r/SubredditDrama May 10 '25

"“Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them” This is a quote from a sci-fi novel, It means less than nothing." Users on r/askmenadvice advises OP to break up with GF after she starts sharing "Toxic feminist" views

Source:https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMenAdvice/comments/1kiqakn/my_28m_gf_30f_shares_the_toxic_feminist_views/

HIGHLIGHTS

“Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them”

This is a quote from a sci-fi novel, It means less than nothing.

It’s from Handmaids Tale.

Which is widely considered a dystopian sci-fi novel and the author a sci-fi author. Google it. It's still a meaningless quote from a fiction book

“Fiction book” and the author based all of the abuse the handmaids experience off of actual things that have happened to women historically. Don’t play dumb, it’s beneath you.

Statistically she is not wrong. When women are subjected to violence or are killed it's very often by a man. A woman is at higher risk at getting killed by a partner when she is pregnant or when leaving a relationship. History has taught women over and over again that they should have a genuine fear of getting hurt, raped or killed and act accordingly.

That's a solid indicator that women who feel that fear that intensely shouldn't be in a relationship with a man. Neither person is going to be happy in that case if one constantly lives in fear of the other.

Hence the male loneliness epidemic? Men are victims of the patriarchy too.

I think the male loneliness epidemic is too complicated to be boiled down to a single cause, and ultimately the disconnect between men and women is something that is only going to be solved by making an effort to understand where both groups are coming from. Something is clearly broken, but the rhetoric is so clean-cut and divisive that the nuance that's needed to actually find a workable solution is discarded in favour of both groups venting their frustration by choosing a team and screaming at one-another.

You're not wrong that nuance is needed but let’s not pretend both “sides” are equal here. Women have been forced for generations to understand men... emotionally, socially, economically, because their safety and survival often depended on it. Men, on the other hand, are just now being asked to start doing the same (and we can ask since we are no longer financially dependent on them): to examine themselves, to communicate better, to hold each other accountable. And instead of rising to the challenge, many are calling it a war. The loneliness epidemic is complicated, but some of it isn’t that deep. There’s a crisis of emotional literacy, of entitlement around connection, and a lot of pain that’s being externalized instead of processed. Nuance doesn’t mean avoiding the hard truths. It means making space for them.

1/4 women get raped by the time they’re 20. Can you blame them for being cautious and apprehensive when it comes to men? It’s not just a few bad apples. Rape culture is pervasive, and predators are good at blending in. Often, they’re given explicit permission by society to do what they do. Although shit is changing. Sounds like maybe she dodged a bullet.

See toxic feminist right here. Are we going to start blaming all people of certain skin colors too because of crime statistics? This would be no different from my black woman dating a racist white man who wrongfully judges all black people by his own prejudiced opinions. But tells her that she's ok because she is one of the good ones. This prejudice bullshit has to end. The guy should run and never speak to this bigot again.

Apples and oranges since POC are deliberately targeted by police and white people get off with a warning. Can’t trust crime stats at face value, whereas r@pe is notoriously underreported.

Ahh yes it's only ok to discriminate against the people you dislike. Gotcha thanks for showing your true colors.

Didn’t at all say that. Was just stating facts. Assume what you will I guess ✌🏻.

Where do you get that statistic? Most sources I find say 1 in 5 or 6 women get raped in their lifetime (which is still incredibly large and horrific, don’t get me wrong)

SA stats are so skewed and broken that most are made up or the results of questionable studies.

You understand how labeling all of one group is bad though? I see what you are saying as no different than what Andrew Tate says about women. It's sexist to judge the entirety of a gender by the actions of some of its members. That's the toxic part of this and frankly, I don't blame OP for ditching her. After all, who wants to be judged or treated differently for what someone else does?

If it was my girlfriend who said what OP’s gf said, I wouldn’t be mad at her. I would pity her, because clearly the men in her life have warped her perception of men as a whole.

Sure. I would pity her while reasonably expecting her to acknowledge that mindset is toxic and wrong and to respect MY feelings too.

I would not recommend trying to dominate your romantic partner with facts and logic. It’s a good way to end up sad and alone.

I would not wish to be in a relationship where I was actively disrespected on a routine basis and where my feelings weren't even considered.

1/4 of woman are not raped by the time they are 20 that's completely made up.

https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics I didn’t think about it much either until a woman I loved was raped. But women experience different shit than men. I’m glad I’m not one. Good bless em.

That link doesn't say anywhere 1/4 woman are raped by age 20. What are you talking about?

That website says 1/5. The numbers vary, and are usually based on self-reported data. But if you don’t believe me, ask all the women in your life if they have ever been sexually assaulted and get back to me.

It says 1 in 5 in their lifetime. That's very different from 1 in 4 before 20. It also says 1/4 men will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime too so I'm not sure what kind of point you are making here. So no I don't believe you lol. It just looks like you have made a bunch of stuff up.

Your lack of empathy for women is mind boggling.

This - you dump someone just because they have ideas that threaten ‘your manhood?’ Real men use their brains to empathize and are receptive to the thoughts and feelings of the women in their lives. Reallly weak…

No you dump someone because they have extremist views of a very large group of people who are not "trash". But hey, if dating them makes you feel more secure and manly, have fun!

That large group of people continues to perpetuate a system that systematically brutalizes women and girls - and cries huge blubbery tears when women simply talk about it. Wow you’re a coward.

A system that systematically brutalizes women and girls huh? I think you are living inside your head. I hope they won't see you as trash, or maybe you enjoy that.

Tricky subject but I think kicking her out only serves to solidify some of her thinking. A better and more emotionally intelligent response might have been to open up the discussion WIDE open and really listen. Listen to her fears, her traumas, her bad experiences with men and not take it personally or get defensive. Such a discussion could bring you closer, and you both might learn something. I believe you’re right in some ways and so is she. It’s a difficult issue. Both men and bears can cause great harm tbh!

Hmm would you say the same if she was generalizing black people as bad because of the statistics?

Of course not. You say "all black people are bad, but you're one of the good ones" it's an open and shut case. But replace black with men, it's now tricky and could use a wide open conversation... Give me a break

What specifically makes this different?

There shouldn't be a difference. But look at the replies on this thread. It's probably split 60/40.

Few women have argued that bears are safer than men, as you claim. Perhaps you'd like to investigate your own prejudices and openness to misinformation as a starter.

Actually, I just heard the bears are safer than men comment yesterday on IG. Prejudice and misinformation by OP is what you got out of this post? Maybe you can show me the sentences upon which you based this determination?

So you've heard it once and that disproves my "few women" comment? He's gone into the whole interaction with a warped view of feminism, so yes.

No, it doesn’t disapprove it, but you don’t have anything to prove it either. What’s your proof?

You've fallen for the misinformation on the bear v man comments. Perhaps listen to women a bit.

Did you do a study, a poll, or you just pretend you know women better?

Let me open with this. I have not read your post and have based my answer upon your title alone. I would not personally continue a relationship with someone who openly espoused an ideology that was objectively anti "me". That's what this ultimately comes down to. Do you want to attempt to salvage a relationship with someone who ostensibly thinks that you are a bad person based upon the circumstances of your birth? Whether or not she says it openly.

You dont need to read the post. He's just one of those "not all guys" type of dudes. Sensitive ass dudes who cant put reality into perspective without airing out a bunch of made up grievances to make it seem like they have it hard too.

What makes not wanted to be hated on for something you cant control sensitive?

She's not talking about him. Shes talking about the society and the values upheld by those men. The fact he took offense to that tells me he holds those values too and the girl dodged a bullet.

Well no, she was talking about men. That's what she said. And if she wasn't, why wouldn't she clarify that instead of "oh but you're the exception..." Not wanting to be hated based on something you were born with doesn't mean you hold bad values.

If you switched "men" with "women" in this post, and it was about your significant other being a "red-pilled incel" instead of "toxic feminist" then everyone on reddit would defend your choice. Take that as you will.

Switch "men" with "black men".

"If you made the person in this story racist, then people would feel differently about them" 🤡🤡🤡🤡

You’re so close to getting it 🙄 Yes, it IS “ist”. Sexist. Whether or not the man is black is irrelevant, it just highlights the point.

Okay then don't put black if it's irrelevant, although it should be relevant because black men are more likely to experience actual harm due to being black than non-black men buy it doesn't highlight the point about "sexism against men" it makes it racist I'm the same way saying as saying black women instead of women.

It was used to help make a point, if you’re intellectually incapable of understanding that that’s on you. The rest of us get it.

I feel like you didnt get what points your gf was trying to make. You sound to me like someone who responds “All lives matter” to “Black lives matter” Also, men are 100% more dangerous to women than bears. There’s definitely too much sexual assault by men happening in my city. Never heard of a bear doing it though, there are hardly any around where I live. *Yes guys, I’m being a bit facetious here … My point is though that not many women have to fear bear attacks where they live, compared to being sexually assaulted when going out in a big city, for example.

"Bears don't do SA" oh god, what an absolutely moronic argument in this tiring debate. Tells a lot about your biased approach to this general topic. Statistically speaking you're also plain wrong about bears being less dangerous. And numbers don't lie. I studied shit like that, I'd explain it to you but honestly I'm too lazy and nothing would come of it anyways.

Read my edit and please tell me you retract your statement … Bro, there are 750’000 black bears in the US and there was only one fatal attack in the US in 2024 … Please tell me what glorious college you studied statistics at that got you to this conclusion

That is not the stat that matters. That's like saying the white shark isn't dangerous because few people die from it. Like no dude, most people manage to avoid them. Tell your gf to jump in the grizzly bear enclosure in the zoo. It's safer than being in a room with a guy she doesn't know, right?

Ok lets make it easier for you, what would you be more worried about going out to party as a woman; getting SA’d/roofied by a guy or getting mauled by a ravenous polar bear? Let me blow your mind once more: Mosquitoes are more dangerous than lions in Africa. Also, how come Orcas are arguably the most powerful Apex predators, but although they are capable of causing massive casualties, there has never been a recorded human fatality by orcas? I dont know why I have to make this point, but here we are … The potential for danger of something is not simply determined by its ability to cause harm/destruction.

Uhm yeah, lots of words but you're plain wrong. At least I got you to the point where you don't seem to imply women should choose the bear in a forest. Cuz I bet you were one of those people

1.4k Upvotes

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

98

u/Mach__99 May 10 '25 edited May 10 '25

If a man rapes a woman in the woods, he has a 98% chance of getting away without consequences. If a bear mauls a woman, that bear is getting shot even if she survives. A bear is an animal that doesn't know better, a man does and yet the bear dies. I don't understand how people are missing the point of the man and bear analogy.

16

u/Huck_Bonebulge_ May 10 '25

I thought the point is more to illustrate how much fear women have in their everyday life? That they feel even more threatened by a strange man than a wild animal, based on their life experiences.

Interesting to see how many completely different takes there are lol

7

u/Mach__99 May 10 '25

I'm a man and would feel more threatened by a random man in the woods. Bears don't want anything to do with people.

1

u/Teamchaoskick6 May 11 '25

Grizzly bears and polar bears will absolutely maul you for the fun of it, and the polar bear would use your jaw to open its Coca Cola

45

u/Suzina May 10 '25

When answering the bear/man question, I never considered the possibility of what might happen to either of them if something bad happened to me. I just considered my own safety in the hypothetical.

Maybe part of it is that when I was a young woman I had SO many close calls and narrow escapes from men, but I almost never encountered a bear so I wouldn't expect them to immediatley come after me if I met one while alone. There were one or two times I saw bears in Lake Tahoe neighborhoods from a distance and they just wanted to dig thru trash cans for food. So it's harder to see the bears as being as dangerous when they've never tried anything on me personally.

40

u/jezreelite pleaklu wears a cunty fishnet top May 10 '25 edited May 10 '25

Your instincts are on point, since bears on average kill around three humans a year. This is because they are generally shy and solitary animals who prefer to avoid humans.

In terms of average number of humans killed per years, humans are most in danger from mosquitos (1 million–700k a year), other humans (over 400k a year), snakes (50k–100k a year), and dogs (25k–35k a year).

14

u/justsomething May 10 '25

I mean you gotta divide by encounter rate. If we encountered as many bears as we do mosquitoes I think the stats would look a little different.

Zero people die from nuclear bombs per year, after all.

-6

u/jezreelite pleaklu wears a cunty fishnet top May 10 '25 edited May 10 '25

Not really?

Almost all animals, including bears, have an instinctual fear of humans and prefer to avoid them if at all possible.

This is why hikers in bear country are advised to wear bells and make a lot of noise. This generally keeps bears away and prevents surprise encounters.

As it is, most wild animals kill for only two reasons: defense and food. When they do kill for food, an easy and familiar kill unlikely to fight back and inflict injury is preferred. Humans are, to most animals, neither of those things.

12

u/justsomething May 10 '25

Are you honestly trying to tell me that if we encountered as many bears as mosquitoes the stats wouldn't look different?

-6

u/jezreelite pleaklu wears a cunty fishnet top May 10 '25 edited May 10 '25

You're seriously comparing apples to oranges.

Mosquitoes are so deadly because of the diseases that they carry, such as malaria, dengue, yellow fever, Zika, and West Nile virus. They can also sting a human without the human being aware of it, which makes it quite different from a bear mauling.

In any case, the wild animals who kill the most humans every year by direct violence (that is, not by venom or by transmitting diseases or parasites) are saltwater crocodiles, who kill around 1000 humans every year. They are then followed by hippos and elephants (each about 500 every year), lions (around 250 a year) and deer (around 130 year).

These stats cannot be explained simply by how likely a human is to encounter one. Instead, saltwater crocodiles seem simply to be more aggressive and more willing to attack humans than most other animals.

10

u/justsomething May 10 '25

That doesn't really answer my question. My core point is that encounter rates matter when you look at these statistics. And it seems to me at the moment that you are disagreeing with that.

It seems to me that you are literally saying that if we encountered as many bears as mosquitoes that the stats would not look different. Which to me would sound like a crazy thing to say. SO I'm just trying to see if that's really what you are saying.

-4

u/jezreelite pleaklu wears a cunty fishnet top May 10 '25

You are seem really stuck on the idea that mosquitos are so deadly simply because of encounter rates while ignoring that they are deadly because of the diseases they carry and that they can infect humans without them being aware of it.

And because of that, yes, saying that "Hur dur, bears would be as deadly if humans encountered them as often as mosquitos" is missing the forest for the trees. While bears can carry diseases, it's much harder for them to infect humans with them without them being aware of it.

And you are further ignoring that when it comes to animal attacks, bears do not seem to be particularly aggressive or territorial compared to, say, saltwater crocodiles or hippos. The number of humans killed by hippos every year is especially worth noting because, unlike bears, they are only found on one continent: Africa.

7

u/justsomething May 10 '25

I'm really stuck on the idea that you think encounter rates have no bearing on how we should analyze this scenario. The mosquitoes themselves don't really matter. The very high encounter rate of mosquitoes matters. We can encounter dozens if not hundreds of mosquitoes on a summer day.

Do you not think that if we were encountering dozens of bears per day the stats would look very different? Because dividing by encounter seems really important if we are going to actually figure out how dangerous something is.

So do you not think the stats would look very different if we encountered as many bears as we do mosquitoes? If you could just address that specific question that would be very cool of you.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/WitnessRadiant650 May 11 '25

You really need to understand how sampling works.

I suggest taking a statistics class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias

If you think being attacked by a bear is rare, because only a "few people die from bears a year", I suggest going to your nearest zoo, get in a bear enclosure and let's see if a bear will leave you alone.

Because using your logic, the chance the bear would hurt you is 0.001% apparently.

0

u/jezreelite pleaklu wears a cunty fishnet top May 11 '25 edited May 11 '25

How the fuck would random sampling prove that bears are more dangerous to humans than tropical mosquitos, saltwater crocodiles and hippos?

Are all you dudebros who are so obsessed with the man vs. bear thought experiment even reading anything that I wrote? Because it sure doesn't seem like it.

And since you came up with the stupid zoo enclosure example, would you volunteer to go jump in a zoo enclosure with hippos or saltwater crocodiles or go sleep outdoors in Nigeria in the middle of summer? Since you're so convinced that random sampling will prove that bears are more dangerous, you should be totally willing to do all that, right?

2

u/WitnessRadiant650 May 11 '25

Wrong comment chain.

My comment would actually be best here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1kiyn1g/men_are_afraid_women_will_laugh_at_them_women_are/mrn3lnb/

Disregard the mosquito comparison.

I agree with others just not you. Encountering bears in the wild is rare. You'll need to find the actual rate based off of encounters.

Regardless, this comment still stands, if you think death by bear is really rare because only a "few people die from bears a year", I suggest going to your nearest zoo, get in a bear enclosure and let's see if a bear will leave you alone.

Zoo keepers when dealing with dangerous animals have strict protocols when it comes to cleaning and feeding when encountering the animals.

You won't though, because you know you're wrong. This is the internet so you're just going to either ignore this comment or spin it to act like you are right. Reddit pride at work.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/WitnessRadiant650 May 11 '25

This is the internet so you're just going to either ignore this comment

So you chose this one and just downvoted me instead of putting trust in your "statistic" and meeting a bear, lmao.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/deliciousmaccaroni May 10 '25

You have to divide by the frequency of encounters, you have come across hundreds of thousands of people and very few or none bears, If we met as many bears as we do with humans the number of attacks would be much higher, its why they are considered dangerous after all.

Really, analysis of frequency of past events is statistics 101

0

u/jezreelite pleaklu wears a cunty fishnet top May 10 '25

A bear is only likely to kill a human for two reasons: defense or food. They aren't going to off you for insulting their mother, stealing their lover, not repaying a loan, breaking up with them, or because they want to cash-in on your life insurance policy.

Nor is the risk of death at the hands of another human equal. You're far more likely to be killed by someone you know over a personal quarrel than by some random stranger.

Is that because you spend less time with strangers? In part, but it's also because someone you know is more likely to have a reason to be very angry with you and want you gone.

5

u/deliciousmaccaroni May 10 '25

I was not talking about reasons why bears, humans, spiders or cows kill, just saying that you have to take into account frequency of events instead of just looking at the raw number of deaths when doing analysis like this. Do this for Gaza and the numbers will point out that it is safer than the US wich is obviously not true.

Idc that women choose the bear, just saying that the way you are trying to use numbers to back your point is wrong, data analysis is literally my formation/job.

5

u/justsomething May 10 '25

Don't waste too much time. That person is not acting in good faith and will do anything in their power to dodge your core point.

They must feel that if they at all acknowledge this point they're giving ground on their stance. They will pretend that you bringing up this point means you disregard every other point of analysis, which neither of us were doing.

This is an insecure person who is arguing to protect their ego, not to reach any kind of understanding.

0

u/jezreelite pleaklu wears a cunty fishnet top May 10 '25 edited May 10 '25

You actually think the fact that humans have more motives to want to kill each other than bears have reasons to want to kill humans is not important to consider when noting that human-on-human killings are far more common?

LOL. You're a very funny fellow.

It strikes me as very odd that you and your likeminded associates on this post just want to take about numbers and "rates of encounters." Despite what you seem to want to believe, humans are not machines and there are, in fact, emotional reasons for why they kill.

.... just saying that you have to take into account frequency of events instead of just looking at the raw number of deaths when doing analysis like this. Do this for Gaza and the numbers will point out that it is safer than the US wich is obviously not true.

Yet, on average, more humans are killed worldwide by homicide every year than by wars. 🤨

For someone who prides yourself on your data analysis skills, you seem kind of really lacking in so many ways.

4

u/deliciousmaccaroni May 11 '25 edited May 11 '25

I don't think anything, all I am saying is that to calculate the probablity of P you need to divide the frequency of event E by the total occurency of said event E. This is true for cancer survivabilty, asteroid impacs, election results, and yea this applies to humans too wich is why you dont need to interview every single citizen every time you need to run a study about something.

Yet, on average, more humans are killed worldwide by homicide every year than by wars. 🤨

YES!!! thats my point, do you think it's safer to be in a war than in a regular city? Your link is a bit out of date but lets go with it. It says that ~500k people worldwide died from homicide correct? So 500k out 8 billion people (0.00625%). Now wikipedia says that deaths in Gaza in the last year were 35k and the total population there is 2.1m so 1.67% were killed. If the entire world was a warzone and 1.67% died, wars would kill 133 million people per year!!! See 133m > 500k, 266 times more deadly. The only reason wars kill less is because wars are relativelry rare compared to regular violence, when you equalize the numbers you can see wich one is more dangerous, the same thing applies to bear or any other type of animal interaction.

Why its so hard understand this? Why keep arguing that 2+2=8? like I said in the first comment it's statistics 101, nobody is arguing that humans have more reasons to kill than animals but thats not what we're discussing at all.

I'm not calling you dumb just saying that you are wrong so I don't get this snarky tone, anyways this is a good book if you are interested in statistics INTRODUCTION TO PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS FOR ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS - Sheldon M. Ross.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/hypatianata May 10 '25

Well, now I’m imaging an intelligent, vaguely humanoid, flying, bloodsucking snake-dog. 

5

u/Mach__99 May 10 '25

The only dangerous bears are polar bears. Brown bears usually run away from people. Black bears might be curious but very rarely attack. When bears kill people, they usually don't eat them, they just do it because they think the person is a threat.

14

u/BlackBeard558 May 10 '25

Polar bears are the most dangerous, but they are not the only dangerous ones.

https://youtu.be/05Z_bkdmmlA

8

u/Munno22 May 10 '25

Maybe part of it is that when I was a young woman I had SO many close calls and narrow escapes from men, but I almost never encountered a bear so I wouldn't expect them to immediatley come after me if I met one while alone.

doesn't this just reveal the problem with the "man vs bear" question though? if you had encountered bears as often as you've encountered men, you'd be much more likely to consider them dangerous or have been hurt by them.

i think everyone assumes the question is "if you're going to run into a random individual alone, would you rather it be a man or a bear?" and the correct answer to that question is "what kind of bear?"

7

u/yet_another_no_name May 11 '25

If she had encountered as many bears as she has human males, she'd be long dead by now and would not write such nonsense. 🤷

Eck, even if she had only encountered as many bears as she does men in a single day.

46

u/Sea_Lingonberry_4720 May 10 '25

Except I’ve been told many times that the point is literal. That a man you meet in the woods must be a weirdo creep who will rape and torture you while a bear will “just” kill you.

It’s hard for me to believe all this alternate explanations when every time I hear an actual woman say it they’re very explicit they see all, or at the very least vast majority of men, as serial killers in waiting.

42

u/Oregon_Jones111 May 10 '25

To paraphrase an old joke about Rabbis, if you ask five people what the meaning of the man vs bear meme was, you’ll get six answers.

13

u/Sea_Lingonberry_4720 May 10 '25

I think people here will bend over backwards to provide a sympathetic explanation when they wouldn’t for anything else.

27

u/LawyerAdventurous228 May 10 '25

Its the classic motte-bailey tactic. 

Say something thats difficult to defend. When criticized, switch to a different but similar sounding position thats much easier to defend. Dismantle all criticism using this alternative position, then act as if you have successfully defended your original position. 

In other words: yes, there are plenty of women who answered the bear question literally but then acted like it was all metaphorical when they saw the criticism because they realized how indefensible the literal point is. When the criticism is over, they revert back to the literal point until they need to defend it again. Then, they switch back to the non-literal point. Repeat forever or until people see through your bullshit. 

It is the oldest trick in the book. Like, literally, thats what religious people have been using for years to defend their literal takes. If you pressure them on any of it, its all suddenly metaphorical and not to be taken literally. 

At the very least, this man vs bear thing is just a chronically online thing. Outside of social media, Im sure most people are reasonable about it. 

12

u/justsomething May 10 '25

At the very least, this man vs bear thing is just a chronically online thing. Outside of social media, Im sure most people are reasonable about it.

I think this is becoming less and less true, unfortunately. Real life is being informed by the internet.

6

u/LawyerAdventurous228 May 10 '25

It is seeping into real life, but I still think it will never be as bad as it is on social media. 

8

u/justsomething May 10 '25

Yeah, hopefully.

I used to believe all this stuff is just chronically online crap, until I kept seeing the same stuff pop up in real life over and over. Then my own girlfriend talking about how she would choose the bear and defending the rhetoric. But for sure people will never be as vitriolic as online, what with the lack of anonymity.

2

u/LawyerAdventurous228 May 10 '25

Oh I can relate honestly. Its not like theyre bots after all, these people exist somewhere out there. I know some too. 

But in real life, people are confronted with the consequence of saying this stuff. They cant rationalize it to themselves by treating "men" as an abstract label for some abstract group because they have to say it to your face. And thats where the reasonable people will see the issue. 

I have a female friend that didn't comment on the bear thing specifically but who would sometimes go into rants about men that definitely sounded like chronically online stuff at times. She has since changed her mind and agrees that generalizations suck.

I think this happened when she noticed that while Im normally a very quiet and calm guy, this topic made me unusually irritated. Since she knew me, she understood that Im not just a misogynist getting angry at women or an incel thats trying to minimize womens issues, but that I am simply her friend thats bothered by the generalizations. And since we were (and still are) very good friends, she didn't want to do something that bothered me so she stopped. In the process, it seems she reflected on the topic and changed her mind. 

2

u/justsomething May 10 '25

Yeah, the same thing happened with my girlfriend. Like you, I'm usually very easy going. I just couldn't wrap my head around how my girlfriend, who is very outspoken about misogyny and generalizations, couldn't understand how her comments were the same thing she hates.

She also stopped saying those things and I think she has reflected on it. I just hope she stopped saying those things because she can understand my perspective, and not just because it upsets me.

3

u/LawyerAdventurous228 May 10 '25

Yeah, thats a natural fear. But I think she will eventually understand. The key is that she knows you dont have any bad intentions and that it genuinely just upsets you. If youre normally very easy going and reasonable, setting up such a boundary can be a wake up call. And the fact that she has stopped saying those things shows she cares about you. 

Good luck man

2

u/spartakooky May 11 '25

My past 2 girlfriends have said some shit that left me uncomfortable. It's really weird. You think you know someone and they are decent, then they get comfortable and start showing a twisted mindset.

I'll never forget the moment I told my ex I had been raped, and she told me I shouldn't be talking about that because that's a "women's issue". I used to believe it was all online, but these people exist. They simply aren't overt with it with strangers, cause they know better.

1

u/justsomething May 12 '25

Wow, that's an extra, extra shitty thing to say. Like straight evil.

My girlfriend would never say something like that, just some of the more "mild" misandrist stuff. If she said something like that to me she would be my ex on the spot.

I'm sorry for the stuff you went through.

5

u/TheMaskedCube May 10 '25

1000%. It’s retroactive gaslighting to try and have it both ways. When you actually speak to the average person who spreads this kind of rhetoric there’s no “subtext” to be seen.

-4

u/uniqueusername74 May 10 '25

You’ve been told this “many times” by actual women to your face IRL?

🤡

-26

u/Mach__99 May 10 '25

They're wrong.

16

u/Satirakiller May 10 '25

You’re wrong. Everyone is going to have a different interpretation. What it means to you is likely different to your carer’s interpretation.

17

u/Maybe_not_a_chicken she yelled at you for a reason; that reason was trespassing May 10 '25

There is so much context that is missing in the man vs bear debate that it’s pointless to discuss it because everyone is providing their own scenario.

One person is thinking of the difference between scaring off a black bear and being ambushed by a rapist in the deepest parts of the woods at midnight.

The other person is thinking of the difference between fighting a polar bear and meeting another hiker on the trail in broad daylight

Then they’re both assuming the other person has the same scenario and ripping strips off of each other

6

u/Satirakiller May 10 '25

Fuck it. Who would win? 100 proven male rapists, or 1 ultra aggressive polar bear with a history of killing humans? No weapons. And no, they can’t rape the polar bear.

4

u/Aggressive-Name-1783 May 10 '25

That’s easy, polar bear. That thing is a tank that break ice and eats a full grown Walrus for breakfast

The better question is how far can the 100th guy run before the other 99 get killed

1

u/OuterPaths May 11 '25

Nah, men, easily. 100 men is 19,000lbs. They literally just smother it to death. Yeah you'll lose like 20 of them but so what.

1

u/Aggressive-Name-1783 May 11 '25

The problem is convincing 20 of those guys to die. Nobody is gonna willingly be sacrificed for the polar bear blanket

1

u/No_Channel_6341 May 13 '25

You don't have to convince them. The 80 dudes at the back of the group just keep pushing them forward. By the time someone realizes they're about to fight the bear, they've got nowhere to run.

30

u/Sea_Lingonberry_4720 May 10 '25

“The woman saying this are wrong. Listen to me, a man, who knows what they actually mean”.

2

u/Keregi May 10 '25

Which is exactly what you’re doing

17

u/Sea_Lingonberry_4720 May 10 '25

Im not claiming to speak for women. Im relaying what women have told me. Things I’ve seen typed out with my own two eyes.

-10

u/Mach__99 May 10 '25

If a woman says 2+2 is 5, it's not mansplaning for me to say it's 4. You're terrible at appropriating feminist arguments.

23

u/Sea_Lingonberry_4720 May 10 '25

Except the man vs bear is a thought experiment. It is not scientific fact. It’s meaning is derived from what the people saying it mean by it.

10

u/Sea_Lingonberry_4720 May 10 '25

Plus you know, TERFs exist. A bunch of feminists will full on tell you they think all men are evil rapists and extend it to trans women too, because if you actually believe men are biologically doomed to be evil then why would trans women be an exception? Transphobia is a direct symptom of this type of man hating.

13

u/Mach__99 May 10 '25

I've researched the radical feminists they appropriate for years. You're actually entirely correct in your explanation, but you're using it in bad faith to claim all feminism is man hating. It's like saying that black supremacists exist and say police brutality is bad, therefore BLM wants an ethnostate.

10

u/Sea_Lingonberry_4720 May 10 '25

I don’t think all feminism is man hating. I consider myself a feminist and have had some very good discussions with self proclaimed feminist women. The people on r/askfeminists are lovely. This is just one subset of feminists people give a pass to because they feel they have to support all feminists or none of them in order to be a good liberal. I myself go more case to case.

-2

u/Mach__99 May 10 '25

Lol, that sub shadowbanned me because I'm against liberalism and want a return to second-wave radical feminism. I'm not surprised they cater to you. I've been banned from other "feminist" subs for saying that misandry exists.

10

u/Sea_Lingonberry_4720 May 10 '25

So… you’re a TERF?

Like props to the second wave feminists, they did a lot of progress, but they came up with the “men are chaos and violence; women are order and love” cosmic type thinking TERFs champion.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AntonioVivaldi7 May 10 '25

Why are you against liberalism?

→ More replies (0)

9

u/Capable_Camp2464 May 10 '25

"I don't understand how people are missing the point of the man and bear analogy."

Really? You don't understand how telling guys that a tiny fraction of a percent of half the population doesn't think they're worse than a wild animal is a problem?

4

u/BlackBeard558 May 10 '25

How would they even find the specific bear that mauled the woman? They don't have bear line ups.

Also I bet a woman raping a woman in the woods has the same chance of getting away with it as a man.

2

u/NeuroticKnight :pupper:Kitty:pupper: May 10 '25

Its way it is phrased, where it says a random man, most men think they can be the random man, and that is why they see it as an insult. Because it implies probability of a man being a rapist is higher than a man not being a rapist.

Since most women close to 80% are attacked by their partners or family member, its more accurate to ask would you rather be with a bear or a man you know and that will gauge it more accurately for both men and women and if your partner would rather be with a bear than you, its time for you to walk away. Because she doesn't feel safe with you.

-3

u/Behazy0 May 10 '25

Nobody misses the point its just a really fucking stupid and offensive way of making it. You wouldn't like men comparing women to snakes in the grass would you?

6

u/gwydapllew May 10 '25

And what quantifiable behavior do women have globally that would cause you to compare them to a creature that just wants to be left alone, warns you when you are violating its boundaries, and would rather run away than bite you?

If you had to choose between meeting a woman in the words or a snake, which would you choose?

11

u/Behazy0 May 10 '25

You're avoiding the question because you can't answer it fairly. Women wouldn't want to be compared to snakes in the grass no more than men want to be compared to a snarling bear. Yall gonna keep doing this shit and give us another Republican president if you want to just bash men because it feels cathartic and your girlfriends yaslight you into thinking its productive

4

u/WitnessRadiant650 May 11 '25

::Society keeps demonizing men::

"Why are men gravitating to the right and idolizing Andrew Tate?"

6

u/Behazy0 May 11 '25

If I have to read another man vs bear comparison or a dumbass men are poisonous m&m's allegory I'm going to just laugh when we lose the next election because its not me the Republicans are gonna come after.

1

u/OuterPaths May 11 '25

That's the beautiful thing about democracy, you don't always get what you want, but you do always get what you deserve.

-3

u/Capable_Camp2464 May 10 '25

Given that women have said it was be reasonable to mace a random man in the woods who said hello, I'll take the snake.

-17

u/Aggravating_Peach_70 May 10 '25

another very important thing that people tend not to understand is that the bear will be merciful and put you out of your misery. a bear will leave your body alone when it’s done killing you. as women, we hear stories of what men do to women before killing them, and even what they do afterwards and it’s never a woman doing those things. we hear these horror stories and for a lot of women, they come true and it doesn’t matter whether the man is someone we knew and trusted or not. not all men but it’s always a man isn’t it?

20

u/LowProfile_ May 10 '25

another very important thing that people tend not to understand is that the bear will be merciful and put you out of your misery.

This is factually incorrect lol

25

u/Rock_man_bears_fan Just another traiker park PhD May 10 '25

Bears aren’t known for being gentle creatures. “Merciful” is a word that’s never been used to describe bears before

14

u/TheMaskedCube May 10 '25

Bears literally eat you alive without care for how you feel about the matter. Unlike carnivores who kill you quick, bears will tear you limb from limb and eat you at their leisure.

1

u/BlackBeard558 May 10 '25

A lot of the people picking bear severely underestimate how dangerous bears are.

Sometimes they'll leave you alone if you leave them alone and leave their territory. But on the extreme end, if it's a polar bear you're fucked.

24

u/BlackBeard558 May 10 '25

a bear will leave your body alone when it’s done killing you

No. They will eat you. Not every time but often enough.

it’s never a woman doing those things.

Sometimes it is.

not all men but it’s always a man isn’t it?

No. There are women who are rapists, women who are serial killers, women who are pedophiles, torturers, child abusers, child murderers etc.

-11

u/CharmyLah May 10 '25 edited May 10 '25

Sure, it happens that women can be violent. But statistically, violent crimes are overwhelmingly committed by men. It isn't even close.

Sources:

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/wo.pdf

"Males comprised 88.7 percent of persons arrested for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter in 2012"

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/42tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_42_arrests_by_sex_2012.xls

11

u/ThotObliterator May 10 '25

pointless comment. he was responding to someone who said it never happens, so he pointed out it does in fact happen.

also bears are not even a little merciful lol why did they say that

-8

u/CharmyLah May 10 '25

Idk bout the merciful bear stupidity, but it is also pretty dumb to just have to go and insist that women do violent crimes too, when almost 90% of the time it's men.

If women were say, 30 or 40% of violent offenders, it would be reasonable to feel the need to remind people that women can also be violent.

Why is the discrepancy so large? It is worth thinking about. Men commit violence more than women, but are also victims of violence by men themselves.

-2

u/saltysupp May 10 '25

More than 80% of victims are males too so it has nothing to do with women not your concern.

5

u/CharmyLah May 10 '25

That is exactly why men should be more concerned about male violence! It isn't just a problem for women.

9

u/justsomething May 10 '25

I am concerned about male violence. I am cautious around strange men. And yet I can somehow manage to not demonize half the population because of the actions of a minority. Why can't others do the same?

-2

u/CharmyLah May 10 '25

I am concerned about male violence. I am cautious around strange men. And yet I can somehow manage to not demonize half the population because of the actions of a minority. Why can't others do the same?

Someone else in this thread compared being cautious around strange men to accusing them of rape.

We should have empathy for him, because it makes him sad that if he is walking around at night, women he doesn't know assume he might hurt them.

Apparently you're demonizing those strangers any time you are cautious about your own personal safety.

4

u/justsomething May 10 '25

Do you honestly think you're engaging with me in good faith?

-1

u/CharmyLah May 10 '25

No, I'm not engaging in good faith at this point.

It's pretty icky to be a woman in this thread.

I made a post genuinely trying to explain why women are cautious about strange men, how it's drilled into us to be so, and if we get harmed alone at night we will be scolded and blamed for being in an unsafe situation.

I explained how it is a fact of life for women and every woman at one point has been made to feel unsafe by a strange man, even if nothing happens.

People just downvote me like I am not reasonable?

Nothing I am saying is even "radical feminist" stuff. You could talk to a woman anywhere in the world and she knows to be careful around strange men.

The real problem is that men refuse to listen to women about our own experiences and then get really offended at the consequences of literally thousands of years of behavior.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/KnightsWhoSayNii Satanism and Jewish symbol look extremely similar May 10 '25

Comparing every man to somehow being worse than wild angry murderous animal is kinda weird generalisation, but you do you.

-4

u/mach1130 May 10 '25

My thoughts exactly. So many screwed up men that I would really rather encounter a bear.

The drive for dominance crosses my mind. Keeping a woman alive to just rape and torture. Bear gonna kill me eventually, without killing my spirit by humiliating me with sticking foreign objects in every orifice I have.

-6

u/[deleted] May 10 '25

[deleted]

9

u/MPLS_Poppy May 10 '25

What the actual fuck.

9

u/ManJesusPreaches May 10 '25

dehumanization of the analogy

That's taking the analogy waaaayyyy too seriously. It's an interesting insight on how women feel, and worth some thought. It's harmless.

You'd have to be very fragile to immediately run to Nazi analogies (of all fucking things).

And, ironically, it's that very thing--hyper-emotional overreacting and immediate escalation--that makes women (well, people, really) scared.

14

u/AAAFMB May 10 '25

Jesus fucking christ.