"As has been discussed already here this community, the key takeaway from the bear hypothetical is that it is an opportunity to truly listen to the lived experiences of women under patriarchal systems"
And to avoid taking the imaginary and hallucinatory experiences of not just women, but all people of both genders remotely seriously. Such things are by definition fantasies
Do not call other submitters’ personal experiences into question.
If women's personal experiences lead them to make a choice, we are not downplaying that as "hallucinatory" in this community. This is unwelcome behavior.
"Do not call other submitters’ personal experiences into question"
I.E. If a chick or dude claims to have been abducted by a UFO, had their sex organs examined in a wide variety of ways which defy the laws of basic biology, and given birth/fathered a few million human/alien hybrids, don't so much as wonder to oneself: "Is it also possible that this person's story is a prank, or that the tale they're telling is a byproduct of schizophrenia?"
Pursuit of the truth, no matter where it leads, and how uncomfortable what we find might makes us feel momentarily is the stuff of The Dark Ages
If someone says something like that, there's no point interacting with them anyway. You're not going to persuade them that it didn't happen if they truly believe it, and you're not going to gain anything by attempting to do so.
Either way, you're complaining about feelings and behaviours resulting from entirely plausible experiences here, not about experiences that are themselves implausible.
Beyond that, it's no one who isn't a board certified shrink's role to persuade someone that what they believe may not be a perception or outright fantasy
Allowing others to continue in their delusions is abuse.
If I don't know you, I'll just let you go on with your life. But I'm not letting friends or family continue with their delusions.
I won't tell them they're wrong, just explore their delusions to hopefully help them come to their own conclusions.
In my family there are mentally ill, genetic disorders and neuro-atypicals. I deal with this all the time. It's challenging. But it's a responsibility we all share in the family.
I think a positive step can also be to think back and reflect a bit. Why did I react the way I did? When I first heard the hypothetical, it made me feel bad about myself. After that came a feeling of defeat. I was thinking "why even bother, whatever I do I'm the villain." I'm very afraid of bears, which may have played into this.
The main thing I've been thinking since then is that I find it easier to have empathy with people who show empathy to me. It's easy to think "well then, when they start showing empathy, so will I.", but it goes both ways, doesn't it? That made me want to influence this loop of causality, or what to call it.
I'll set my negative emotions to the side, and try to not contribute to the division between people. Maybe even manage to be a part in the positive direction. As I get older, the more I realize that I can't change the world, but I have a very deep wish to be a net positive somehow.
As for acting on the things I have learned, I don't really know what to do, and I hope this is a safe space for anyone who needs support.
As one commenter stated perfectly well, the problem with "man or bear" posts is that in subtext it introduces the hostility and division towards men.
It's not just women discussing their fears, it's women signaling "men are more dangerous than bears".
And this rightfully insults and angers many men, as it is a direct attack based on a wide immutable identity that omits any nuance.
Such posts do not promote any understanding of the situation, do not explore any root causes, and, from what I've gathered, comment threads are full of people telling men to shut up, either because "it's not about them" or because "women's safety are more important than men's feelings" (as if those posts promote women safety).
Men's rights is a reactionary movement started by misogynistic men who are upset that women have rights now. This movement has no future, at least god I hope it doesn't.
"Men’s rights is a reactionary movement started by misogynistic men who are upset that women have rights now"
Ad hominems ARE NOT refutations of someone's central points. We're in something approaching agreement though: Many of The MRM's most prominent figures are folks who view their own personal misfortunes with past SOs as proof that they're really The Sons Of Light, being besieged by The Mistresses Of Darkness
And the movement doesn't stand much chance of evolving into one that wins wide public support, for the simple fact that it's not relevant to the day to day difficulties which are foremost in the minds of most Americans
7:05-7:13 We here at The MRM have been operating under the (uninterrogated)belief that Intersectional Feminism’s proponents are nigh-omnipotent sorcereresses(occasionally sorcerers), who turn docile plebs into blood thirsty misandrists, just by uttering magic lies from behind their microphones. Turns out, the explanation for their success at winning public influence may be simultaneously more prosaic AND more profound:
Intersectionalists provide their prospective converts with not simply one, but SEVERAL roles to play, within the framework of what appears to be, at first glance, a heroic saga… Powerhouse career women and their male allies, who successfully balance lucrative corporate careers with bravely campaigning for social justice, and thwarting the bigots’s schemes to establishing world domination. Bombastic, yet highly seductive and exciting
By contrast, The MRM really only provided our potential converts with one role, in an extremely dreary, unusually unattractive tale… Societal dropout, who’s idea of fun is endlessly griping over all the shit in modern life he disapproves of, yet rarely if ever discussing his/they’re goals and desires. Or a vision of the world they’d like to see
9:50ish-12:00 We’ve been, dare I say, Blue Pill in our understanding of the way many Intersectionalists operate, especially in their speeches and writings. To a large degree, they’re acting whilst doing so. We know this because the Susan Danuta Walters’s of the world(An admitted angry lesbian slithering through the halls of academia, who leads a highly bohemian lifestyle, even when she’s off the clock)really are a microsliver of the human race. The vast majority of Intersectionalists are themselves mostly upper middle class-all points beyond, leading highly “traditional lives”. Including marriages to people of the opposite sex, and raising kids of their own. At first glance, these folks are indistinguishable from those who comprise The Heritage Foyndation’s executive board
Those gigantic crowds who erupt in orgies of virulent rage during Intersectionalist soeeches? They’re almost certainly playing a role also. That Woke sympathizing grads of The New School like this chick https://youtu.be/lZs-Eb6H5BU?si=Gkq5Pj8IphUjWfBH 5:20-7:00 still yearn for a white picket fence house, kids(Plural), and a loving husband of her own is testament to this
This misreading poisoned fatally the way most MRAs conceptualized the extrenal world. That in turn tanslated into their/us pursuing a strategy which failed to convince The 80% of the public who’s still on the fence-and thus amenable to persuasion-to support us
26:19-26:43 It may behoove those of us who are Post-MRM to imagine ourselves having similar conversations with our descendants, at some future date:
-“Daddy, Mummy says you were an activist back in the day. Does that mean you were kinda like Iron Man or a Jedi Knight”
-"No, sweetness: I was pretty much a real life equivalent to The Continental Op. Go Wiki that name, and pay close attention to this paragraph: “The Continental Op is a master of deceit in the exercise of his occupation. In his 1927 Black Mask story “$106,000 Blood Money” the Op is confronted with a dilemma: should he expose a corrupt fellow detective, thereby hurting the reputation of his agency; and should he also allow an informant to collect the $106,000 reward in a big case even though he is morally certain—but cannot prove—that the informant has murdered one of his agency’s clients? The Op resolves his two problems neatly by manipulating events so that the corrupt detective and the informant get into an armed confrontation in which both are killed”
That’s how I and most of my peers rolled… We used highly innovative tactics in the neverending quest that is enhancing and safeguarding the cause of liberty for one and all. Both you and every other child today enjoys a richer, freer life than those of who’ve lived prior, largely thanks to your predecessors’s iron commitment to pragmatism and the pursuit of concrete, tangible objectives"
29:56-30:43 The current iteration of The MRM similarly has, since it’s inception, operated under an assumption which goes something like: “We need to provoke a psychosocial revolution in the human species, the likes of which rids Normie society of all it’s prejudices and biases towards men. THEN, we can go about not simply changing laws and policies, but building A Red Pill Kingdom Of Heaven on Earth, free of all tragedy and pain”. Such an assumption fails to take cognizance of at least one inconvenient reality though… System Justification https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-21802-017 Or, as Morris Fiorana has observed: “We humans are hardwired to be politically liberal, and socially conservative. That is: We want to live our lives and pursue our desires without being hassled or impeded, AND we’re also not automatically inclined for life to change drastically, in a very short period of time”
Thus, it’s not surprising that The MRM’s dream of awakening The Revolutionary they believed to be asleep within an alleged silent majority found itself shattered beyond all salvation by 2019, just as The BBC’s attempt to trigger a liberal democratic revolut against The 3rd Reich in Nazi Germany fell flat on it’s face, never to get back up
Severely diminishing the influence of not just Feminisism, but that of Illiberal Wokeness over the public is a far wiser and more achievable goal for those of us who are Post-MRM to pursue
31:00-31:46 There’s nonetheless a deep commitment to the principles of textbook liberalism(Equality before the law, unimpeded access to opportunity, and prosperity for one and all. Regardless of skin color, ethnicity, gender, creed,or sexual orientation)at the core of The Post-MRM. We just realize that continuing to screech “Feminisism/Gynocentrism/Hypergamy bad!!” hasn’t been especially effective at winning widespread public support
And that the way to do so is quite simple, even if not easy: Start hammering home all the ways in which many current laws and policies(Quite a few of them brainchildren of lawmakers and lobbyists who are under the influence of Intersectionalisism)aren’t just harmful to men, but actually hamstring the most basic ambitions of the majority of the female population:
-Snagging solid, reliable husbands
-Having kids of their own
-Accessing a career which grants her the flexibility to split motherhood and work, 70/30
-Acquiring affordable housing in a pristine neighborhood for her to raise her children in
Seeing all these comments that actually get it gives me hope for us dudes. I interact with so many dudebro types at work, and only have so much energy. And then coming onto Lemmy and seeing the same shit - it gets demoralizing real quick.
We gotta get dudes out of their own heads somehow - make them actually think about how they're affecting those around them, and get them to expand the number of ways they positively affect their local sphere and minimize the negative ways.
There is hope, I think. I wanted to have sort of a meta-discussion about the question from a mens lib point of view. Like, this thing is circulating, it seems to be making many people upset, what is a healthy way to interpret or react to it?
I think it's to have the conversation with those close to us
that felt offended in a measured, methodical fashion. I find that it often seems completely foreign for some of the guys I've talked to put themselves into someone else's shoes.
It is a slog quite often, and I think that there is some kind of training out there for having these kinds of conversations.
As always, it's about talking to these people without getting them offended. I agree with other leftists that it's absolutely exhausting - it honestly feels like some of these dudes want nothing but to feel like the victim of the situation sometimes. I still try and talk them through it when I can.
it honestly feels like some of these dudes want nothing but to feel like the victim of the situation sometimes.
A part of this could be to recognize that they too might be trying to communicate something, wanting people to listen. The stalemate of mutual lack of listening. It's really a tricky, circular thing, and probably it's hard to just say "shut up and listen" to either side, when a precondition for listening is having trust that the other one will listen too.
I'm interested in increasing this trust between people. I also recognize that there is a level of feeling dismissed within me that makes me care less about others, and I assume that others could have that too.
If we could figure out a way to be at least a net positive in building trust and listening, then, well, step by small step, reinforcing the mutual feeling of trust, that would be good.
But sometimes it just feels impossible.
That can never be the appropriate answer. I'm sorry if you sometimes feel like that. It can really feel like a situation with no way to win. Perhaps it's not about winning. In this case, something is being communicated. I bet that there are different things being communicated by different people, but using the same words. Someone might be trying to say "things in my past has made it difficult for me to trust men." Someone else might want to be edgy because they enjoy "kicking upward". We don't know. On the internet, the loud edgy people rule. In real life, most women I've actually talked to are much more understanding and willing to see the nuances and how complicated things can be. If the internet people are getting to you, a good exercise can be to talk to real people more. They don't want you dead. They probably want good interactions. Maybe every good interaction makes their fear diminish just a little.
Please don't do that. All humans are products of a bygone area. We have imperfect minds and bodies that evolved to solve problems that aren't really relevant anymore. But hopefully you can find some kind of peace inside that existence. You don't have to be defined by other people's prejudice toward you.
Have you tried therapy? I had to try multiple therapists before finding someone that worked for me, but I'm so happy I went through the process.
It doesn't really matter if you scare someone you don't know. They don't know you either. Ultimately it's reasonable to be uncomfortable around strangers.
If you still scare people even after interacting with them, don't take it personally. Lots of people have biases and past traumatic experiences that might paint you any which way.
Just focus on being kind and liked by the communities you're in, and don't take a defeatist mentality over someone being scared of you at first.
As someone who has suffered heavy physical and verbal abuse [including threats of false rape and even an instance where she said she'd hurt herself and tell everyone including the police I was the one who did it to her] from a female for 3 years and has since developed severe mental and trauma issues from it, if I said:
"If I was given a choice to be stranded in the woods with either a bear or a woman, I would choose the bear, because the bear wouldn't accuse me of raping it if I ignored it."
How would you feel? See, I've said this before, and I just got downvoted to oblivion because guys can't be abused! It's discrimination against women! It's sexist. How dare you not support women! It invalidates their feelings and experience with abuse! Statistically, its more likely to happen to females, so we're more understanding with their situations! HOWEVER, these same people are 100% all in on dogpiling any male with the audacity to say, "This is offensive. Not all men are like that!", and they're all too happy and eager to invalidate male experiences simply because it's "Not as common."
Which makes it pretty obvious at this point, to me at least, that comments like this stupid "bear" comment serve only one purpose: to shit on men, simply to shit in them. It's MISANDRY but nobody wants to talk about it, because fuck men, we don't deserve support, we don't deserve validation and we don't deserve any rights. As men, we are BIG and STRONG and TOUGH and SCARY. How DARE we want to be met equally when it comes to being abused. Just shake it off!
And there they are. The downvotes. Thanks for literally proving my point, folks.
“If I was given a choice to be stranded in the woods with either a bear or a woman, I would choose the bear, because the bear wouldn’t accuse me of raping it if I ignored it.”
Seem like you are actually in a place to understand from your own experience what women are trying to communicate with that whole bear thing. Next step would be to try to have an empathic connection instead of a defensive one. The anger and frustration are not directed at you as an individual but are an expression of experiences, those nuances are often lost in online, non personal communication. What helps is to have more personal communication, better in an offline environment.
I also have a similar experience, I was mugged at knife point and spit on by two adolescents. After that I was jumpy around groups of teens.
That said , I do not think my fear of teens was rational, neither was it healthy. Only a small minority of teens will mug people. Fearing a whole group for the actions of the few is in human nature, but it is something we must fight against.
So you think it will help to just tell folks to not be afraid? How did you overcame your fear? What if similar experiences happened to your and your friends more than once?
On personal level, in my experience it's best to validate someones emotions and then help them work through them if they wish so and are ready. On societal level it's another question on how to teach people more empathy and to respect for others - and at least in my opinion we already came quite a way.
I know more than one of these men that women would rather not take a chance with... The JR/AT/JP/TradWife/dudebro types. When I asked my girlfriend about the choices, she chose 'bear' immediately, and specifically called out someone we knew, saying, "Would YOU want me to encounter <dudebro> in the forest if I didn't know him?" And she was right -- I'd prefer she choose the bear...
And that's tragically fucking sad that someone I know is so far down the 'dudebro' rabbit hole that I wouldn't leave my GF alone with him in a compromised position.
If you've spent any time alone in the woods, any gender would fear running into a sketchy person. I've had bear encounters. Only humans have made me wish I had a firearm to protect myself alone in the woods. I'm a man that can handle himself, and I still treat strange men as a threat.
Bluntly, I wouldn't want to have some lady I've never met, trapped in the forest with me either. Not because I'm a bad person, far from it.
I feel like I'd be rather handy if I was lost in a forest, but she wouldn't know that.
Fact is, any lady weighing in on the discussion doesn't have any reasonable guarantee or even a reasonable probability of getting someone half as helpful as me, and a nontrivial chance of getting a date rapist, so I get it. The worst that a bear would do is kill and eat them, and if they're lucky, it'll happen in that order. There are fates worse than death.
I don't take any offense at someone answering "bear". At all. It's an age old question, of the devil that you know, versus the devil that you don't. Sure, there's a non-zero chance you'll end up in the woods with bear grylls (or someone with a similar skillset), or Mr. Rogers (or similarly kind person), but the far more likely scenario is not that.
It's not a statement against me personally as a male, it's a statement about the average man. If that offends you, there's a good chance that you're part of the problem.
I'm not here to judge. So I'll let you decide for yourself.
The fact is, unknown men is basically a gamble most aren't willing to make. What can we do about it? Probably somewhere between Jack and squat. Unless we can "fix" the socially inept and creepy men, as well as the rapists, would-be (opportunistic) rapists, date rapists, and just all around shitty men, pretty much all at once, this stereotype isn't going anywhere. Just be the change you want to see in the world, and try to encourage your brothers to be better.
This whole scenario makes total sense to me. Try to put yourself in the role of the woman:
Man vs bear, random encounter alone in the woods. Both can easily overpower and harm you.
With the bear, you know it's one or the other, it either is going to be scared off by you yelling at it, or it's not and it will very quickly kill you.
The man, if he intends no harm, cool. But if he does intend harm, it can be impossible to tell. He can lie to you, appear friendly and helpful, all the while plotting to harm you horrifically. The bear can have no such malice.
The bear will not target you because of your race, sex, political views, gender identity, sexuality, or nationality.
The bear won't pretend to be your friend to lure you into a sense of false security. The bear won't become enraged at something you say and all of a sudden turn on you.
The bear has no fragile sense of ego that it will attempt to assert if it feels you "wounded" it in some trivial way.
A bear cannot be brainwashed by toxic propaganda or cultural norms about gender roles. A bear will never have any sense of sexual entitlement.
A bear won't drug you and assault you, a bear won't call its friends to join in when you are vulnerable. A bear won't hold blackmail against you after getting you drunk and manipulating you.
If all women had to do 99.99% of the time to scare away dangerous men was stand up tall, puff our their chests, and yell loudly, I doubt we would be having this conversation.
If all women had to do 99.99% of the time to scare away dangerous men was stand up tall, puff our their chests, and yell loudly, I doubt we would be having this conversation.
Not a joke, actually. By and large, predatory men prey upon weak women. Women who are afraid of conflict, afraid of drawing attention to themselves. Gavin DeBecker, author of The Gift of Fear, wrote that one of the greatest things you can do in the case of being attacked is to very loudly and boldly reject their advances. "I TOLD YOU NO, LEAVE ME ALONE." The vast majority will run away because they can't be stealthy.
Men's Liberation
Hot