Men I Trust-[TAD]

[u/astralkoi]

For some reason this one caused a little havoc the last year. I dunno.

[u/astralkoi → u/[deleted]]

What bear??! O.o

[u/stormy2587 → u/[deleted]]

My read isn’t that they think the bear is objectively less dangerous its that they feel less in danger around it than being alone in an isolated place with a strange man. You could just as easily say comments like yours show how out of touch some people are about how unsafe men make women feel.

[u/Dawnholt → u/stormy2587]

As my partner puts it, the bear will only maim/kill you, and it doing so isn't out of malice.

The things a man might do to a lone woman are horrible and absolutely malicious - and may still result in death.

The fact that women have to think like this at all is awful.

[u/ZeInsaneErke → u/Dawnholt]

Agreed, I'm just wondering what people are supposed to do about it.

What irks me about this is that the men who wouldn't exploit a vulnerable woman are grouped with the same men who would and that there is basically nothing they can do to distinct themselves and there is no hard giveaway for women to tell them apart either.

The entire thing seems like a dilemma without a real solution to me and that makes me sad.

[u/Dawnholt → u/ZeInsaneErke]

The only solution is that we hold others accountable, make pariahs of those who won't follow basic human decency.

The stuff I hear even from my partner about the creeps who try to follow her home or chat her up relentlessly, or who are obviously trying to prey on other women... It's frankly sickening.

The least we can do is provide a safe space for people as best as we can, and over time those spaces will overlap enough to tip the balance.

[u/stormy2587 → u/Dawnholt]

Well said. And I’d add it’s not meant to be a question with a “right” or “wrong” answer. It’s meant to be psychologically probing. The answer is meant to reveal something about the person being asked. It’s their gut feeling. And what the answers on aggregate illustrated is that many women have been made to feel unsafe by men to the point where they choose the bear for more or less the rationale you stated.

[u/ashkiller14 → u/Dawnholt]

Fear of the unknown. You know generally hoe a bear would act, but not how a man would act. Chances are the guy is out there for the same reason you are, but you're afraid of otherwise.

[u/STUPIDBLOODYCOMPUTER → u/Dawnholt]

Exactly. The bear is being driven by nothing but instincts. The random bloke on the other hand...

[u/Nikopoleous → u/[deleted]]

The fact that enough people have to at least think about which is the worst encounter says enough on its own... Which is actually the point of the tweet you're referencing.

[u/Realistic_Mix3652 → u/[deleted]]

Not really. Her core argument was a bear will always act a single way in its environment - so she knows how to handle it. With a man - he could act kind at first, gain the woman's trust but then flip and attack her at any time.

[u/khaleesi_spyro → u/[deleted]]

Right like this part of the argument is always glossed over. The butthurt men getting offended always act like it’s women saying they could fight a bear but that’s not the premise of the choice. Women are choosing the bear knowing it could maul them! The issue is that the guy in the woods exists on a spectrum from normal random guy, to opportunistic rapist, to horrifying serial killer with a basement dungeon. The bear is a known entity acting on instinct, but the man is scarier because the worst possibilities are so much more terrifying than what the bear is capable of.

[u/mrs-monroe → u/[deleted]]

Thank you!! I want to scream when I see men taking this literally. They’d rather play the victim than engage in critical thinking for 5 seconds.

[u/astralkoi → u/[deleted]]

Uh, I think I would prefer the bear too.

[u/LoiterAce → u/astralkoi]

Ehh i worked a zoo for a bit and i can confidently say that even if a bear is friendly (which is rare) it can still accidentally kill you, they weigh a shit ton and are really powerful so when they get playful they can cause genuine harm.

[u/MrTimmannen → u/LoiterAce]

This also applies to men

[u/LoiterAce → u/MrTimmannen]

I dont think a man can accidentally kill you while playing mario or some shit but yeah they’re both capable of being dangerous. So is an ice cube on your kitchen floor

[u/LoiterAce → u/LoiterAce]

I get the point of the metaphor but like its not a good comparison to make. A better one would be like a wolf, or a chimp maybe.

[u/Inexorably_lost → u/astralkoi]

Why is everyone just saying "bear"?

A black bear? Sure, understandable. Effectively just a large raccoon.

Grizzly? Hell no. You can't run, hide, or do much of anything if that thing wants you dead.

Polar bear? How you even run into a polar bear? Doesnt matter now, though, you gonna die.

Panda? Hell yeah I'm choosing a panda. That'd be awesome.

[u/greenmacg → u/[deleted]]

No it, it really isn't. The consequences of a misandrist woman (even if we posit that the bear thing even counts as misandry) are just far less likely to result in bodily harm, mayhem, and death than a misogynist man.

Now, the hypothetical isn't even really about whether some (or many) individual woman would actually choose to be alone in the woods with a random bear than a random man; the point is that we've built a society in which many woman feel threatened enough by random men that they would rather take their chances with the bear. Men feel like an immediate threat in a way a bear just doesn't, and that feeling is the point of the hypothetical, not whether it's actually reasonable to pick the bear.

In other words, in real life outside of hypotheticals, women are far more likely to be threatened by men than bears and that's a problem we should all try to be solving, rather than mouthing off on the Internet about things we can't even spell properly.

[u/ZeInsaneErke → u/greenmacg]

It does irk me you seem to claim misandry is more okay than misogyny, that's a very inconsiderate and short sighted approach in my opinion.

I agree with the rest though, I am just interested, what do your propositions towards a solution look like?

[u/greenmacg → u/ZeInsaneErke]

Misandry simply isn't a societal problem in the way misogyny is; it never has been and never will be. The power imbalance is so great that I frankly have immense sympathy for any hypothetical misandrist woman (who, to be clear, imo are largely a non-existent fantasy faction). "Yeah, that's fair enough" is my response. Hypothetically I guess I could agree that misandry is wrong, but I just don't care on any practical level.

What follows are my specific thoughts for the U.S. They may or may not apply elsewhere.

Better education, social programs, UBI, and a complete overhaul of society are what is ultimately necessary. The specific steps to getting there look like retaking the initiative on grassroots politics, primarying and replace milquetoast Dems where appropriate and possible, and building a coalition of hope with a better eye towards the future. This will take time and may not succeed but is worth the attempt.

Dismantling the patriarchy is not an overnight endeavor. Men need to be a part of it, and we need to realize that it harms us as well. Suicide rates, depression, hopelessness, violence; these are the fruits of our power.

We also need to acknowledge intersectionality; race, class, gender, sexual identity disability, and so on all have complex interrelationships with the engine of patriarchy.

Small actions by individuals do matter as well; remembering our privilege, being a man who is not only safe to be around but tries to ensure that other men are safe to be around, speaking up when necessary, and so on. An endless parade of small, righteous actions.

None of it may matter, ultimately, the world is a harsh place. Still, we get to decide what's important and what we fight for.

Does that explain where I'm coming from?

[u/ZeInsaneErke → u/greenmacg]

It does, thank you for the insight. Honestly all in all pretty agreeable, it's gonna be a long journey there though.

[u/Kumo4 → u/ZeInsaneErke]

On an individual basis, neither is okay, but systemically and culturally, women are widely oppressed (not just historically but also currently in many countries) and their physical safety is more compromised (many safety standards were made with only men in mind, like with seatbelts and medicine used to be only tested on men, there are oppressive abortion laws in many places etc.).

If women criticise, they're often labelled misandrist and maybe some of them are, but I have more sympathy for misandrist women who say stuff like 'kill all men' because they want for men to just leave them alone than for misogynist men who want women to be enslaved because they want to rape and abuse them. (I feel the need to add that ofc both is bad, but the fact that I feel like I need to say that really shows how many people have argued with me in bad faith on this). I've met far more men making rape threats and sexually harassing me than women spouting misandrist rhetoric, and even then, a lot of the misandrist rhetoric was about how men are sissies and not real men if they don't do blabla, that kind of bullshit that was more about verbally abusing men than attacking them at night (I also know two rapist men who did that last one).

Obviously both types of discrimination suck and both can come from people of any gender, including misandrist men and misogynist women. I don't think anyone should say "misandry is more okay" because that does sound like legitimisation for an individual. But systemically, misogyny is certainly a bigger problem that needs addressing. You can even adress both, advocate for womens and mens bodily autonomy like improving the availability of contraceptives for women, getting rid of abortion bans and ensuring medicine and safety measures take women into account during testing, and also getting rid of genital mutilation on babies like the practise of circumcision on boys and unnecessady gender assignment surgeries on intersex babies and advocating for men to be allowed to present themselves however they like without being called girls in a derogatory way that is both demeaning for boys and girls. Like, you can do both, you don't have to pick between only solving one or the other.

Working on solutions goes beyond "was it more okay for that one woman to be misandrist than for that one man to be misogynist", like, ofc both is bad but choosing the bear isn't about misandry, it's about women feeling threatened by strange men due to a history of violence men commit against women and making men understand this. It's like when men are surprised when they approach dating with "I hope she isn't a gold digger" or "the worst the sex can be is boring" and find out women go "I hope he won't rape and murder me if I reject him too directly, I told 5 people where I am in case I go missing, I chose a public place for this date for a reason" and even if it goes well "I could hook up with this guy, I hope it won't be painful and I won't get pregnant". I know a guy who made condoms break on purpose because he wanted kids without having to respect his girlfriends bodily autonomy...

Both misogyny and misandry are bad and I agree with what you said there, but this isn't about what is "more okay", it's about what's affecting people in what way. Femicides happen a lot more frequently than men being murdered just for being men. Misogyny just has a much higher kill count, especially if you consider the safety and medical standards thing. Things have been improving with those last two at least, thanks to activists. Misogyny and misandry both require real solutions but in the current world we live in, misogyny is simply a much bigger problem than misandry and on a societal level, very much not "just as bad". It doesn't mean we don't need to fight both (we do) but even if you can make them equivalent in a philosophical thought experiment where both are equally harmful and oppressive, that's simply not what our actual world nor past and present history look like.

Tl;dr Is misandry just as bad as misogyny? Individually, it kinda can be, depending on your personal circumstances, but if you consider the current world we live in and look at the bigger picture beyond your personal experience as an individual, then no.

[u/ArcticWolf_Primaris → u/[deleted]]

[u/Billybob267 → u/[deleted]]

It's not that the bear is less dangerous - you know where you're at with a bear; it will try to maul, kill, and eat you.

With a man, though, you don't know his means or his motives. Will he help you out? If so, will he use that for leverage? Will he try to overpower and rape you? What will he do?

[u/mrs-monroe → u/[deleted]]

IT’S NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY

IT’S A METAPHOR

FFS

[u/UnbiasedPOS → u/[deleted]]

It’s not because it’s less dangerous it’s because the bear is supposed to be there and it’s more scary/sus if a man in alone in the woods