If you are a woman alone in the woods, would you rather come across an unknown man, or a bear? It’s a thought experiment. As a human woman, which represents a greater immanent threat?
Without wading into all the technicalities, could we perhaps agree that if you have to say, “what kind of bear tho’,” that we are already in troubling territory?
That’s not at all what is implied by the thought experiment. It’s not all men, it’s a random man. And it’s not that they are dangerous, it’s about what feels riskier from a woman’s perspective.
That’s why all the fretting over which kind of bear is missing the point. It’s not about arguing with women that they are wrong, it’s about listening to them and understanding that they have no idea whether the man is the sort that would kill them if they say or do or don’t do the right thing — but the odds are sufficient that all men must be treated like a potential threat.
It’s not all men, it’s a random man. And it’s not that they are dangerous, it’s about what feels riskier from a woman’s perspective.
How is that different? It’s still a prejudice based on somebody’s unalterable trait. The entire premise is a deliberate generalization to place men and wild animals into the same category.
Not all men are dangerous just like not all snakes are venomous. Knowing that some are dangerous means that I will be cautious around all of them until I’ve determined if they are the safe kind or not. The price for being wrong and trusting the wrong guy is too high.
I’ve always thought this is such a generalist scenario, meant to deliberately portray all men as dangerous and categorically make them look bad. Imagine we swapped out “men” for another group of people.
Do you think it would be wrong for a black person to be a little bit nervous about wandering through some small, predominantly white town in middle America? 'Cause I’m gonna be real, I think that’s probably a valid fear.
That’s an excellent analogy. Zooming out from that scenario, should we welcome the notion of being afraid of being afraid of somebody based on their skin color, because there’s an inherent prejudice of them being dangerous? If so, should we be encouraging each other to vocalize these kinds of prejudices? And by extension, is it acceptable to draw sweeping conclusions about a group of people based on their generic traits?
Because most people have a Disneyfied idea of what animals do. Most people think a bear in the woods wears a red t-shirt and carries around a honeypot.
If you actually listened to the reasoning that women gave (crazy, right?), they were very clear that with a bear, you know where you stand, but with men, you can’t tell right away whether they’re a danger or pretending to be nice only to be harmful later on.
Any men who get offended by this fact is part of the problem.
as a human woman, which represents a greater imminent threat?
No. This is NOT the takeaway. The bear is clearly the statistically-imminent threat (let’s say a brown bear to ensure it’s hostile and deadly). The point is that you know exactly what the bear will try to do: kill you. You don’t have to greet it, you don’t have to worry about it’s intentions, you don’t have to worry that your social interaction may push the bear over the edge, you don’t have to worry about hurting it’s feelings and risk making it a threat, you don’t have to worry about sending mixed signals, you don’t have to worry about your clothing choice, and you certainly, certainly don’t have to worry about it raping you without witnesses. It simply is a violent threat. You use bear spray and hope you can run far enough, fast enough. You don’t get to make that immediate reaction to a man, between compassion for the innocent, societal pressure to not ostracize men, and legal repercussions if you get it wrong.
I bet you the Venn diagram of doing this crap and being incapable of comprehending why women picked the bear is a perfect circle.
What does “picked the bear” mean?
If you are a woman alone in the woods, would you rather come across an unknown man, or a bear? It’s a thought experiment. As a human woman, which represents a greater immanent threat?
The question always struck me as dumb. Because it doesn’t make any attempt to clarify what geographic region this question takes place.
I don’t care what you’re afraid of a man doing, a polar bear is ALWAYS the worse choice.
But not all bears are as aggressive as polar bears. Some bears will run away from you if you chase them. Some bears will end you if you chase them.
Of coarse you can’t determine how dangerous a man is based on region. But you can likely determine which regions have dangerous bears.
Without wading into all the technicalities, could we perhaps agree that if you have to say, “what kind of bear tho’,” that we are already in troubling territory?
It’s ironic we’re dissecting which kind of bear is dangerous, while implicitly accepting the premise that all men are dangerous.
That’s not at all what is implied by the thought experiment. It’s not all men, it’s a random man. And it’s not that they are dangerous, it’s about what feels riskier from a woman’s perspective.
That’s why all the fretting over which kind of bear is missing the point. It’s not about arguing with women that they are wrong, it’s about listening to them and understanding that they have no idea whether the man is the sort that would kill them if they say or do or don’t do the right thing — but the odds are sufficient that all men must be treated like a potential threat.
How is that different? It’s still a prejudice based on somebody’s unalterable trait. The entire premise is a deliberate generalization to place men and wild animals into the same category.
Not all men are dangerous just like not all snakes are venomous. Knowing that some are dangerous means that I will be cautious around all of them until I’ve determined if they are the safe kind or not. The price for being wrong and trusting the wrong guy is too high.
I’ve always thought this is such a generalist scenario, meant to deliberately portray all men as dangerous and categorically make them look bad. Imagine we swapped out “men” for another group of people.
If this were true, wouldn’t it be dead simple for women to just pick the man? It’s interesting that a lot don’t, right?
Swap the word “man” for another group of people based on generic traits and continue your sweeping generalizations.
Oh, race! I love race.
Do you think it would be wrong for a black person to be a little bit nervous about wandering through some small, predominantly white town in middle America? 'Cause I’m gonna be real, I think that’s probably a valid fear.
That’s an excellent analogy. Zooming out from that scenario, should we welcome the notion of being afraid of being afraid of somebody based on their skin color, because there’s an inherent prejudice of them being dangerous? If so, should we be encouraging each other to vocalize these kinds of prejudices? And by extension, is it acceptable to draw sweeping conclusions about a group of people based on their generic traits?
Because most people have a Disneyfied idea of what animals do. Most people think a bear in the woods wears a red t-shirt and carries around a honeypot.
So, how does choosing a bear with a honeypot make men look bad?
Uh, it doesn’t? It makes the person choosing the bear look like someone whose life consists of entertainment.
What are you even upset about? Do you even know?
If you actually listened to the reasoning that women gave (crazy, right?), they were very clear that with a bear, you know where you stand, but with men, you can’t tell right away whether they’re a danger or pretending to be nice only to be harmful later on.
Any men who get offended by this fact is part of the problem.
It’s kind of a shit take though isn’t it? Animals are potentially dangerous and humans are also potentially dangerous.
The bear will most likely leave you alone if you don’t bother it and so will most humans. No need to bring sexism into it.
Are there non human women?
See Pam Bondi.
No. This is NOT the takeaway. The bear is clearly the statistically-imminent threat (let’s say a brown bear to ensure it’s hostile and deadly). The point is that you know exactly what the bear will try to do: kill you. You don’t have to greet it, you don’t have to worry about it’s intentions, you don’t have to worry that your social interaction may push the bear over the edge, you don’t have to worry about hurting it’s feelings and risk making it a threat, you don’t have to worry about sending mixed signals, you don’t have to worry about your clothing choice, and you certainly, certainly don’t have to worry about it raping you without witnesses. It simply is a violent threat. You use bear spray and hope you can run far enough, fast enough. You don’t get to make that immediate reaction to a man, between compassion for the innocent, societal pressure to not ostracize men, and legal repercussions if you get it wrong.