything in the woods.
People hang out on trails all the time, and are alone with another stranger on the trails extremely often, and the extremely vast majority of those interactions are overwhelming positive in all configurations. The vast majority of humans are helpful at worst, for all genders.
People like to help other people out.
Yes, I would vastly prefer to encounter a gun toting right wing MAGA nut on the trail than a fucking bear, thats not even a hard question to answer, its a fucking bear.
Im left wing by a long shot but I still know that even the average right wing MAGA nut is actually prolly still gonna be, on average, helpful and/or friendly, or maybe just cold and indifferent towards me, out in the wilderness.
Hell I'd actually honestly say this scenario is one of the few times I'd choose a MAGA right wing nut over a fellow left leaning fellow.
I love my fellow liberals but I also have to acknowledge the vast majority of us are city slickers, many many of which prolly couldnt even start a fire if their life depended on it (cuz its just not a thing that matters in the city)
Meanwhile the odds the random selected MAGA right wing gun nut prolly shows up with hunting equipment and knows how to do shit like make a lean to and skin a rabbit.
If I got to pick between the two, I'd choose the gun nut cuz Id rather risk surviving with a gun nut than dying with a fellow city slicker, love yeah all but like, we aint fuckin surviving in the woods long, thats just a fact lol.
Edit:
If you seriously think this sort of statement is okay to make, I dare you to replace "man" with "black man" and go post it to prove how it's totally not a bigoted statement
Cuz any argument you try and make about "man" in this statement should hold water even if you change it to "black man" without suddenly sounding super fuckin racist.
i have to assume you never were a woman... is that correct assumption, smartass?
Don't get me wrong, in your situation, where you are man alone in the wilderness, meeting another person is really not so terrifying of a concept. Bears aren't likely to attack and maul you tbh, but neither is the "gun nut" in your hypothetical.
This isn't what women are talking about when they say "I'd choose the bear". They are actually referencing a genuine fear many of them have being alone around men. Reportedly 14.8%, or roughly 1 out of every 6, women in America has been raped. And between the ages of 16-24, they are 3-4 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted. Meaning these fears are at their peak during formative years.
We could argue till we are blue in the face over which is more likely to attack, a bear or stranger in the woods, but it would be completely missing the point of the discussion.
Many women have genuine fears and/or PTSD regarding being alone with men, and so when asked what they would feel safer encountering alone in the woods, they choose the bear. Even if you believe their choice is the "wrong one", please try to understand what they are trying to communicate by making it.
It still makes you sound stupid, tbh, when you admit you haven't a clue how much more threatening a fucking bear is.
A man, no matter how scary, isn't going to tear your fucking arms off with one hand lol
It demonstrates a degree of naivety that you truly have never actually seen a bear in person.
It just makes the person sound stupid.
At least pick an animal that is less of an instant threat. Like a cougar.
A bear will literally reduce you to multiple pieces without a second thought, and with barely any effort. It's a bear
To be honest, being so unable to grasp the point being made makes you sound... stupid tbh. But I don't actually think you are stupid, so I assume you are just really dug in deep with how much "choose the bear" annoys you (maybe because you are offended on behalf of men, or on behalf of bears?).
So you want to call it stupid instead of just being willing to acknowledge "choosing the bear" is a polite way of saying "men assault women at such a high rate that women are genuinely terrified to be alone with them." And honestly, it demonstrates a degree of naivety that you have never truly experienced the constant threat of sexual assault for you to consistently think this was ever about bears.
No.
I get the point, I have always gotten the point.
My point is it's a stupid sounding way to try and make the point, because it doesn't actually translate well.
Instead you just sound like a naive inexperienced idiot and make yourself look bad.
You either come across as so hyperbolic you just sound sexist, or, you sound like a naive idiot.
Let me demonstrate for you.
If soneone told you given the choice of being alone in the woods with a black man or a bear, they'd feel safer with a bear, how does that sound now?
Do you still think that sounds "hyperbolic", or do you maybe now see how fucked up and stupid it makes you sound?
That's how women who genuinely say that shit sound.
See, I knew it couldn't be because you are stupid! But then why did you waste both of our time talking about bear survival?
Oh, maybe you are stupid... Like, to try and conflate the fear of rape to racism... talk about fucked up and stupid. I'm getting embarrassed for you...
You keep trying so hard to change the idea being expressed when women "choose the bear". Let's take your demonstration to it's logical conclusion. Let's say a stranger demands to be let into your home at night, or asks you to come alone into a dark alley, would you do it, would you feel safe? Now let's say the stranger was black, did that change literally anything? Or is it a dangerous situation regardless of race, and you would still prioritize your safety?
Women are not being bigoted when they express concerns over sexual assault. They aren't trying to take men's rights away, they aren't saying "all men are rapists". They are sharing the very real fear they feel from the very real threat of sexual assault. And they know not every man is going to assault them, but they also know that given the chance, a frighteningly large number will. Since they can't know which one until it's to late, they have to play by gun safety rules and treat all men like they might. Not to be mean, but to stay safe.
Now if you would get your head out of your rear, you might start to actually hear women when they "choose the bear", and what they are really saying. So even if you think the thought experiment is dumb, please try to grasp that it is just light-hearted way to bring up a real issue facing women. And your points about bear safety and it being hyperbolic are so unimportant and miniscule compared to the actual conversation at hand, that you are just wasting everybody's time.
Imagine seriously thinking the most important thing you can add to the conversation is that you think women are expressing their fears over being raped in a "fucked up and stupid" way.
All that typing but you wouldn't write it.
Deep down inside you know it's a sexist statement, but you'll twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify it.
It's sexist, get over it and just admit it. It's a shitty thing to say.
Fear is fear, you can't pretend justifying sexism with fear is any better or worse than justifying racism with fear or justifying any other type of bigotry with fear.
If some TERF shithead posted "I'd feel safer alone in the woods with a bear than with a trans woman in the bathroom" or some shit you know how bad that would be.
You have to sit and look in the mirror and confront the fact that you think sexism directed towards men "doesn't count".
It does. And until the general public wraps their heads around what should be a very simple concept, shitheads like Trump are going to keep getting elected by reactionaries
Deep down inside I know it is a cry for help, not a sexist statement. And if you thought about it, you would too.
It's very telling that you tried to undermine "Choosing the Bear" by replacing the man with a "black man" or a "trans person". You wanted to co-opt the bigotry thrown at an oppressed group to add a charge of oppression to the "choosing the bear". But women aren't the oppressors, they are being oppressed, not just legally with abortion rights, but specifically physically with sexual assault.
What if we swapped your embarrassing attempt at rewriting the scenario and made it fit the reality more, where the man and woman were replaced with another group of oppressors and oppressed?
Say 1939, Nazi Germany. You are talking to a Jewish person that has recently escaped Germany, and in an attempt to explain how terrified they were of the Nazi's they tell you "I would have rather encountered a Bear than a Nazi alone in the woods". Well, given all your knowledge of bears, you immediately rebuttal with "that's so ridiculous and naive of you! Not all Nazis attack Jews, and a bear is a bear! Why you are being bigoted against Nazi's just by implying!"
Sure, Nazi's are the go to extreme example, but it's far more apropos to keep they dynamics of the scenario intact.
So do you maybe now see how much you would have missed the point, and how much attacking their method of communicating their fears is a sick and twisted thing to do?
No, I doubt you do, you seem so stuck on the idea that women communicating their fear of sexual assault actually makes men the real victims.
Good luck with life man, I know you are not a bad person, your arguments have consistently shown your heart is in the right place. But the men who assault women really appreciate you standing up for them, and with that you are enabling harm.
What you are continuing to fail at is that I get the point.
I'm saying that the point is being conveyed atop a sexist mechanism
You might find this wild, but a cry fir help can simultaneously be sexist. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
You are arguing about what is being conveyed on the mechanism.
I am arguing the mechanism being used itself is a shitty one
Things can be more than one thing at the same time, which is tough for some people to understand I guess.
If you continue to keep trying to argue that a sexist post being a "cry for help" somehow nullifies it's sexism, then you will continue to make zero progress here and, more importantly, you'll continue to keep being part of the problem
Guess we just won't find common ground in this one, I believe it would need to actually be bigoted to be... you know, sexist. It would need to stereotype all (or at least most) men as rapists, or it would need to push for collective blame or punishment towards men, it would need to actually be prejudiced.
But it just isn't. It's literally just trying to communicate to men that this problem is so widespread that it is hindering women's ability to live without fear. All of the sexism you see in it, is imaginary. And it's kind of telling on yourself that you think it's talking about "all men".
Women know that most men are not rapist, and they aren't asking for any rights to be taken away from men to make them feel safer. But they also know that 99% of rapists are men, and 91% of victims are women, that added to the aforementioned 1 in 6~ women that will have been raped in their lifetime means they are gambling just being alone with a man. And remaining one of the 5 out of 6 requires never ending vigilance.
It's not sexist to acknowledge those facts, and it's not sexist for women to not want to put themselves in situations where they can't get help. Since Choosing the Bear is literally just trying to spread awareness of this dilemma women live with everyday, and is in no way saying that all men are the problem, its disingenuous to call it sexist.
And if your grand argument is that bringing attention to sexual assault in ways that men may take offense to is the real problem, well all I can say is you are repeating the bullshit arguments thrown at the oppressed during the civil rights movement, during women's suffrage, and countless other fights for rights and safety. You are siding with rapists feelings. You, not women, are saying it attacks all men. And you are part of the problem. You are killing the conversation around sexual assault to inject how it affects your feelings. So please understand me when I say you need to get over yourself.
Honestly, I don't think I'll return to this conversation, you disappoint me, and frankly I've lost respect for you as a person. Blaming women trying to convey their fears as responsible for Trump, and claiming it is sexist to acknowledge their fears is just pathetic. If people really voted for Trump to get back at women for not talking about sexual assault in their preferred manner, fuck those people.
edit: lol, I also just realized you basically implied you would tell a Jewish person "not all Nazi's". Fuck you man
1 in 6 sexually assaulted, not raped, to start. Which is still way too high but don't get it twisted.
Second, these 2 numbers actually have no functional relation to the odds of a random man being a rapist.
If you have 1000 people (500/500 men/women) and 1 of them is a rapist, and a man, you could say "100% of the rapists in this group are men"
Which is true, but what you actually care about is, in that case, only 1/500 of men in that crowd are a rapist.
As for the 1/6 women are assaulted, it's a similiar issue.
If that 1 man proceeds to rape 50 women, you now could say (and be totally correct) that:
But all of that actually is missing the fact that in reality, if one of those women picked a man at random to be alone with, it'd only be a 1 in 500 chance she got the rapist.
Now. These are obviously hyperbole facts to demonstrate the mathematical hole.
Let's find out the actual number then...
David Lisak's research probably gives us the best estimate at around 1 in 16. Which is still quite high, but it is also very far away from numbers like "91%" or "1 in 6"
So now you're looking at a 1 in 16 chance of a randomly selected man being sexually violent.
This suddenly starts to demonstrate how the "I'd choose the bear" statement comes across as sexist.
Because choosing a bear signals a vastly hyperinflated representation of the risk of a man.
This is, indeed, sexist. You're taking the actions of a small minority of men and casting their actions over the average.
That, my friend, is textbook bigotry.
The reality is the vast vast majority of men (~94%) aren't sexually violent and perfectly normal people who would be helpful and good to have around for survival.
If you seriously don't see casting the 6%'s actions as a negative generalization on the other 94% as sexist, then I think you gotta go reflect on that for a bit.