"b-but bears are actually dangerous!" Shut the hell up.
this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
796 points (74.9% liked)
memes
10482 readers
1711 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The thing is, I've seen statements like this before. Except when I heard it, it was being used to justify ignoring women's experiences and feelings in regard to things like sexual harassment and feeling unsafe, since that's "just a feeling" as well. It wasn't okay then, and it's not okay the other way around. The truth is that feelings do matter, on both sides. Everyone should feel safe and welcome in their surroundings. And how much so that is, is reflected in how those people feel.
The outcome of men feeling being respected and women feeling safe are not mutually exclusive. The sad part is that someone who is reading this here is far more likely to be an ally than a foe, yet the people who need to hear the intended message the most will most likely never hear it nor be bothered by it. There's a stick being wedged here that is only meant to divide, and oh my god is it working.
The original post about bears has completely lost all meaning and any semblance of discussion is lost because the metaphor is inflammatory by design - sometimes that's a good thing, to highlight through absurdity. But metaphors are fragile - if it's very likely to be misunderstood or offensive, the message is lost in emotion. Personally I think this metaphor is just highly ineffective at getting the message across, as it has driven people who would stand by the original message to the other side due to the many uncharitable interpretations it presents. And among the crowd of reasonable people are those who confirm those interpretations and muddy the water to make women seem like misandrists, and men like sexual assault deniers. This meme is simply terrible and perhaps we can move on to a better version of it that actually gets the message across well, instead of getting people at each other's throat.
Honestly I am so goddamn tired of this shit, everytime something like the bear question comes up it blatantly tilted in one side or the others favor and dissent is crushed in both sets of spaces and no one learns anything.
Best take in this thread by a long shot. I'd like to add that there's nothing wrong with a little thought experiment to illicit a point. But the internet has become such an inhospitable place to any kind of discussion requiring nuance and patience.
You're right, feelings do matter, and this post did not dispute that. It's just that safety matters more.
It saddens me that the default interpretation of this is accusatory and requiring of defense. Not to personally blame you, this is very common and clearly a systemic reaction, but I don't know enough psychology/politics/sociology to understand why, just enough to know it's bad.
It’s saying men are inherently unsafe to be around. How is that not accusatory?
This isn’t about women’s safety versus men’s feelings, it’s about women’s feelings (of safety) versus men’s feelings (of respect).
But it doesn't say you personally are unsafe, it says that the odds that a man chosen at random is unsafe is high enough that women - understandably - fear being left alone with a random stranger to a level at least comparable with being left alone with a bear.
An enormous number of men fail to understand just how common and how terrifying it is for women to be harassed, assaulted and raped by men. And that is exactly what the bear/man hyperbole is pointing out.
And the reason people with takes like yours get chewed out for it is because you could do some reflection and consider
But instead, they take it as a personal attack, and so respond
Edit: here's another example in a similar format to demonstrate how the meme is being misinterpreted, note how your first response wouldn't be "why are you accusing all priests?!"
It’s what it says to me and many of us. Perhaps it’s the messaging.
What do you mean what behaviors? I don’t harass women. I barely talk to people I don’t know. But yet people are still scared of me.
And I would 100% pick a catholic priest. What a dumb choice. And, yeah, you are accusing everyone.
I clearly said: it's not targeted at you specifically, but at that fact that women are disproportionately more likely to be harassed or assaulted, and when that happens, the aggressor is almost exclusively men.
They're not scared of you because you're personally scary, they're scared of you because there's an ingrained culture of sexual harassment of women by men. So when you say "that's a nice dress" to a woman you don't know, she's not thinking "aww cute", she's thinking "is this guy being nice, or will they threaten me if I turn them down?"
Seriously, ask literally any woman you know if they've ever been sexually harassed, and the answer is almost guaranteed to be yes.
Yes, I know that, that's how hyperbole works. My point is that such a statement shouldn't be interpreted as "every priest is a child molester" but as "there's a concerningly high rate of them, and they're probably not a good option for childcare."
When did I say "all men are <whatever you're saying I'm accusing all men of>?" Stop making this about you, and actually try to understand why interactions with men can be terrifying for women.
If you are not targeting all men, stop talking about men as one generalized body.
Sorry, when you say “I’d rather encounter a bear than a man” it sure as hell sound like you are saying all men are dangerous. If that isn’t what you are saying, you are saying it poorly.
But it doesn't say that
I disagree. Clearly the meme is highly effective. It brought a topic that ought to be in the light back into the light. Considering the frequency of SA, this should be something that people are considering how to handle on a regular basis, but that's not what you see if you watch the news, listen to the city council, or talk with the school board.
Your opening paragraph sounds similar to the expression "All lives matter." It didn't sound like you wrote that ironically.
And the final paragraph is classic heckler's veto. Two sides disagree, and rather than talk about the serious issue, you make a comment about how people should all try to get along better by speaking in less aggressive terms. But the underlying problem is not about aggressive speech. It's about aggressive action. So maybe we can focus on that.
It was highly contagious, that is, it spread widely. But so was the whole "would you still love me if I were a worm" thing and it was "effective" for the same reason: Gals thought "Oh I want a 'yes' to that answer that'd be so emotionally satisfying" and guys thought "WTF why would I want a worm if there's something more behind it why can't my SO speak plain English": It spread by exploiting the emotional kick gals get out of tripping over guys for having a particular default interpretation. No, it is not a "wrong" interpretation to think of the question as "rather with a bear or a man like me". If you don't want men to interpret the question like that then pose it differently. Simple as that. But then it wouldn't be as inflammatory and with that not as contagious.
Each and every time one of these things comes around one of two things happens for the average guy: We a) fall right into a trap and then get accused of being insensitive or b) we recognise the trap, lift our hands, walk back slowly, then faster, then even faster, until making a go at the 10km parcour world record. Because yes that kind of shit is a giant red flag.
It's like those people who are proud of being "brutally honest" but in reality what they care about is not the truth, but the brutality, just from the other side of the gender distribution.
Yes, feelings matter. Beautifully put.
But nobody is purposefully "wedging a stick" between allies and enemies. No secret society is plotting to prevent you from sending any message of safety. The metaphor is not designed, or created for a specific purpose. You have to realise how crazy and for real dangerous this way of agumenting is.
You aim for a good purpose, then use basically the debate version of biological weapons of mass destruction to make your point.
Just for any small argument about a small thing between sexes, like always it's fun for people to discuss, and some get mad, but
For you to use the narrative of psy ops, learned no doubt subconsciously, to speak like there is a secret cabal that want you to be fearful, we must unite against some kind of expression just because they are coming for you.. No
If anyone takes it too far it's talk like that, and you unironically talk about how reasonable people are hard to come by
Gee
Wonder why that is brother
The purpose of a system is what it does.
There are plenty systems that are not controlled by a cabal, yes
Just because noone sets out to do a thing on purpose, individually, as a group, organically, conspiratorially, whatever, doesn't mean that the resulting system of action does not act with a particular purpose in the wider system.
Life, for example, has the purpose of hastening the heat death of the universe: We reduce entropy locally and to do that increase the rate of entropy increase in the wider universe. It's what we do. It's our purpose, as far as the universe is concerned, whether we like it or not, whether we intend to or not, whether we are aware of it or not, whether we try to or not.
These kinds of memes (bear, worm, what have you) have a particular impact. That impact is their purpose. If you don't like the impact I suggest advocating against the practice instead of saying "but nobody meant to". Have some Goethe.
Exactly, which is why your rhetoric is damaging
Purpose implies intent more than outcome. I agree with your overall stance but think something like "result" would be more effective. Calling it the "purpose" makes a similar accusation to anyone who wants to have this debate to what it itself is making about men in general, which will just increase the divide. I don't think you're deliberately trying to do that, but I think it could end up being the result.
Your overall point does capture how this whole thing has made me feel. Even as someone who didn't get offended, understands what women who would "prefer the bear" are actually saying and doesn't think I'm owed any attention from anyone that doesn't want to give it to me, the only thing this meme makes me want to do is disengage even more. And a younger version of me would have really resented being made to feel like my mere presence was offensive or scary.
It's a system thinking heuristic. The reason "purpose" is used instead of result is a) "the result of a system is what it does" doesn't actually make sense, as systems aren't events in time but, well, systems which have non-negligible timespans -- it sounds something like "what is the result of a dishwasher" -- I dunno, what is it doing? Is it standing there? Short-circuiting and on fire? Washing dishes? All that is part of what "a dishwasher" is, does, and therefore, its purpose in the grand scheme of things. And b) precisely to stop people trying to find purpose in motives, intentions, etc, to go with a materialistic instead of idealist interpretation of things. To quote Beer: "There is no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it constantly fails to do." The purpose of prisons is to rehabilitate? Well maybe in some countries, in other countries no matter what the stated intent is their purpose is to be a place where people can get degrees in how to do crime.
No it's not and that's a terrible way to view the world.
Are you the same idiot who argued with me before because he thought he'd found the Word of God in this random philosophical exercise?
Edit: nope, different moron. I wonder why this silly thing is making the idiot rounds lately? It's like when a 19 year old has their first philosophy 101 class and thinks they've gained supreme knowledge of how the world works.
https://lemmy.world/comment/9746636
It's systems thinking and if you think it's terrible then because it's terribly good at getting rid of excuses. "Oh but you see the intent of the prison system is to reduce crime, never mind it doing the opposite, move along, nothing to see because intent is all that matters".
Yes, it's a thought exercise, not a tautology. And it's not a great thought exercise either, because people of low intellect apparently assume it's a tautology because of how it's worded.
It's not a thought exercise but a modelling discipline.
Those are more or less synonymous.
I can tell you've been huffing too much philosophy because you insist on weird hair splitting like this lol
Or I'm just a boring nerd into cybernetics.