obligatory bear post
is the man or bear thing [https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2024/04/30/man-bear-tiktok-debate-explainer/73519921007/] rhetorically or optically the perfect feminist meme that is beyond criticism? no. but is it leaps and bounds better at getting men to understand the material consequences of patriarchy on the physical and emotional health of women than that stupid “kill all men” meme from last decade? definitely.
I feel like this exchange from 30 Rock is relevant here:
I forget the exact context for the scene, but Kenneth disagrees with Jack and objects that he [Kenneth] is also a white man. Jack corrects him that he is not and is, socio-economically speaking, an inner-city Latina.
Jack represents the patriarchy/ruling money class in the show.
I remember it now. Dunno if I can link to the scene or not. It’s one of the episodes Fey had pulled because they used race-changing makeup.
The plot is Tracy and Jenna were arguing whether it was more difficult to be a black man or a woman. So Tracy uses make up and a wig to dress like a white woman (except for his hand which was a monster claw because they ran out of makeup after he insisted they paint his buttocks). Jenna, meanwhile, uses makeup and a wig to look like a black man. Hijinks ensue.
This scene is when Jack steps in to settle it and says it’s actually harder to be a white man. That’s when this clip starts.
is it rhetorically or optically the perfect feminist meme that is beyond criticism? no.
Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the argument is men have been having very serious discussions for probably millenia about what animals they could and could not beat in a fight. And it is implicitly known that the guy who comes in saying he could beat a bear is way up his own ass. Now here comes a meme appearing to imply that men could beat a bear in a fight, and the urge to correct is strong.
I understand and agree with the sentiment, but I also want you to know you can’t beat a bear in a fight, but will gladly discuss what animals you might win against.
What about a Cheetah?
I think a man would be more likely to recognise a woman as a woman.
A bear doesn’t care. The bear sees the woman as a human, and acts accordingly.
So yeh, the bear would be more predictable.
Imagine if humans treated all humans as human.
-Imagine if humans treated all humans as human.
Let’s not get too carried away here.
bears don’t rape and kidnap women. People - overwhelmingly men - do.
I don’t understand at all where fighting came into this. Am a man.
It is implicitly known that the guy who comes in saying he could beat a bear is way up his own ass.
This is good insight into the cultural context that led into this.
I think it varies wildly individual to individual. For example, some of my personal experience/knowledge is that while I can never beat a bear, bears may be discouraged, scared, and shouted down from attacking with proper preparation and training - a luxury that women do not have against men.
Another nuance I saw someone mention is that if I get attacked by a bear, at least I’m fucking dead and I don’t have to live to deal with the psychosocial horror of having to convince a cop, judge or jury, friends or family that I wasn’t “asking for it,” underscoring the damage that a victim-blaming culture has on women.
“a luxury that women do not have against men.”
This intake issue with. Humans present predatory behavior in much the same way as other large predators, that is they are risk averse. Through preparation and training a woman absolutely can prevent an attack by a predatory human being. Things such as not being alone, being armed, keeping situational awareness, and other basic self defense protocols.
The real problem is people not wanting to admit that humans are extremely dangerous predatory animals and one of the few that regularly kills members of its own species. Humans are horrific monsters. Full stop.
To the bears, we are the bears.
Now here comes a meme appearing to imply that men could beat a bear in a fight, and the urge to correct is strong.
?!
you have missed the point completely.
No they did not. You fail to support how it “appears to imply” anything of the sort, so the comment calling into question your understanding of the entire concept is valid.
In what way is any of this about a physical confrontation between a man and a bear?
First, please explain the original meme and its meaning, then relate that to your point.
…
Sure.
The original meme is about women feeling they are less threatened by a bear than a strange man, the bear might leave them alone or not be aggressive where a man would be more likely to. That men can be a threat in different ways.
Separately men very often discuss what animals they could beat in a fight. This results in a misunderstanding/disconnect between “who would you feel less threatened by” and “who would win in a fight”, which I agree is not what the original meme of women “choosing the bear” is about, but it is a very similar dynamic that results in men explaining that you won’t win a fight against a bear. Which, again, is not the point of the original meme indicating a feeling that a bear might be less likely to harm or threaten you, which is why it results in people talking past each other. (Kind of like right now…)
so you just conflated two random subjects because…?
Men don’t ‘very often discuss’ what animals they can fight. get over yourself.
“very often” is hyperbole, but if you’ve never had/heard of that discussion I would be surprised. But I don’t think “men are misunderstanding the question” is a crazy take.
“who would win in a fight” and “who would you feel more threatened by” are by no means two “random” subjects, they are very closely related in theme and in most situations the answers would be interchangeable. And the conflation of the two closely related topics of conversation was my entire point.
the only context I’ve ever discussed this is a horse sized chicken or 50 chicken sized horses.
the hilarious thing is, it’s not about you, unless you’re the kind of guy who makes women fear for their safety.
So your point is that men basically are incapable of understanding simple points AND that they then go on to “mansplain” their entirely wrong opinions on the topic?
Got it.
I was discussing this whole “safer with a bear” thing with my wife earlier, and she agreed that it was more about the bear will almost always just fuck off and leave you alone. Imo, the problem is the lack of social (third) spaces in the West, particularly anglo-North America. The only places left where you can encounter a potential romantic partner are in their home or in a place of business, and both are generally unacceptable for romantic solicitation. We’ve even managed to largely flush the Internet as a meaningful third space. So, folks are left with the choice of committing a social faux pas or being lonely, which is kind of a shit choice.
If we brought back third spaces whose sole purpose was socializing and community-building, we’d probably see stuff like the “safer with bear” sentiment disappate.
valid insight, maybe not the full picture, but still valid.
important to know that the vast majority of perpetrators of sexual violence are acquaintances of the victim, and aren’t strangers. so third spaces might certainly help, but don’t address the primary issue.
The only places left where you can encounter a potential romantic partner are in their home or in a place of business, and both are generally unacceptable for romantic solicitation. We’ve even managed to largely flush the Internet as a meaningful third space. So, folks are left with the choice of committing a social faux pas or being lonely, which is kind of a shit choice.
Combine this with the expectation that one sex is expected to do nearly all such soliciting.
I actually find it amusing that Bumble recently announced that they are no longer going to require women to make the first move because many find having to do so a burden. It’s something of an intractable problem - women don’t want the burden of having to do the approaching and potentially facing rejection but also don’t want to be approached by men they aren’t interested in (and tend to have much lower tolerances regarding the behavior of said men - a lot of behaviors that are “flirting” when done by a man they’re interested in are seen as something else entirely when done by the wrong man).
Then from the other direction you have men for who it’s largely a numbers game - many men don’t put much effort into the messages they send out on online dating services because the response rate is so low. If a large majority of your messages get no reply, it’s less psychologically painful to think about the sheer number of times you’ve been considered not worth the effort to bother turning down if you aren’t investing as much into each attempt, and if you aren’t investing much into each attempt then you can make a lot more attempts for the same time investment. Response rates are low enough and the difference in odds of success between low effort and high effort messages small enough that it impacts the entire thing pretty heavily.
Depends what you mean by feminism if you mean feminism as equality for all then great.
If you mean feminism as you see a lot of today then maybe not. The fact you never see feminism calling out shitty, toxic female behaviour shows a lot of the picture is missing.
Holding up everything that lives under the feminism banner as infallible is dangerous. Plenty of low income white guys have been pushed aside for feminism and then told they have all this privilege for living in a place with no economic prospects and they are responsible for how the world was made before they were born.
if you see “feminists” excusing shitty behavior, call them the fuck out for it
bad feminists don’t excuse you inserting yourself into a conversation women are having about their lived experiences
I do. Then you normally get called sexist by other women.
Like I said you never see feminism, or almost never see, women accepting there is ever anything wrong with feminism. Women need to take more responsibility over shitty women’s behaviour.
women need to take responsibility over shitty women’s behavior.
absolutely the fuck not. and you wonder why you get called sexist lmao. 😭
no. men (and women) need to take responsibility for behavior that happens under patriarchy.
no one is ever individually responsible for the actions of another individual. but we are all responsible to protect and look out for each other.
it’s a subtle difference but so, so important, so please read a couple times to understand.
Wonder if some women abusing men is patriarchy.
Or if some women shaming men for not being masculine enough is patriarchy.
Or if some women asking for some sort of benefits over men is patriarchy.
If yes, the scope of “patriarchy” is so damn wide any reference to men (as in “patri-”) would be fair to be removed, and then we’d talk about antisexism in general.
Besides, can we truly talk for the case of patriarchy when the oppression comes from previous generations of men leading to issues of currently living ones? Current men are often oppressed by those measures, not empowered, and that contradicts the very notion of it.
I’m always a bit confused by this desire of women to put entire antisexism movement under the feminism umbrella no matter what.
Why is it so important? What causes this desire for women alone to lead the way? Is it some sort of power struggle, fear of men stealing the topic and pushing another agenda?
We are here, and we recognize the issues of men and, to the extent we can, the issues of women. Let us fight our fight without trying to make it about women. We talk about men, and would be happy to have a community of both men and women to solve what can’t be solved on one side.
Wonder if some women abusing men is patriarchy.
Often true, yes.
Or if some women shaming men for not being masculine enough is patriarchy.
Very often true, yes.
Or if some women asking for some sort of benefits over men is patriarchy.
I don’t know what you are referencing but probably?
If yes, the scope of “patriarchy” is so damn wide any reference to men (as in “patri-”) would be fair to be removed, and then we’d talk about antisexism in general.
You are absolutely free to do this. :)
Besides, can we truly talk for the case of patriarchy when the oppression comes from previous generations of men leading to issues of currently living ones? Current men are often oppressed by those measures, not empowered, and that contradicts the very notion of it.
You are definitely in the right here! And these stories are often underrepresented in feminist/antisexist spaces. There is a community for this if you were interested: [email protected]
I’m always a bit confused by this desire of women to put entire antisexism movement under the feminism umbrella no matter what.
I think it’s more of a tradition thing than anything. As in, feminism being the first antisexist theory, all other antisexist theories will find their historical roots in what feminists first described. But a valid insight.
Why is it so important? What causes this desire for women alone to lead the way? Is it some sort of power struggle, fear of men stealing the topic and pushing another agenda?
No, and this is where I encourage you to be careful. You are reading far too much into a name. See above again for what I believe is more of an occams razor explanation.
We are here, and we recognize the issues of men and, to the extent we can, the issues of women. Let us fight our fight without trying to make it about women. We talk about men, and would be happy to have a community of both men and women to solve what can’t be solved on one side.
Fully agree! I wish you the best in this and I’ll be there alongside you. ❤️
This community is first and foremost a feminist community for men and masc people, but it is also a place to talk about men’s issues with a particular focus on intersectionality. — ## Rules ::: spoiler Everybody is welcome, but this is primarily a space for men and masc people — Non-masculine perspectives are incredibly important in making sure that the lived experiences of others are present in discussions on masculinity, but please remember that this is a space to discuss issues pertaining to men and masc individuals. Be kind, open-minded, and take care that you aren’t talking over men expressing their own lived experiences. — ::: ::: spoiler Be productive — Be proactive in forming a productive discussion. Constructive criticism of our community is fine, but if you mainly criticize feminism or other people’s efforts to solve gender issues, your post/comment will be removed. Keep the following guidelines in mind when posting: * Build upon the OP * Discuss concepts rather than semantics * No low effort comments * No personal attacks — ::: ::: spoiler Assume good faith — Do not call other submitters’ personal experiences into question. — ::: ::: spoiler No bigotry — Slurs, hate speech, and negative stereotyping towards marginalized groups will not be tolerated. — ::: ::: spoiler No brigading — Do not participate if you have been linked to this discussion from elsewhere. Similarly, links to elsewhere on the threadiverse must promote constructive discussion of men’s issues. — ::: — ##### Recommended Reading * The Will To Change: Men, Masculinity, And Love by bell hooks [https://archive.org/details/the-will-to-change-men-masculinity-and-love-by-bell-hooks-z-lib.org.epub/page/n43/mode/2up] * Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements by Michael Messner [https://archive.org/details/politicsofmascul00mess] — ##### Related Communities [email protected] [/c/[email protected]] [email protected] [/c/[email protected]] [email protected] [/c/[email protected]] —
Good question!
Handling this question is tricky, but I’ll give it a shot with some examples. It’s worth noting that there’s often overlap between different systems, where those in power in one area also benefit disproportionately in others. (This concept is a key part of intersectionality theory.)
Thank you for responding.
What I’m getting is that patriarchy is a system that is structured in a way that it benefits (or disenfranchises less) those that are:
And that you can keep identifying different traits and expanding the list where relevant?
No that’s kind of the opposite of the point I was making. The patriarchy is only one of all those systems of oppression that I listed.
There is a lot of crossover, yes, but I am not equivocating any of those. They are generally distinct.
Ah, gotcha, sorry my mistake. Thank you for all your help btw. So it’s specific for when men are less disenfranchised than women? Regardless of the perpetrator of said injustice?
So looking at that other guys examples. The only one that doesn’t immediately make sense is:
Or if some women asking for some sort of benefits over men is patriarchy
And to me the only example that comes to mind is women expecting men to pay for dates? Which I think is part of patriarchy as it’s inherited from a time where women couldn’t work or had severely limited career prospects?
And other things like
Or if some women shaming men for not being masculine enough is patriarchy.
are a response to a historic lack of agency among women, requiring them to force their husbands to find success for them.
I’m not getting this one though, could you explain how this is patriarchy?
Wonder if some women abusing men is patriarchy.
Some of this is starting to get beyond my rhetorical capacity so I won’t pretend to have answers for your questions here, I apologize.
Maybe other commenters can give you satisfactory answers, but in the meantime I’ll refer you to this book by bell hooks (free PDF). Should get you 99.9% of the way there. :)
spujb
Admiral Patrick
Scroll Responsibly
mojofrododojo
