Look, I’m willing to say thanks for bringing the bigoted usage of M&M metaphor to my attention. It is good to know common usages of things to avoid misunderstandings like this. Given that it was used to argue for collective punishment against oppressed and minority groups, that is obviously sick and unacceptable. So much so that while I never used it in the past, I will now be sure to never use it in the future either.

I don’t believe the metaphor is faulty in of itself, as you would obviously at least hesitate to consume food if it had a chance to be poisoned. And in the context it was used here, where it did not argue for collective punishment, but rather simply women wanting to not put themselves in situations that could render them defenseless, I think it fit quite well. If it didn’t have its association with discrimination, it would have aptly explained women’s point of view while acknowledging that the grand majority of men are not a threat.

Regardless, it was repeatedly made clear to you that no generalizations were being made. And you repeatedly insisted on making a linguistics argument even after people defined their terms and intent. You continued to ignore their clarifications and resort to implying your interlocutors were bigoted. Which makes it hard for me to believe you were arguing in good faith. Doubly so when you thought an appropriate exit would include you saying the argument “is alienating for both sides, and an obstacle to fixing things.”.

If you genuinely wanted to fix things, you would have argued with enough charity to say “I understand that your intent was not to generalize nor attack a group of people, but the metaphor you used is charged with bigotry due to its common usage. To avoid misunderstandings, might I suggest using a different method of getting your points across?”. Or something to that affect.

But you didn’t, you doubled down on accusations of bigotry, flat out strawmanned arguments, and remained steadfast in a linguistics debate when everyone had already defined their terms. Even after I had conceded that the M&M metaphor could be creating a misunderstanding.

So let me offer you another exit. I’ll say:

Thanks for letting me know about the M&M argument. I prefer to have clarity in my statements, and loath bigotry of all forms. So being made aware of the dehumanizing and faulty manner it has been used in is greatly appreciated. I hope you understand that I mean no ill will in our discussion. But I do find that men will often try to focus on one faux pas to derail a more important conversation about women’s rights and safety, and that is something of a pet peeve of mine. Regardless I’m sorry for any misunderstanding.

And you can say:

No worries, the M&M metaphor has been used in such awful ways that it fundamentally undermines any attempts at genuine conversations, and I was unable to see past it to your actual intent. I understand that you and Pyre weren’t being bigoted, and I’m sorry for putting past bigotry on your actual intentions even after it was made clear that you were not using the metaphor in its common usage.

Guess we just won’t find common ground in this one, I believe it would need to actually be bigoted to be… you know, sexist. It would need to stereotype all (or at least most) men as rapists, or it would need to push for collective blame or punishment towards men, it would need to actually be prejudiced.

But it just isn’t. It’s literally just trying to communicate to men that this problem is so widespread that it is hindering women’s ability to live without fear. All of the sexism you see in it, is imaginary. And it’s kind of telling on yourself that you think it’s talking about “all men”.

Women know that most men are not rapist, and they aren’t asking for any rights to be taken away from men to make them feel safer. But they also know that 99% of rapists are men, and 91% of victims are women, that added to the aforementioned 1 in 6~ women that will have been raped in their lifetime means they are gambling just being alone with a man. And remaining one of the 5 out of 6 requires never ending vigilance.

It’s not sexist to acknowledge those facts, and it’s not sexist for women to not want to put themselves in situations where they can’t get help. Since Choosing the Bear is literally just trying to spread awareness of this dilemma women live with everyday, and is in no way saying that all men are the problem, its disingenuous to call it sexist.

And if your grand argument is that bringing attention to sexual assault in ways that men may take offense to is the real problem, well all I can say is you are repeating the bullshit arguments thrown at the oppressed during the civil rights movement, during women’s suffrage, and countless other fights for rights and safety. You are siding with rapists feelings. You, not women, are saying it attacks all men. And you are part of the problem. You are killing the conversation around sexual assault to inject how it affects your feelings. So please understand me when I say you need to get over yourself.

Honestly, I don’t think I’ll return to this conversation, you disappoint me, and frankly I’ve lost respect for you as a person. Blaming women trying to convey their fears as responsible for Trump, and claiming it is sexist to acknowledge their fears is just pathetic. If people really voted for Trump to get back at women for not talking about sexual assault in their preferred manner, fuck those people.

edit: lol, I also just realized you basically implied you would tell a Jewish person “not all Nazi’s”. Fuck you man

Deep down inside I know it is a cry for help, not a sexist statement. And if you thought about it, you would too.

It’s very telling that you tried to undermine “Choosing the Bear” by replacing the man with a “black man” or a “trans person”. You wanted to co-opt the bigotry thrown at an oppressed group to add a charge of oppression to the “choosing the bear”. But women aren’t the oppressors, they are being oppressed, not just legally with abortion rights, but specifically physically with sexual assault.

What if we swapped your embarrassing attempt at rewriting the scenario and made it fit the reality more, where the man and woman were replaced with another group of oppressors and oppressed?

Say 1939, Nazi Germany. You are talking to a Jewish person that has recently escaped Germany, and in an attempt to explain how terrified they were of the Nazi’s they tell you “I would have rather encountered a Bear than a Nazi alone in the woods”. Well, given all your knowledge of bears, you immediately rebuttal with “that’s so ridiculous and naive of you! Not all Nazis attack Jews, and a bear is a bear! Why you are being bigoted against Nazi’s just by implying!”

Sure, Nazi’s are the go to extreme example, but it’s far more apropos to keep they dynamics of the scenario intact.

So do you maybe now see how much you would have missed the point, and how much attacking their method of communicating their fears is a sick and twisted thing to do?

No, I doubt you do, you seem so stuck on the idea that women communicating their fear of sexual assault actually makes men the real victims.

Good luck with life man, I know you are not a bad person, your arguments have consistently shown your heart is in the right place. But the men who assault women really appreciate you standing up for them, and with that you are enabling harm.

That’s the fun part of my argument, I don’t need to talk about M&M’s. But I can see why you would prefer I do so you don’t have to engage with the actual content of the argument.

Also, more strawmanning from you is no surprise, Pyre didn’t make the argument that a group should be excluded did tthey? They made the argument that women often don’t want to take chances with their safety by being alone with men. Even if the M&M argument was used to justify collective punishment (with or without a “poisoned M&M” actually existing), it’s very clear Pyre used the metaphor to explain why being alone with an unknown man would be a situation a woman would want to avoid. Your attempts to change their arguments to one of bigotry is disingenuous.

And now you have strawmanned my argument… I get that you have heard an argument using M&Ms to justify widespread harm to targeted groups, and see Pyre’s use of it as a sort of dog whistle. And who knows, I do believe you are attaching a whole truckload of intent that they nor I ever suggested, but maybe it is a secret play to take away the rights of men. But seeing as you had to jump to hyperbolic attacks on people’s rights to find a way to imply I’m a bigot, I’m thinking it’s also possible that you are just a big fan of strawmanning people.

All of my suggestions were looking at statistics and seeing how we could improve the lives of all involved.

What do you do about internment camps? Shut that shit down, there is no place for collective punishment in a humane society.

What do you do about vagrancy? Provide safe spaces to sleep in, offer free food, and free health care (preferably a “right to housing as well”).

What do you do about the statistical discrepancy that men commit crimes at a higher rate? Invest in schools, provide positive role models, investigate the societal norms that may be affecting men’s “sense of self” negatively and try to counter balance it. (The list goes on, but you should at least get my point)

But you don’t just ignore statistics, after all data isn’t bigoted, people are. So you do your best to use stats and data to point to underlying causes and try to improve the situation for everyone to the greatest extent possible.

And, to bring this back to its original point, you also use data and stats to make educated decisions about your safety. If you go to an area with high crime rates, it’s not bigoted to carry and show less valuables. If you go to a city where cars get broken into a lot, it’s not bigoted to not keep valuables on the car. And if you are a woman who has a 14.8% chance of being a victim of rape in their lifetime, it’s not bigoted to not feel safe alone with men.

But you did make one very good point.

I realize nobody thinks of themselves as a bigot, and I know reexamining one’s own biases is not pleasant, but it is a necessary step for growth.

And I think you should take your own advice here. Because your biases have you so up in arms about this conversation, that you found a way to get from “maybe we examine why men commit a higher rate of crimes and see if we can help them so they don’t have or want to anymore” to “men belong at the back of the bus!”. And that’s… not a healthy mindset.

I get the point, I have always gotten the point.

See, I knew it couldn’t be because you are stupid! But then why did you waste both of our time talking about bear survival?

given the choice of being alone in the woods with a black man or a bear, they’d feel safer with a bear, how does that sound now? Do you still think that sounds “hyperbolic”, or do you maybe now see how fucked up and stupid it makes you sound?

Oh, maybe you are stupid… Like, to try and conflate the fear of rape to racism… talk about fucked up and stupid. I’m getting embarrassed for you…

You keep trying so hard to change the idea being expressed when women “choose the bear”. Let’s take your demonstration to it’s logical conclusion. Let’s say a stranger demands to be let into your home at night, or asks you to come alone into a dark alley, would you do it, would you feel safe? Now let’s say the stranger was black, did that change literally anything? Or is it a dangerous situation regardless of race, and you would still prioritize your safety?

Women are not being bigoted when they express concerns over sexual assault. They aren’t trying to take men’s rights away, they aren’t saying “all men are rapists”. They are sharing the very real fear they feel from the very real threat of sexual assault. And they know not every man is going to assault them, but they also know that given the chance, a frighteningly large number will. Since they can’t know which one until it’s to late, they have to play by gun safety rules and test all men like they will. Not to be mean, but to stay safe.

Now if you would get your head out of your rear, you might start to actually hear women when they “choose the bear”, and what they are really saying. So even if you think the thought experiment is dumb, please try to grasp that it is just light-hearted way to bring up a real issue facing women. And your points about bear safety and it being hyperbolic are so unimportant and miniscule compared to the actual conversation at hand, that you are just wasting everybody’s time.

Imagine seriously thinking the most important thing you can add to the conversation is that you think women are expressing their fears over being raped in a “fucked up and stupid” way.

Oh, okay. I kind of think you might be overreacting again, but I’m sorry you feel victimized.

By saying no one thinks you are a rapist?

Did you reply to the wrong comment?

To be honest, being so unable to grasp the point being made makes you sound… stupid tbh. But I don’t actually think you are stupid, so I assume you are just really dug in deep with how much “choose the bear” annoys you (maybe because you are offended on behalf of men, or on behalf of bears?).

So you want to call it stupid instead of just being willing to acknowledge “choosing the bear” is a polite way of saying “men assault women at such a high rate that women are genuinely terrified to be alone with them.” And honestly, it demonstrates a degree of naivety that you have never truly experienced the constant threat of sexual assault for you to consistently think this was ever about bears.

You are kinda straw-manning their argument. They never implied bigotry against men (or anyone for that matter) is justified. They implied that men as a demographic commit crimes at a higher than average rate, enough so to make it an outlier, and that the underlying issues should be addressed to reduce that.

Your attempt to shift their argument to one of bigotry is just trying to shutdown the conversation. Men really do commit crimes at a higher rate, it’s not bigotry to acknowledge that. It would be bigotry to imply there was something inherent to being a man that made a person commit crimes. But wanting to understand the data and help isn’t bigotry, it’s compassion.

Crime stats, historical oppression, financial disadvantage, and other PMC buzzwords do not matter.

Given that, crime stats, historical oppression, and financial disadvantage do in fact matter to putting context to crime rates. Would you be surprised to learn that areas with higher poverty rates have higher rates of crime? Would you accuse me of bigotry against the poor for saying that providing food, money, housing, education, and resources to those groups would reduce the crime rate? What if the impoverished area was comprised of immigrants? Am I bigoted for wanting to alleviate the situation that drives people to commit crimes, just because the people who need help are a minority group? Obviously not, bigotry is defined by thinking the problem is inherent to a group. It has nothing to do with acknowledging a problem and wanting to help everyone involved.

Now, with all that in mind, if men are committing crimes (especially violent crimes) at a much higher rate than the general population, is it bigotry to say we should consider what we can do to reduce the crime rate in that demographic?

edit: Here is something of a related situation to bring context. There are significantly less women in the tech industry. Is it bigotry to say that there is nothing inherent in being a woman that would make a person less capable to work in tech, so there is likely some alternative (likely societal) reason for this discrepancy? Is it bigotry for someone to try and help women get interested in tech and break into the industry?

No, I’m definitely not saying that I know the odds of a bear attack, which is why my quote was “most often” and not “>42%”.

What I am saying is 14.8% of, or roughly 1 out of every 6, women in America has been raped. Worse yet, between the ages of 16-24, they are 3-4 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted. So in general, women have a very real fear of being alone and unguarded around men, many suffering from PTSD from encounters while being left alone with a man.

Knowing that you have a 1 in 6 (or worse depending on age) chance to be raped in your lifetime is… bad odds. So it’s understandable that being alone with a man actually scares them more than a bear, regardless of the statistical odds of a bear attack (which again, are pretty low anyways).

And seeing that 56% of men aged 18-29 voted for a convicted sex offender, probable statutory rapist, “grab 'em by the pussy” enthusiast, who pushed back women’s rights, that means over half the men in that demographic don’t think these are “hills to die on”. So now women have a very real fear, and/or have actually been raped, and all these men are voting like their fears and rights don’t matter… yep, I get choosing the bear.

So yeah, we can argue until we are blue in the face about survival odds, but we would be missing the whole point of the discussion if we did.

Don’t get me wrong, in your situation, where you are man alone in the wilderness, meeting another person is really not so terrifying of a concept. Bears aren’t likely to attack and maul you tbh, but neither is the “gun nut” in your hypothetical.

This isn’t what women are talking about when they say “I’d choose the bear”. They are actually referencing a genuine fear many of them have being alone around men. Reportedly 14.8%, or roughly 1 out of every 6, women in America has been raped. And between the ages of 16-24, they are 3-4 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted. Meaning these fears are at their peak during formative years.

We could argue till we are blue in the face over which is more likely to attack, a bear or stranger in the woods, but it would be completely missing the point of the discussion.

Many women have genuine fears and/or PTSD regarding being alone with men, and so when asked what they would feel safer encountering alone in the woods, they choose the bear. Even if you believe their choice is the “wrong one”, please try to understand what they are trying to communicate by making it.

I mean… it is tho innit? But when it comes to topics that people have actual PTSD over, sometimes inventing goofy scenarios makes the hard conversations easier.

So maybe the problem isn’t the goofy scenario, but the fact that people feel the need to ridicule rape and sexual assault fears regardless of how they are presented?

Very true, but the overwhelming majority of women interact with men overwhelmingly frequently compared to bears.

Almost as if the whole thing is a light hearted way of drawing attention to a very real fear women live with every day, that stats posted above bear (get it?) witness to.

Plus, if we are being pedantic, it’s not “interactions with men”. It’s “would you, as a woman, feel safer encountering a man or a bear when you are alone in the woods”.

Well, to be fair we are both butthurt about the election in that case.

And sure, maybe my sense of humor is juvenile, but you really could use a chill pill. Just because they don’t agree with you doesn’t mean anyone accused you of being a rapist.

Edit: and fwiw, while I don’t really think I was being uncivil, I don’t blame the mod. It was a bit silly of a joke, and clearly your reaction shows it didn’t come across as light-hearted as I intended it.

Nothing is wrong with them, but I get not wanting to gamble with thos odds.

Especially when, according to the national park service, “when bear encounters do happen, they are most often nonviolent”. So if you had to gamble…

Removed by mod

You know, around the point you mistook me for a liberal, I realized something. Nowhere in this thread have you shown an once of concern or sympathy for Palestine. You have only tried to admonish others and pat yourself on the back. If I knew nothing else about your character, that would be enough.

Live well, maybe one day you’ll find the redemption you prescribe to others.

I too have been consistently against genocide, I have protested, I have called senators, I have donated time, money, medical supplies, and food.

I didn’t gamble and lose, I fought the best I can, and will continue to do so.

I hope you do more than “demand better”, because all your demands amount to is pissing down the backs of Palestinians and telling them it’s raining.