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 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.
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.
Most species is bear don’t hunt people. You see one, you back away slowly, and you’re good. If there’s food in your, you drop it. They’d rather eat your granola bar than you.
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 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.
Those are the two options?
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?
If you’re black and presently in confederate country, maybe a little?
The sweeping conclusion, by the way, is “it seems risky,” and I know you know that it is.
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.
Most species is bear don’t hunt people. You see one, you back away slowly, and you’re good. If there’s food in your, you drop it. They’d rather eat your granola bar than you.
Well, if it’s a black bear, shouting and waving your arms will normally chase it off.
It’s not meant to be a realistic scenario. It’s satire.
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?