Man vs Bear

 *sigh*. 

Here we go again- many deny misandry exists, but I do think the recent man vs bear debate online is proof that it's there. 

For those of you who've been living under a rock, there's been a viral thought experiment recently asking whether women would rather be in the woods with a man or a bear. 

As a woman, I pick the man- most men are unlikely to harm you; most bears are deadly.

Note how ambiguously this question has been phrased- it simply states "man" or "bear"... it doesn't specify the type of man or the type of bear. Some people say "it doesn't mean men, it just means predatory men... stop taking it literally". Some people are saying "it's just a metaphor- how is it lost on so many of them?", and it's really confusing me- if you mean predatory men, *say* predatory men. Simply stating "men" creates an impression of the average man who passes you by... how many men do we encounter in our everyday life? A lot...  how many men do we walk past in our day to day life? A lot. And of those men, how many have harmed us? For most of us, it's hardly any. 

Yes, a lot of women have experienced horrific behaviour from individual men... but men are not a monolithic group and we shouldn't be treating them as such. It's easy for us to tell men to stop being "butthurt" (which I think is a really insensitive expression to use because it essentially mocks men for having emotions, when many of us ladies want men to be more open about their emotions- a lot of feminists are very selective about when they want equality and when they want to adhere to toxic gender norms), but just as they don't know the female experience, none of us know the male experience... some of them might have experienced horrific behaviour from individual women, but it wouldn't make them right to view women as a monolithic hive mind either.

If somebody compared us women to a deadly animal, we would be well within our rights to call it out as misogynistic, but for some reason when it's a man, that's cheered on, by people who otherwise claim to be for equality. Equality means holding men and women to the same standards; not vilifying or hating on one or the other. 

I absolutely condemn disgusting violent men and I do sympathise with the many women who've had experiences with them- no woman deserves to go through any of that. Yes, too many men are violent, but I'm a firm believer that one violent man would be too many. However, the number of men who *aren't* violent, far outweighs the number who are. And violent crimes aren't something that are exclusive to men either- there are female perpetrators of these crimes too, and if we're going to hold the "one violent man is too many" mindset, it only makes sense for us to also apply a "one violent woman is too many" mindset too. So just as I condemn disgusting violent men, and sympathise with the women who've had the face them, I also condemn disgusting violent women and sympathise with the men who've had to face them.

Some may argue "when a woman is violent, it's not as bad as when a man is because men are physically stronger".... assuming that I'm referring solely to female on male crime, but female on female crime happens too, and it's just as horrific. Male on male crime, male on female crime, female on male crime, and female on female crime are all disgusting. And that "men are physically stronger" (which is true on average) line gets used a lot to minimise the experiences of male victims ("you're stronger- why didn't you just push her off?") of violent abuse or SA, so it doesn't sit right with me that it's being used to justify a contempt or hatred of men.

It's completely dehumanising to compare men to wild animals like bears; and I think many of the ladies picking the bear have beliefs rooted in misandry (some of it might be a trauma response where they're thinking emotionally based on an experience they've had in the past, rather than thinking logically and rationally), and then when these men get rightly offended by being compared to a deadly animal, they get a sarcastic "boohoo poor men and their wittle hurt feelings", by these same feminists who also claim it's OK for men to open up about their feelings.  They think the men who are offended by being compared to deadly animals are detracting from the issue of women's safety.... a man simply existing near us doesn't make us women unsafe, it just makes some of us *feel* unsafe (unless they're repeatedly turning up in the same place as you, at the same time and you have no escape from them- that's when we get into stalking territory where we're *actually* unsafe, not just *feeling* unsafe); the actions of predators are what make women unsafe; and most men aren't predators. Some of us may *feel* unsafe around random men, but in the vast majority of cases, we're not *actually* unsafe- it's just a fight or flight response where we worry about the worst case scenario often based on past trauma. There's a difference between feeling safe and being safe... we're mocking men for their hurt feelings that are having a negative impact on their mental welbeing (and they're well within their right to be hurt if people are lumping them in with scumbag criminals and deadly animals, solely because they have a penis), whilst also simultaneously saying that our own feelings of distress and hurt are more important.

Some say women's safety is more important than men's feelings and I do get the sentiment of that, but take into account that feeling safe is different to being safe (e.g. you may *feel* unsafe around a perfectly safe individual) and what you're essentially saying is that women's feelings trump men's. We should all be cautious around strangers, yes (and we all have moments of feeling unsafe even when it's irrational to do so), but there's a major difference between being cautious, and assuming everyone's out to hurt you.... be cautious, but not paranoid; don't fear people solely based on their gender.... I've had men that have treated me badly; I was stalked by one; but I don't fear them as a collective because I know that the vast majority won't. I've also had women that have treated me badly (I was stalked by one), but again, I don't fear them as a collective because I know that the vast majority won't.

Are there men out there who've done horrific things to women? Yes. Do most of them do that? No. Your odds are pretty good. Some of these women are speaking out of trauma rather than logic. And besides, the man who do commit these horrific crimes against women tend to overwhelmingly commit them against women they already know, *not* random women in the street. That's not to say that street harassment towards strangers doesn't happen; just that in the majority of cases, the scumbags who are violent towards women are violent towards the ones they know.

I've seen somebody cite a statistic that men are charged with 92% of domestic violence in the UK and 82% are repeat offenders....I haven't seen them cite a source for it so I'm always weary about throwing sources out like that.  firstly that 92% of DV charges being faced by men doesn't equate to 92% of men being domestically abusive. Secondly, if 82% of those 92% are repeat offenders, surely that shows that it's the *same* men that keep popping up on these lists rather than different men each time- the average man isn't like them... doesn't make what they're doing any less disgusting though. Here are the up to date CPS sources- https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/cps-data-summary-quarter-1-2023-2024

And "we don't know what a man will do- at least bears are predictable" is a little bit strange because they're exhibiting an optimistic view towards the bear, whilst expressing a pessimistic one towards the man and assuming the worst about them.

I do sympathise with women who've experienced abuse or harassment at the hands of a man- (trauma can affect our mindsets in various ways)- I just don't think it makes them right to vilify men as a collective- I think many of those choosing the bear are deeply troubled souls who've been through a lot at the hands of bad men so as a result, they automatically make the association in their mind that the word men= negative, due to the trauma they've faced from a subset of them. It's ridiculous to treat them as a collective hive mind. I do get it- I was stalked by a man and had an irrational fear of them for a while, I ended up waking up and realising that that's not healthy way to live- we should judge a person based on their character, not on their genitals. I was stalked by a woman too (the guy's wife), but for whatever reason, I didn't develop a fear of women as a whole- I woke up to my hypocrisy (I had trauma from both of them and still do, but I only ended up fearing men as a result of the bad man; not fearing women as a result of the bad woman.... nowadays I don't fear either, I just take life as it comes- it's not healthy for me to live my life in fear), realising that it's ridiculous to fear half the population based solely on their gender, because they can't help being a man or a woman, and the vast majority of either sex won't harm anybody. Yes, I take steps to stay safe, but it's not solely because of men, it's because of dangerous people as a whole- I don't assume every person I walk past is an inherent danger to me but I still take steps to stay safe just in case I do encounter somebody within that tiny minority. If I was only cautious of one gender (men), imagine the shock that would ensue if I ended up encountering a violent woman- I'd have found out the hard way that violence is a two way street- anyone can be a victim and anyone can be a perpetrator, so always be cautious around strangers but not so paranoid that you live your entire life in fear. Trauma may cause certain perceptions, but it doesn't excuse them. It's understandable but not excusable. 

Let's look at the statistical reality: while some men certainly do commit horrific acts, the vast majority do not. It's a rational approach to recognize that the probability of encountering a harmful man in the woods is much lower than the certainty of danger from a bear. This perspective is grounded in logic and statistics, it's important not to be generalizing about an entire gender based on the actions of a few. Second, the comparison between men and bears is as dehumanizing. Equating men to dangerous animals oversimplifies the issue, and it dismisses how complex humans as a species are. This type of rhetoric contributes to a broader narrative that unfairly vilifies men as inherently dangerous, which is both inaccurate and damaging. Third, many women who choose the bear over the man may be speaking from personal experiences of violence and trauma. These experiences can significantly shape how they perceive safety and risk, leading them to make choices that seem irrational to others but feel necessary for their sense of security, but it doesn't make them right from a logical standpoint. Lastly, the sarcastic responses some women give when men express their feelings of offense just further complicate the issue and lead to this becoming more of a gender war. It's important to have an environment where both men and women can express their emotions and concerns without fear of ridicule. Being respectful is absolutely vital when it comes to addressing and resolving these complex issues.

I'm not saying that every man is safe and trustworthy; I'm not saying that every man is unsafe or untrustworthy; I'm saying that as humans, we encounter so many humans on a day to day basis, and very few of them that we encounter have ever posed a threat- we just remember the ones who have done so more. Contrast this with a bear—every bear is potentially dangerous. The odds are starkly different: you're far more likely to encounter a harmful bear in the woods than a harmful man. Choosing a man over a bear is not just about playing the odds; it's about acknowledging that most men are not inherently dangerous. This isn't to downplay the fears a lot of women have about dangerous people, but rather to challenge the narrative that paints all men with the same broad brush.

Some say "we can't discern who's a good man or bad just from looking at them so that's why we fear them"..  but it's a ridiculous mindset anyway because those also don't know whether a woman would be good or bad just from looking at them....yet we quite rightly don't fear *them* solely based on their gender?And plus, we live in a world that's embraced many different gender identities- how can we know for sure whether somebody identifies as a man or woman just from looking at them? It's incredibly baffling to see many otherwise progressive people (respectful of different gender identities) use that "we don't know if a man is a good man or a bad man just from looking at them so we're cautious of all of them we see"... but by that logic, how do you know that somebody you may have perceived as a man doesn't actually identify as non-binary?  How do you know they're not a trans woman with a male build? 

We encounter many men in our day to day lives... most of them leave us alone... those who don't are a minority, but negative experiences stick in our mind far more so it clouds our judgment. The vast majority of us don't have any encounters with bears in our day to day lives, but we *do* have regular encounters with men.