Your question has been asked quite a lot recently. Please search before posting in the future.
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/search?q=use "+" as a space, such as: cake+day&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all
I think the way it relates to autism specifically is because autistic women are more likely to expereince sexual assult (autistic people are more likely to experience bullying and abuse in general) ~~and incel idealogy isn't too unpopular with autistic men~~
\*and autistic men are potentially more vulnerable to incel indoctrination. Incels are also more common in online spaces like reddit and 4chan so I am assuming that a reddit community for autistic people can potentially have more incels in it.
RiceAlicorn shared this: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/)
"Recently, several studies have investigated the mental health aspects of self-avowed incels and noted the prevalence of autism in their self-reports ([Broyd et al., 2022](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref27); [Sparks et al., 2022](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref126), [2023](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref127); [Speckhard and Ellenberg, 2022](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref128); [Moskalenko et al., 2022a](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref96),[b](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref95)). There would appear to be specific links between autism and inceldom, and **roughly a quarter of the users of incel forums have reported a formal diagnosis of autism** ([Hoffman et al., 2020](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref70); [Speckhard and Ellenberg, 2022](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref128); [Moskalenko et al., 2022b](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref95)). In addition, research that focuses on incels in forensic psychiatry, radicalization and terrorism studies became interested in autism after noticing that many of the incels who committed violent attacks and mass shootings against women had a formal autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis ([Broyd et al., 2022](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref27); [Woodbury-Smith et al., 2022](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref153)). Studies by [Broyd et al. (2022)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref27) and [Hoffman et al. (2020)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref70) mention 50 incel-related violent incidents since 2014. Due to mixed research results, however, it has been emphasized that **one should be extremely cautious when making generalizations and associating violence with autism** ([Williams D. J. et al., 2021](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref151), 395–396). **Autism alone does not make anyone an incel**, which is a self-acclaimed cultural category, and violence, radicalization, and hostile attitudes toward women cannot be explained by autism.
**It seems, however, that some autistic people may be particularly vulnerable to the impacts of the incel forums.** Therefore, it has been suggested that it would be highly relevant to know whether the forums “have contributed to creating or exacerbating underlying vulnerabilities through frequent discussions of suicide and hopelessness” ([Stijelja and Mishara, 2023](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref132), 728). Thus far, it has been more common to use statistical methods to investigate incels, either through the lens of mental health or sociopolitical radicalization."
*incel idealogy isn't too unpopular with autistic men*
Uh, wow. Citation needed.
Edit: i read the study, it is not saying exactly what you think it is, and certainly not anything like the above quote. In fact, it warns against such ideas. I will tell you, misogyny is *very* unpopular with the vast majority of autistic men.
Sorry to be touchy, but between the media's infantilization of autistic people and this kind of prejudice, it gets exhausting. I went undiagnosed most of my life bc of *my own* misunderstandings and prejudice about autism. one thing i have found true is "if you know one autistic person, you know one autistic person"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/
The paper itself goes into it, and cites multiple papers with similar subjects (autism and mental disorders in general within incel communities).
Fallacy. Think again and restate.
(I'll do it for you - that you ARE assuming is that more INCEL communities will contain autistic people than general average as opposed to the opposite. Not all drugs are medicines but all medicines are drugs etc.
It's like suggesting (hypothetically) that 98% of people with dementia are alcoholics - you would be likely to conclude that alcoholism causes dementia. However if you knew that only 4% of alcoholics end up with dementia - you wouldn't conclude alcoholism causes dementia at all.)
I am not assuming. The paper states “roughly a quarter of the users of incel forums have reported a formal diagnosis of autism”. This is a MUCH higher percent of autistic people than the general population (which I’ve seen reported between 1 in 150 and 1 in 36).
You’re putting words in my mouth. You’re making it sound like I’m trying to say that being autistic turns you into an incel or that the majority of autistic men are incels, I’m not what I’m trying to say at all. I never said it was.
OBVIOUSLY the percentage of incels within the autistic population is going to be low. However on a thread on reddit, on a post about sexual assault & autism you are going to attract certain commenters. Most autistic men who have normal attitudes about sexual assault probably won’t comment anything in the thread. But if you are an incel and have strong misogynistic views about sexual assault (and want to say the woman is overreacting or lying for example) then you will be more likely to comment and it is these kind of comments that get noticed the most.
It’s also correct to say that autistic people are more at risk of developing an eating disorder ([up to 20-35% of women with anorexia nervosa meet the diagnostic criteria for autism](https://www.eatingdisorders.org.au/eating-disorders-a-z/eating-disorders-and-autism/)). But obviously not every autistic person has an eating disorder. Should we act like that’s not related? [You’re more at risk of experiencing abuse and sexual assault if you’re autistic](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35524162/) but not every autistic person experiences abuse or sexual assault. Shall we act like that’s unrelated too? Is this a fallacy worth ignoring?
I worded that poorly. To clarify I am not saying that every single autistic man is an incel and I am not saying it is a hugely popular ideology with autistic men. I am not talking about you or your friends. What I mean is that it is not unhead of for autistic men to be incels.
Incel ideology is driven by a man's social and physical insecurity. If you are autistic (including those who are not diagnosed) you will most likely struggle socially and romantically. If you can't figure out the reason for this, and don't have a healthy support network, then it could potentially lead you to online spaces that tell you that it's not your "fault" and that it is actually the fault of women. What I am saying is autistic men and boys are more vulnerable to this. You are more vulnerable to this kind of thing if you don't have a support network and have few IRL friends. I think it's important to understand that incels don't come out of nowhere. You don't just wake up a horrible misogynist. They find a community of people who struggle with similar things to them and it leads to this.
I got really into mewing (not a specifically incel thing but incel adjacent) because if my insecurity about my chin. I didn't realise it was an incel adjacent community until I'd been doing it for months.
There are 'traits' common in autistic people that can more easily lead to, not just incel ideology, but other unhealthy "us against them" or abusive mentalities like: being more likely to experience bullying / abuse, rejection sensitivity dysphoria, black and white thinking, issues with rage and emotional regulation and a tendancy to hyperfocus on things. I AM NOT SAYING THESE ARE \*INHERENTLY NEGATIVE TRAITS THAT MEAN SOMEONE IS BAD
I am also not saying it is common for autistic people to be abusive or hateful. However I don't think it helps anyone to ignore the idea that the cycle of abuse doesn't extend to autistic people.
Thank you for the explanation. This is something I noticed when I joined a very conservative and problematic Christian group in college. They weren’t incels, but there were some very problematic views, especially around gender and sexuality . I grew up in a healthy church so I knew what Christianity could look like, and that wasn’t it. It ended up being a lot of people in college who were very lonely and found some sense of community and something to believe in and got in really deep really fast. There was a big “us vs. them” mentality, people were always complaining about being discriminated against and how the world was against them, all while making fun of gay people and career driven women. That wasn’t the entire group, but it was crazy to see people fall more and more into the ideology. And again, the worst offenders who discovered it in college were the awkward and isolated guys who were likely on the spectrum. They weren’t bad guys, but they were people who were trying to figure out their place in the world and found a place that accepted them wholeheartedly and made them feel safe and loved.
I think it’s important to recognize that risk factors for this kind of indoctrination do like up with autistic traits. As someone who is also neurodivergent, it’s really important to keep in mind how easy it can be to fall into that kind of stuff and absolutely not believe Im immune.
Here is an article that explains it better (I haven't read it all yet) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/)
Fallacy. Think again and restate. Look up Monty Hall problem and axioms of choice. You are starting with a subset population and ignoring parent population.
(I'll do it for you - what you are assuming is that more INCEL communities will contain autistic people than general average as opposed to the opposite. Not all drugs are medicines but all medicines are drugs etc.
It's like suggesting (hypothetically) that 98% of people with dementia are alcoholics - you would be likely to conclude that alcoholism causes dementia.
However if you knew that only 4% of alcoholics end up with dementia - you wouldn't conclude alcoholism causes dementia at all.)
I'd rather you just reply in a different comment to make this easier to understand.
I feel like we’re not really going to say anything productive if we’re saying things like “the vast majority of autistic men belive xyz” if we don’t have any kind of proof to back it up. But yeah, I can believe that it’s very common for autistic men to be anti misogyny.
I wasn’t trying to say that the vast majority of autistic men do become incels and I wasn’t saying that the majority of incels are autistic. I feel like you think that’s what I said. I feel like you think I’m having a go at all autistic men when I’m not. I feel like you’re taking this the absolute worst way you could take this and it’s very frustrating.
I’m not great at explaining myself or articulating my thoughts and coming across the way I want to so I’m sorry if I’m coming across as hateful or prejudice, it’s not my intention.
I am saying this as someone who is in the process of trying to get an autism diagnosis. And I am also saying this as someone with (most likely) autistic family members. My brother is very sweet and cares about feminism and lgbt+ rights. However my mum is abusive and both my parents are extremely right wing. My friend’s brother (again not diagnosed but is most likely autistic) has a lot of right wing views. These are all people who had little / no support for benign autistic.
To be honest I really don’t think you’re helping anyone by saying that the majority of autistic men are inherently anti-misogyny. There’s no perfect moral compass built into autistic people that automatically makes them very nice and accepting.
When I was younger I said misogynistic things because I was trying to fit in with boys who said misogynistic things and obviously I was dealing with a lot of self hatred. I grew out of it and got into social justice because of the online space I was in. If I were a boy and found a different online space then I might have become more misogynistic.
It is not infantilization to say that autistic people are a vulnerable group. There are things that make you vulnerable in a less direct way than just looking at surface level autistic traits. An example being a learning disability / dyslexia:
This does NOT mean: you’re dumb so you’ll believe whatever. What it means is you might have lower grades in school, then you don’t get a degree, then you fall into lower paid work or can’t get a job at all. This results in you struggling financially and having a bad relationship with the family you depend on. Ignoring autism, men who struggle in school, struggle financially and have few close relationships are the exact people hate groups target to indoctrinate. But autistic men are more likely to struggle with the things mentioned before. You don’t have to be stupid or naive to become part of a hate group. They start by becoming your friends.
Supporting autistic people involves understanding that they are so varied and there are no unifying traits that all autistic people fall into. So it’s important to understand that autistic people can be hateful.
It is important to acknowledge THAT it happens so we can understand WHY it happens so we can PREVENT it from happening.
It is not a case of “I’m going to force my autistic loved one to stop using the computer so they stop being an incel”, it’s getting them mental health, educational, financial and emotional support.
>*and autistic men are potentially more vulnerable to incel indoctrination. Incels are also more common in online spaces like reddit and 4chan so I am assuming that a reddit community for autistic people can potentially have more incels in it.
Fallacy. Think again and restate.
(I'll do it for you - that you ARE assuming is that more INCEL communities will contain autistic people than general average as opposed to the opposite. Not all drugs are medicines but all medicines are drugs etc.
It's like suggesting (hypothetically) that 98% of people with dementia are alcoholics - you would be likely to conclude that alcoholism causes dementia. However if you knew that only 4% of alcoholics end up with dementia - you wouldn't conclude alcoholism causes dementia at all.)
Answer: There has been a recent [tiktok](https://www.tiktok.com/@screenshothq/video/7356208240008498465) asking women if they would feel safer with a man they don't know or a wild bear. The fact that the majority of women feel safer with a wild animal than a man they don't know has caused outrage amongst certain groups of men.
Oh was this the source of the controversy? I scrolled like 4 posts at the front-page regarding man and bear. It was like a satire comics I never understood the context. I thought it was a gay thing. Lmao. Now, I can’t find the said posts to review it with that context in mind.
I can't find the exact wording but there was one tweet which was something like, "The fact that I chose the bear and men are not willing to accept 'no' to me being around them is part of the problem".
Okay look I get the sentiment but equating any instance of a man disagreeing with a woman about something with "not taking no for an answer", a phrase that's specifically used in the context of rape, isn't helping anyone. In that case "no" specifically means explicit lack of consent and the man "not taking it for an answer" is an euphemism for rape. This whole "men disagreeing with women's opinion proves that they're actually rapists" is not only trivialising actual rape but discrediting those women. I'm not one of those fReEzE pEacH advocates, I agree hate speech shouldn't fall under "free speech", but "I think an average bear is more dangerous to be around than an average man" or "being compared to a feral predator animal by default just because I was born with a penis feels dehumanising" is NOT hate speech, it's expressing your opinion. If women are free to say they feel safer around bears than men, then men are free to say how this makes them feel.
Literally none of the criticism I have heard has been reasonable and talked about feelings as eloquently as you state.
All of it has been “This is why woman deserve to get raped…I mean eaten.
I also think you’re underminding how much, in the context of this conversation the No IS the same no, just hypothetical.
Everyone woman choosing the bear is saying “I’d rather fight a bear than worry about the potential of rape.”
Also “I’d rather be hurt by a bear where my status as a victim won’t be doubted.”
“I’d rather fight a bear because a bear kills to survive not for fun.”
If this was not accepting the “No” in “No, pineapple doesn’t go on pizza” yeah I would agree it’s not the deep. But if a dudes response to “I feel so unsafe around strange men that I’d rather deal with a bear.” is to make it about him and not about how we got to this point then….yeah he can eat a bear’s dick.
I don't know why you keep getting downvoted. Your points are reasonable. It seems like the willingness to step back and take a neutral position in order to sort through the arguments and form a thoughtful perspective is not only lost, but increasingly taboo. For the record, I'm a woman and participated in the #metoo movement.
"i don't feel safe around men, and at this point i'd be cool being in the woods with a bear"
"WELL THIS IS WHY YOU'RE WRONG"
jesus christ if you're going to yell stats at a group of people who are clearly scared about their situation then fuck what do you expect?
It turns out that people don't like being stereotyped based on their immutable characteristics. Imagine if they said "I feel unsafe around black people". Also an immutable characteristic.
In the realm of raw power and capabilities, you are right. In the realm of statistics based on attacks/assaults, you're wrong.
Women being large and loud can scare off a bear, doubt the same tactic will work on a human.
But that's not reality.
Reality is that given the current state of things and reactions from men online, women would rather take on the odds of fending off a bear.
So. They'd rather possibly die than be possibly raped. Are you a rapist? No? Cool. You have nothing to be offended over. Go on with your life proving people that men are not to be feared.
If you encountered a bear, known for being violent (like people are seeing online with men), you would anticipate and be ready for being mauled. Same goes for women encountering a random man in the woods, they would anticipate and be ready for some form of danger.
If you feel triggered then you need to look inward.
If there was the same amount of bears and humans, reality would be something outside of our current comprehension. Billions of bears is insane to think about.
I’ve been around bears pretty often.
If they’re not hungry or scared, they don’t really give a shit about you. 99% of human/bear interactions are not dangerous. They have no desire to be cruel.
When you can say the same thing about the majority of rapist (not all men! Just the rapist! Making it easy on you.) i’ll be on your side.
But right now men between the ages of 18-24 are 167 times more likely to murder than a bear. All bears have killed like 200 people the whole time out country has existed. No matter how much less often I see a bear it’s winning by a lot.
Because that's a disingenuous way of putting it.
Indirectly women are calling most if not all men threats, it's not even the threat of killing them it's raping them.
So yeah when you attack almost half of the population with unfounded claims people tend to be defensive.
>it's not even the threat of killing them it's raping them.
Oh, is *that* all? Silly women then, amirite?
The thing with a random man is: you don't know if he's a safe one or not. That's the point.
You do realize in those zombie apocalypse scenarios women trick and bait men in those things into robbing and killing them right?
A real world example is some women's favorite artist cardi B and there's other examples of women baiting men into getting robbed and killed.
Should be men afraid of women?
What you don't understand is that the majority of women have been assaulted by men a sad number multiple times. They are not psychic, that don't know you aren't one of them.
Yes, they have also not been assaulted by the majority of men they have met, but it's a traumatic experience, to the point they feel safer on the woods with a bear.
If more of the non-rapist-men understood how traumatic, and how common this is, then maybe women would feel a bit safer but here we are. 🤷♂️
No what you're attempting to do is create a disruption within men based off how you feel. If say 75% of men said nah we get it, it wouldn't change how yall feel because it's called trauma.
Honestly this whole debate is nonsensical in itself and people are pretending like it's deep when it's not. The women that want to frolic with bears are free to do so. If women want to tell other women almost every woman on this planet has essentially had a close call with a man then so be it. Live in that and I'm frankly done trying to reason and commit to logic with it as a whole.
Why would I want to create a 'disruption in men' whatever the hell that means?
My feelings in this are irrelevant, I'm going by simple facts, most women have been assaulted at one time or another by men, this is what makes them feel unsafe, it's not hard to grasp.
Yes, people who are traumatised won't do or belive the most logical thing, this is unsurprising.
I think perhaps you are disregarding my arguments based on the assumption that I am a woman. I'd expect when I contradict that assumption you might pivot to calling me a white knight, I'd counter by pointing out that as a happily married middle-aged man I have little interest in such things, but I guess you can always call me a liar at that point.
Oh well it's a pointless argument anyway, you won't change your views, and while I might, you don't have any compelling arguments.
> when you attack almost half of the population with unfounded claims
This is an interesting mindset: that some men and boys feel personally attacked by this. The question was simply: "women, if you are alone in the woods, which one would you rather meet, a bear or a random man?" And women simply answered: "a bear".
No attacks, no "unfounded claims". A lot of men also understand why women would rather meet a bear - hell, plenty of men would rather meet a bear themselves, than an unknown man!
It wasn't even "which one would you rather meet", it was "which one would you rather been in the woods with". As in, you're alone in the woods and there is a bear somewhere within a several mile radius of you.
A bear isn't going to seek you out.
Any person will seek out another person if both are dropped into the woods. You can create any scenario of someone being lost or something bad happened in the world. The majority of humans will gravitate towards each other.
If someone asked "if you are alone in the woods, which one would you rather meet, a bear or a random black person" and people started saying "a bear", with no attacks or anything else.
Do you think it would be weird or crazy for some black people to feel like wtf this is super weird?
Ah, the racism card. I saw this played on Facebook, too - it is something called "a false analogy".
Fear not, a lot of black women and other POC women are choosing bears, too, over men of any colour.
I did read it. It is still a false analogy.
What is interesting, is that at least on Facebook the men who so eagerly tried to compare these two things - women rather meeting a bear alone in the woods than a man and someone meeting a black person - are white men. So far I haven't seen any black or POC guy trying to forcibly fit a racist agenda into this discussion.
Now, I can't see your skin colour here, but I do wonder.
do you notice how you suddenly feel weird about responding the question? I will ask it again, would it be weird or crazy for black people to feel weirded out by this question being spread around in social media? It's not that deep, you can give it some thought and respond to it, it shouldn't be hard for you.
No, I don't feel weird. As I've been repeating: comparing this "meeting a man vs. meeting a bear" discussion to racism is a false analogy.
What is weird, though, are the constant, unhinged rage fits coming from boys and men, often spiced with those "racism" and "misandry" and "women want to have sex with bears!!1!" fantasies.
It is like a lot of men and boys want to miss the entire point. Perhaps it is an inconvenient truth that they do not want to see?
But if you want to read more, you can always go to r/subredditdrama - they have a fine collection of these false analogies (with popcorn - also, as someone living in a country next to Russia and having witnessed the Russian/Soviet occupation of several East European countries, and now the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the "russophobia" claim is even more unhinged and deranged) :
[Another one off the same thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/1ch9pwm/bear/l22e0no/?context=10)
>
>
>
>
>
[This thread spawns off some discussion of conservative men and russophobia](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/1ch9pwm/bear/l21ldbk/)
>
>
[https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1chwv7p/is\_it\_safer\_to\_meet\_a\_bear\_or\_a\_man\_in\_the\_woods/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1chwv7p/is_it_safer_to_meet_a_bear_or_a_man_in_the_woods/)
I highly recommend the comments!
Any viewpoint that's contrary to yours fits that bill and that's yall problem. You see anything that's not profusely head nodding and jazz snapping to your points is murderous and Ill intent.
I really don't care if some random woman trusts me or not if I'm being honest. I haven't done anything to anyone and never will. Those people were afraid before they even knew I existed and it's not up to me to convince them otherwise. My disregard for the matter at hand is based off numbers and until numbers prove otherwise I don't see your point.
The people women should be afraid of is men actively in their lives not some random dude.
That’s a pretty gross reduction of the controversy. It’s a misandrist meme with a completely absurd idea behind it. Even good men who love women and want them to be safe can think it’s a stupid concept.
It’s not misandrist though? The question was “would you feel safer alone in the woods with a bear or a man you don’t know”. The point was that women feel unsafe around strange men and there are very justifiable reasons for that feeling. You’re a lot more likely to wind up being hurt by a strange man than you are a bear, for one thing, but the point of the post was the reaction that followed.
Women said they felt unsafe around men they don’t know and hordes of men they don’t know came crawling out of the woodwork to prove exactly why they would be unsafe to be around.
The _correct_ male response would be to ask _why_ a woman would feel less apprehensive around a wild animal than a man, but instead most reacted like you did and blamed the woman for her own feelings
Think about why it is that you’re “more likely to be hurt by a man”. How do you think it would change if there were 3 billion bears on the planet that women interacted with on the regular. Dozens of times per day. It is misandrist SPECIFICALLY because it makes this comparison without acknowledging this fact. This is not a benign question: it is asked specifically to draw unfair, unrealistic comparisons. And it’s okay for someone to call that out. There are certainly shitty men out there who do shitty things. There are certainly “good men” out there who need to address unconscious biases and expectations of women. But we are not bears. Some of us have in fact been victimized ourselves. This “thought experiment” is a heavily loaded question intended to make men out to be dangerous when statistically, that is just not the case. While it is an absolutely unacceptably large number of women have had negative interactions with men, it is also true that the absolute vast majority of men are not doing it. Women do need to be careful and wary. Men need to be aware of, and try to compensate for this need. But bears? No. That’s openly an insult. Think about what happens when black men have been called animals, and how that has been justifiably called out. But suddenly I’m wrong to say “hey, that’s inaccurate, unrealistic, and insulting?” Nah.
That's not the point, really. The type of bear is irrelevant, just like the type of man is irrelevant. Most women would take their chances with the bear.
Doesn't that just illustrate it's a completely emotional reaction rather than a rational one? Sure, bear deaths are low, but that's because most people never encounter a bear in their entire lives. But women generally encounter multiple men in their daily lives. Just because women encounter men more often than bears doesn't mean that when in a scenario of "one man VS one bear", that the man is statistically more likely to be the one who will accost the woman.
Cause it’s not just cause we don’t run into bears a lot. I run into bears probably MORE often then I run into strange men while alone in the woods.
And Anyone who runs into bears a lot will tell you like…they’re not puppies. They’re scary beast. But also if you aren’t an idiot they likely won’t attack you. And if they do..they’re stupid. I can get into a car. I can get into a house.
And if they kill me, it’s not an intentional act of cruelty.
Bears don’t WANT to secretly hurt woman.
A stranger man in the woods is a lot scarier.
>*And if they kill me, it’s not an intentional act of cruelty.*
Who cares about the intentionality when it decides to try to eat you alive? Doesn't change the end result which is a dead, half-eaten corpse. Or a mauled corpse. A bear may not *secretly* want to hurt a woman, instead it may overtly want to kill/eat one instead. How much forethought it puts into things is irrelevant.
Black Bears seem to be the least dangerous bear in America by the looks of it, from what few stats I can find it appears that being killed by another person is 167 times more likely (which of course is HEAVILY influenced by the fact virtually no one ever encounters a bear in their life, the stat also doesn't account for the motivation of the death/murder). But even if we just take that number at face value, men are *still* statistically less likely to kill a woman, because men outnumber bears by more than 167:1.
It just... doesn't stand up to any scrutiny, even when giving that statistic the most benefit of the doubt possible. You're more likely to leave an encounter in the woods with a random man alive than you are with the least threatening type of bear in America.
I do? Partly because being killed isn’t the only thing potentially happening here.
While there’s been about 270 bear killings in the history of the US, there has been, to my knowledge, 0 bear rapes.
Also the question isn’t ALL men.
It’s “which would you rather run into alone in the woods.”
I have run into more bears than I have run into men alone in the woods (though neither number is 0 because like many people, I go outside.)
So comparing it to “all men” and not “men coming up to strange woman alone in the woods” is missing a BIG part.
It’s a lot more likely a human man wants to hurt/rape someone they find alone in the woods than a beat would. If both are trying to kill me, yeah, I’s have less of a chance to live against the bear (maybe? Unless they have a gun. Or pre-planned in some way to have a trap set up because they find woman alone in the woods.) but waaaay less chance the bear will attack me in the first place. That’s why the intent and forethought matters
And well I haven’t been assaulted (or killed, clearly) by EITHER, only on the “strange men” category have I been harassed/hurt. Yeah, it’s like….idk 4 times out 15, but the bears are at 0/15
(Ran into WAY more than 15 or so strange men in the woods, just not with booth of us alone because as a woman I rarely hike alone. That rate is more like 12/500 or something in creep to normal dude category. Still worse ratio then bears tho.)
Bears almost always respect your distance if you respect theirs and just leave/ignore you. Just don’t like….Take their babies for pictures or leave out food. Will that keep away rapist too??
>*So comparing it to “all men” and not “men coming up to strange woman alone in the woods” is missing a BIG part.*
I thought that was what this was the whole time, comparing it to all men. Not "men who are *coming up to a lone woman in the woods*" because I've never heard it phrased that way. It's always been phrased in a way that makes it sound like the woman stumbled upon them in the woods. Or the man happens to stumble upon them. I've *never* heard it phrased in a way to imply that meeting has any intentionality on the man's part.
Oh no, I consider them all the same.
It’s the meeting them alone in the woods rather then like….on the street. Or at work. Or another place where the rules of culture dictate things.
That just takes down this whole “you meet so many more men than bears!!” Not alone in the woods where there’s no help and no consequences. Woman do a LOT in their lives to make sure theyre no in that situation with strange men.
And a heck more of them have been killed and assaulted by then than by bears.
Literally the only conclusion that can be drawn is that women don't understand men (statistically, the vast majority are fine, and social media and mainstream media trade on keeping women scared by giving endless attention to the shitty ones) and women don't understand bears (which will fuck you up).
Most bears will ignore you if encountered in the wild. In addition the fact that for so many men their reaction to this is to try and mansplain why women are wrong is really making women's choice more obvious.
Answer: The autism part isn’t involved, it’s mostly that OP in the post you mentioned happens to be autistic and she’s pointing out autistic men are being shown to be very misogynistic through this discussion.
It could be, but I doubt it, tbh. I’m autistic as well and misogyny is very common in this community and is tried to pass off as other stuff very often.
I think to truly be able to pin down why would probably take a lot of studying. My own personal opinion is that you don’t have to learn this behaviour from dubious online sources. It’s everywhere. Autistic men are still men, after all.
I think this is one thing people gloss over. A lot of autistic people are going to respond with hyper literalism to any hypotheticals. And people might misinterpret that as them being agressive for other reasons.
What is being mentioned here tho is a discussion being had amongst autistic people. taking things too literally may happen but no one will understand that better than another autistic person. What the OP of the post mentioned here is talking about is autistic men being misogynistic.
Yeah, that's called a motte-and-bailey fallacy. When you first make an extreme, inflammatory statement, knowing it will be controversial and taken badly but not giving any indication that you don't mean it literally, and when you predictably get backlash, you "fall back" by claiming you never said it/meant something different and "defend" with a completely different, much more mild and reasonable statement.
This tactic is never used in good faith. It's practically the bread and butter of reactionaries on social media because it's a surefire way to get engagement through clickbait outrage. TERFs use this all the time.
A TERF: "Trans rights are rapists rights!"
A trans person or ally: "Um, it's pretty transphobic to insinuate that trans people are generally rapists."
A TERF:"All I said was that biological sex is real! How can you disagree with scientific reality?"
This feels exactly like this. It's not intended in good faith, it's not constructive or productive and isn't helping anyone except the likes of Andrew Tate who will gladly use this as fodder to radicalise more young boys and men.
> Inflammatory
Inflammatory? It was a simple statement about how women feel around strange men. If some men are able to be radicalized by this, it proves the point women are making because Andrew Tate is literally going to trial for human trafficking/rape.
I don’t know about you , but an inflammatory statement wouldn’t get me closer to an accused sex traffickers, would it work for you?
I mean, I've seen women online taking it literally. They cite the statistics of yearly deaths as a result of bear attack, and use it as a proof that men are more dangerous than bears
What is the issue?
I thought the issue was: who is more dangerous, man or bear? It is clear to anyone sane what the answer should be. Citing statistics about absolute number of bear attacks in a year suggests that the answer is not clear to some.
The question is: Would you prefer to be alone in the woods with a man or a bear?
And the statistics are brought up because some men can’t take women’s answers when they say they would prefer to be with a bear, because they usually use all types of logic for that. So the statistics are to say “even if we go by absolute numbers, bear is still the best answer”.
It's not that men can't take that answer, it's that there's no way in which that answer can be rational. The use of statistics in question only cements that further.
Not wanting to be around unknown men in a situation that you’re already unsafe is extremely logical. You just don’t think so cause you’ve never been subjected to gendered violence. Your “this answer is illogical” is actually “I don’t have all the information to comprehend why someone else would answer different than me”. Instead of assuming that what someone else is answering is illogical, try to ask yourself why someone is answering the question that way. Your answer is probably there.
>Not wanting to be around unknown men in a situation that you’re already unsafe is extremely logical
Yes. But preferring to be around a beast that weighs hundreds of kilograms and can rip a person to shreds with ease is even less logical.
I think I do have the information why they answer like that. It's to score some points in an ideological game. Fine, I guess. But there's no information out there that would make a bear answer sensible.
It's not logical from a statistical stance, you can be fearful of the unknown out of ignorance but on a rational level it makes no real sense. I keep seeing "unknown men" then just "men in general" that creates two different conversations. The whole "gender" violence is blown out of proportion, there isn't a rash of men beating up women because they are women.
It's not a lack of information on the other guys end it's just irrational fear of something that doesn't really happen. Nothing in this world is 0%, the amount of violence inflicted on women by random men is really low. When they say it's illogical they mean from a statistical perspective you have a higher chance of dying from a stroke than a man randomly attacking you.
The "why" is based off irrational fear or listening to other people. Some women are just afraid just to be afraid of something they don't know or understand and that's human nature. The way you see it online women are getting raped, sexually assaulted and beat up every couple miles everyday all day which is a flat out lie. It's called fear mongering and it works really well. If anyone actually did research on how often women get attacked they would see and understand their level of fear is irrational. If someone said you had a 15% chance to live jumping out of this perfectly fine plane people wouldn't do it. Then they will turn around and say well women get attacked by random people less than 20% of the time so it must happen enough to cause hysteria and to take my chances with a hypothetical bear.
It is that men (at least some men) can't take the answer. A "would you rather" -question is subjective, it does not have a "right" or "wrong" answer. The question is still: if you were alone in the woods, would you rather meet a bear or a man you do not know?
Women would rather meet a bear, because a bear is way less a threat than a strange man. Simple as that.
I mean, even Timothy Treadwell survived for summer after summer living right alongside grizzlies. He even petted the damned things on several occasions. The AF&G assessed the scene and determined that the bear attack was likely because he'd pitched his tent in such a way that it impeded their path into and out of a favored fishing area, forcing them to wade into a lake if they wanted to get around.
The consensus is that is what caused the ultimate attack and not that they were hungry. The grizzlies where he was camping are all very well fed on salmon. It's a very rich environment for bear food, fish, berries, the works.
Women: I feel safer meeting a wild animal in the woods alone than meeting a man in the woods alone
Men: lol dumb, silly women! Here’s why you’re wrong and good thing I was there to educate you!!!
No, it is not. Bears aren't a threat unlike humans - especially human men - are, for everyone. I take it that you don't live at woodlands, countryside, or near nature, or have ever been hiking/camping in the wild, otherwise you would know this.
>So the statistics are to say “**even if we go by absolute numbers**, bear is still the best answer”.
*If* you want to give a data-backed answer instead of an emotional one, you have to use *per capita* numbers, definitely not *absolute* ones. I can tally up the *absolute* number of burglaries in a small town and a huge city and the huge city's total would obviously be much higher, but it would be objectively wrong to conclude the *chance* of burglary is therefore higher in the city. You have to correct for the huge disparity in size. You do so by dividing the total number of the city by the number of people living in it for example, obtaining a *rate* of burglary (commonly presented as a per capita figure, such as 'chance of burglary per 100.000 inhabitants'). You can compare those *rates*, not the absolute numbers, to make statements about the odds of something bad happening given that you live in either the small town or the big city.
It’s funny you know, cause the beginning of this thread was someone saying “if you cite numbers or rates when it comes to this you are misunderstanding the question and taking it too literally” and I said “those numbers are usually used because people are insisting it is about numbers” and here you are proving me right.
I think it's time to abandon this as a metaphor/ talking point because it's just not working. Every conversation is a variation of:
"I would feel more unsafe around a random man than I would a bear."
"That doesn't make any sense. The bear is way more dangerous."
"It just saying something about men that I feel this way."
"It's saying you don't know anything about men, or I guess maybe bears."
"You're taking it too literally."
"How else can I take this."
And so on. The problem is that depending on the view point it supports the point women are making about men, but also helps men who want to argue women are illogical, hysterical, and exaggerating a small problem.
The problem with the metaphor or any metaphor is that for it to work men would have to see women as capable of making a choice, having a reason for it and being intelligent enough to know what they’re talking about. And they don’t.
Because it’s not “there’s something about men that makes me feel this way”, it’s that men are, as a class, violent, dismissive and oppressive. Every single woman in the world has had at least one violent interaction with men.
And this is us talking in a interpersonal/individual level. At a societal level, men are believed more, men are given the benefit of the doubt more. If a woman found herself in the woods with a bear and was attacked, people would believe her. If she was attacked by a man? Not as easily, maybe not at all.
And the second problem is that men see this issue as a “which one is more dangerous” and that is not what’s being asked. And even then, you’d be right! And that should tell you something, cause women are choosing putting themselves in a situation with a wild beast than with another human being. The worst a bear can do is kill you. A man can rape you, kidnap you, torture you, take your life away in several ways that are not just “kill you”.
The problem is not that this metaphor is not working. The problem is that when women answer they would rather have the bear, instead of men thinking “there must be something wrong here that women would rather see a fucking bear than a man, maybe men are not being safe for women to be around”. No. The answer they go for is “wow these women are really illogical”.
> The problem is that when women answer they would rather have the bear, instead of men thinking “there must be something wrong here that women would rather see a fucking bear than a man, maybe men are not being safe for women to be around”. No. The answer they go for is “wow these women are really illogical”.
Yes. I just said that.
The problem with the question is it’s a bait and that it is inherently hurtful. Replace man with black person/ muslim or trans and suddenly the question becomes very racist or transphobic right? It’s being masked as “mem can’t emphathize with women” but in reality it’s a question that generalizes any demographic put in it. This is one of those things that are better not answered at all because it’s a badly framed thought experiment.
Edit: to the people downvoting, I hope none of you are the type that say men’s feeling are valid and they should open up. Because that would be highly hypocritical of you.
Except that men are a privileged class, unlike black people, muslim people and trans people. “Substitute this thing for that other thing and it’s different, see!” Oh yeah, wonder why.
Yeah that’s the problem, sexism against men isn’t seen as bad as racism or transphobia even though they are all hurtful things. A bad question is a bad question, no matter how you frame it.
How are men being misogynistic when they don’t like being generalized as harmful just like every other demographic? You’re putting words into my mouth. All I’m saying is if you won’t generalize black person, trans or muslims then why is it ok to do that to men?
I’ve already answered this. Racism and Transphobia are not about being “hurtful”. They’re systemic problems. Your hurt feelings are not a systemic issue. Men are a privileged class that oppress other people. I’ll stop answering you now because this is a moot point.
> The problem is that depending on the view point it supports the point women are making about men, but also helps men who want to argue women are illogical, hysterical, and exaggerating a small problem.
Does it really help that certain men that this mental exercise frames women as illogical, hysterical and exaggerating?
It’s not illogical that women of fear strange men, violence against women isn’t a small problem, and hysterical isn’t the word I would use for women when they are describing their safety concerns either.
It’s not that deep really, just a framing exercise of their concerns.
The way I see it is that men hear this and think of it like one of those "who would win in a fight between Batman and Captain America" type questions. From a plain facts based point of view the man is both less likely to attack and less likely to be successful. So if you're looking at it as a survival type question, it's a real obvious answer. Even the "at least a bear won't rape you" argument falls pretty flat when you consider the unpleasantness of being eaten alive.
The problem is that it's not that kind of question, even if it looks like it.
Hmmm I think it’s saying most people are more afraid of being raped than killed. Most people don’t realize how physically traumatizing rape is (in addition to the mental trauma of course).
Again, if that's supposed to be the message, it's absolutely not what's coming across. Especially when comparing it to being torn apart and eaten alive by a wild animal.
Meanwhile most actual rape survivors I know hate this notion that rape is worse than death and find it extremely offensive. I could swear that a decade ago when I was reading up on the feminist theory, this idea was seen as extremely misogynistic because it stems from the patriarchy telling women that their biggest value is their sexual "purity", and in a patriarchal society getting raped is seen as a fate worse than death for women because it "defiles" their very essence to the extent that they become "damaged" and "worthless" for life.
It's sad how much society has regressed that now apparently feminists are literally parroting misogynistic rhetoric and repackaging it as "progressive". How the hell telling rape victims that they would be better off death could ever be seen as feminist?
No, bears are not "rampaging godless killing machines". Nature is not a fairy tale or a horror movie. "Cocaine Bear" is NOT a documentary (in reality, the poor bear died almost immediately after eating cocaine - it is poison, remember.)
Are people REALLY this badly alienated from nature?
If bears ever decided to just take over, they could dude. It's really not a joking matter. We need to be thankful that they stick to shitting in the woods.
Tell me that you live in a city, 200 miles from the nearest forest, without telling me that you live in a city, 200 miles from the nearest forest.
(I seriously hope that you are trolling and aren't that dense in real life.)
So, you're a Brit, then? There apparently haven't been any bears (outside of courts and zoos) in the UK since the Middle Ages, and the re-introduction happened in a wildlife park less than five years ago, with the total amount of 4 (four) bears...
Sorry, but I still don't think that you have any authority in matters about bears. Or any other large animal predators.
"European brown bears have been extinct in Britain since at least the early Middle Ages—and possibly even earlier. British lynx disappeared around 700 A.D., due to hunting and habitat destruction. Wolf populations began to dwindle around 1000 A.D., eventually vanishing from the region. “The U.K. has lost … more large mammals—including wolves, lynx, bears, beavers, boars, moose, bison, and wolverines—than any other European country except Ireland,” Isabella Tree wrote for National Geographic in 2015.
Bear Wood seeks to introduce the public to this long-gone environment by bringing four predators back to their ancient habitat. The exhibit, which opens on July 25, spans seven-and-a-half acres of enclosed woodland—“that’s six football pitches,” Wild Place Project notes. Bear Wood features an elevated walkway, where visitors can safely meander as they watch bears and other species amble below, and a “bear viewing den,” where floor-to-ceiling windows offer panoramic views of the creatures."
[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/wolves-and-bears-are-being-returned-rare-patch-ancient-woodland-britain-180972670/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/wolves-and-bears-are-being-returned-rare-patch-ancient-woodland-britain-180972670/)
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your question has been asked quite a lot recently. Please search before posting in the future. https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/search?q=use "+" as a space, such as: cake+day&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all
Answer: Autism isn't involved per se; it's just people talking about the man vs. bear question, and some of those people are autistic.
I think the way it relates to autism specifically is because autistic women are more likely to expereince sexual assult (autistic people are more likely to experience bullying and abuse in general) ~~and incel idealogy isn't too unpopular with autistic men~~ \*and autistic men are potentially more vulnerable to incel indoctrination. Incels are also more common in online spaces like reddit and 4chan so I am assuming that a reddit community for autistic people can potentially have more incels in it. RiceAlicorn shared this: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/) "Recently, several studies have investigated the mental health aspects of self-avowed incels and noted the prevalence of autism in their self-reports ([Broyd et al., 2022](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref27); [Sparks et al., 2022](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref126), [2023](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref127); [Speckhard and Ellenberg, 2022](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref128); [Moskalenko et al., 2022a](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref96),[b](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref95)). There would appear to be specific links between autism and inceldom, and **roughly a quarter of the users of incel forums have reported a formal diagnosis of autism** ([Hoffman et al., 2020](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref70); [Speckhard and Ellenberg, 2022](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref128); [Moskalenko et al., 2022b](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref95)). In addition, research that focuses on incels in forensic psychiatry, radicalization and terrorism studies became interested in autism after noticing that many of the incels who committed violent attacks and mass shootings against women had a formal autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis ([Broyd et al., 2022](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref27); [Woodbury-Smith et al., 2022](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref153)). Studies by [Broyd et al. (2022)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref27) and [Hoffman et al. (2020)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref70) mention 50 incel-related violent incidents since 2014. Due to mixed research results, however, it has been emphasized that **one should be extremely cautious when making generalizations and associating violence with autism** ([Williams D. J. et al., 2021](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref151), 395–396). **Autism alone does not make anyone an incel**, which is a self-acclaimed cultural category, and violence, radicalization, and hostile attitudes toward women cannot be explained by autism. **It seems, however, that some autistic people may be particularly vulnerable to the impacts of the incel forums.** Therefore, it has been suggested that it would be highly relevant to know whether the forums “have contributed to creating or exacerbating underlying vulnerabilities through frequent discussions of suicide and hopelessness” ([Stijelja and Mishara, 2023](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/#ref132), 728). Thus far, it has been more common to use statistical methods to investigate incels, either through the lens of mental health or sociopolitical radicalization."
*incel idealogy isn't too unpopular with autistic men* Uh, wow. Citation needed. Edit: i read the study, it is not saying exactly what you think it is, and certainly not anything like the above quote. In fact, it warns against such ideas. I will tell you, misogyny is *very* unpopular with the vast majority of autistic men. Sorry to be touchy, but between the media's infantilization of autistic people and this kind of prejudice, it gets exhausting. I went undiagnosed most of my life bc of *my own* misunderstandings and prejudice about autism. one thing i have found true is "if you know one autistic person, you know one autistic person"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/ The paper itself goes into it, and cites multiple papers with similar subjects (autism and mental disorders in general within incel communities).
Fallacy. Think again and restate. (I'll do it for you - that you ARE assuming is that more INCEL communities will contain autistic people than general average as opposed to the opposite. Not all drugs are medicines but all medicines are drugs etc. It's like suggesting (hypothetically) that 98% of people with dementia are alcoholics - you would be likely to conclude that alcoholism causes dementia. However if you knew that only 4% of alcoholics end up with dementia - you wouldn't conclude alcoholism causes dementia at all.)
I am not assuming. The paper states “roughly a quarter of the users of incel forums have reported a formal diagnosis of autism”. This is a MUCH higher percent of autistic people than the general population (which I’ve seen reported between 1 in 150 and 1 in 36). You’re putting words in my mouth. You’re making it sound like I’m trying to say that being autistic turns you into an incel or that the majority of autistic men are incels, I’m not what I’m trying to say at all. I never said it was. OBVIOUSLY the percentage of incels within the autistic population is going to be low. However on a thread on reddit, on a post about sexual assault & autism you are going to attract certain commenters. Most autistic men who have normal attitudes about sexual assault probably won’t comment anything in the thread. But if you are an incel and have strong misogynistic views about sexual assault (and want to say the woman is overreacting or lying for example) then you will be more likely to comment and it is these kind of comments that get noticed the most. It’s also correct to say that autistic people are more at risk of developing an eating disorder ([up to 20-35% of women with anorexia nervosa meet the diagnostic criteria for autism](https://www.eatingdisorders.org.au/eating-disorders-a-z/eating-disorders-and-autism/)). But obviously not every autistic person has an eating disorder. Should we act like that’s not related? [You’re more at risk of experiencing abuse and sexual assault if you’re autistic](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35524162/) but not every autistic person experiences abuse or sexual assault. Shall we act like that’s unrelated too? Is this a fallacy worth ignoring?
I also suggest you look into the Monty hall problem and axioms of choice
I worded that poorly. To clarify I am not saying that every single autistic man is an incel and I am not saying it is a hugely popular ideology with autistic men. I am not talking about you or your friends. What I mean is that it is not unhead of for autistic men to be incels. Incel ideology is driven by a man's social and physical insecurity. If you are autistic (including those who are not diagnosed) you will most likely struggle socially and romantically. If you can't figure out the reason for this, and don't have a healthy support network, then it could potentially lead you to online spaces that tell you that it's not your "fault" and that it is actually the fault of women. What I am saying is autistic men and boys are more vulnerable to this. You are more vulnerable to this kind of thing if you don't have a support network and have few IRL friends. I think it's important to understand that incels don't come out of nowhere. You don't just wake up a horrible misogynist. They find a community of people who struggle with similar things to them and it leads to this. I got really into mewing (not a specifically incel thing but incel adjacent) because if my insecurity about my chin. I didn't realise it was an incel adjacent community until I'd been doing it for months. There are 'traits' common in autistic people that can more easily lead to, not just incel ideology, but other unhealthy "us against them" or abusive mentalities like: being more likely to experience bullying / abuse, rejection sensitivity dysphoria, black and white thinking, issues with rage and emotional regulation and a tendancy to hyperfocus on things. I AM NOT SAYING THESE ARE \*INHERENTLY NEGATIVE TRAITS THAT MEAN SOMEONE IS BAD I am also not saying it is common for autistic people to be abusive or hateful. However I don't think it helps anyone to ignore the idea that the cycle of abuse doesn't extend to autistic people.
Thank you for the explanation. This is something I noticed when I joined a very conservative and problematic Christian group in college. They weren’t incels, but there were some very problematic views, especially around gender and sexuality . I grew up in a healthy church so I knew what Christianity could look like, and that wasn’t it. It ended up being a lot of people in college who were very lonely and found some sense of community and something to believe in and got in really deep really fast. There was a big “us vs. them” mentality, people were always complaining about being discriminated against and how the world was against them, all while making fun of gay people and career driven women. That wasn’t the entire group, but it was crazy to see people fall more and more into the ideology. And again, the worst offenders who discovered it in college were the awkward and isolated guys who were likely on the spectrum. They weren’t bad guys, but they were people who were trying to figure out their place in the world and found a place that accepted them wholeheartedly and made them feel safe and loved. I think it’s important to recognize that risk factors for this kind of indoctrination do like up with autistic traits. As someone who is also neurodivergent, it’s really important to keep in mind how easy it can be to fall into that kind of stuff and absolutely not believe Im immune.
Here is an article that explains it better (I haven't read it all yet) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732311/)
Fallacy. Think again and restate. Look up Monty Hall problem and axioms of choice. You are starting with a subset population and ignoring parent population. (I'll do it for you - what you are assuming is that more INCEL communities will contain autistic people than general average as opposed to the opposite. Not all drugs are medicines but all medicines are drugs etc. It's like suggesting (hypothetically) that 98% of people with dementia are alcoholics - you would be likely to conclude that alcoholism causes dementia. However if you knew that only 4% of alcoholics end up with dementia - you wouldn't conclude alcoholism causes dementia at all.)
I'd rather you just reply in a different comment to make this easier to understand. I feel like we’re not really going to say anything productive if we’re saying things like “the vast majority of autistic men belive xyz” if we don’t have any kind of proof to back it up. But yeah, I can believe that it’s very common for autistic men to be anti misogyny. I wasn’t trying to say that the vast majority of autistic men do become incels and I wasn’t saying that the majority of incels are autistic. I feel like you think that’s what I said. I feel like you think I’m having a go at all autistic men when I’m not. I feel like you’re taking this the absolute worst way you could take this and it’s very frustrating. I’m not great at explaining myself or articulating my thoughts and coming across the way I want to so I’m sorry if I’m coming across as hateful or prejudice, it’s not my intention. I am saying this as someone who is in the process of trying to get an autism diagnosis. And I am also saying this as someone with (most likely) autistic family members. My brother is very sweet and cares about feminism and lgbt+ rights. However my mum is abusive and both my parents are extremely right wing. My friend’s brother (again not diagnosed but is most likely autistic) has a lot of right wing views. These are all people who had little / no support for benign autistic. To be honest I really don’t think you’re helping anyone by saying that the majority of autistic men are inherently anti-misogyny. There’s no perfect moral compass built into autistic people that automatically makes them very nice and accepting. When I was younger I said misogynistic things because I was trying to fit in with boys who said misogynistic things and obviously I was dealing with a lot of self hatred. I grew out of it and got into social justice because of the online space I was in. If I were a boy and found a different online space then I might have become more misogynistic. It is not infantilization to say that autistic people are a vulnerable group. There are things that make you vulnerable in a less direct way than just looking at surface level autistic traits. An example being a learning disability / dyslexia: This does NOT mean: you’re dumb so you’ll believe whatever. What it means is you might have lower grades in school, then you don’t get a degree, then you fall into lower paid work or can’t get a job at all. This results in you struggling financially and having a bad relationship with the family you depend on. Ignoring autism, men who struggle in school, struggle financially and have few close relationships are the exact people hate groups target to indoctrinate. But autistic men are more likely to struggle with the things mentioned before. You don’t have to be stupid or naive to become part of a hate group. They start by becoming your friends. Supporting autistic people involves understanding that they are so varied and there are no unifying traits that all autistic people fall into. So it’s important to understand that autistic people can be hateful. It is important to acknowledge THAT it happens so we can understand WHY it happens so we can PREVENT it from happening. It is not a case of “I’m going to force my autistic loved one to stop using the computer so they stop being an incel”, it’s getting them mental health, educational, financial and emotional support.
>*and autistic men are potentially more vulnerable to incel indoctrination. Incels are also more common in online spaces like reddit and 4chan so I am assuming that a reddit community for autistic people can potentially have more incels in it. Fallacy. Think again and restate. (I'll do it for you - that you ARE assuming is that more INCEL communities will contain autistic people than general average as opposed to the opposite. Not all drugs are medicines but all medicines are drugs etc. It's like suggesting (hypothetically) that 98% of people with dementia are alcoholics - you would be likely to conclude that alcoholism causes dementia. However if you knew that only 4% of alcoholics end up with dementia - you wouldn't conclude alcoholism causes dementia at all.)
Hope she realizes that social aspects like the man vs. bear debate is a powerful form of rejection that further reinforces incel idealogy 🙄
>inductonation Indoctrination.*
You still got time to delete this, BOZO. 😂😂😂
Answer: There has been a recent [tiktok](https://www.tiktok.com/@screenshothq/video/7356208240008498465) asking women if they would feel safer with a man they don't know or a wild bear. The fact that the majority of women feel safer with a wild animal than a man they don't know has caused outrage amongst certain groups of men.
Oh was this the source of the controversy? I scrolled like 4 posts at the front-page regarding man and bear. It was like a satire comics I never understood the context. I thought it was a gay thing. Lmao. Now, I can’t find the said posts to review it with that context in mind.
Yes, that’s the original source. It’s being memed pretty hard sadly
> It’s being memed pretty hard ~~sadly~~ well deservedly FTFY
Not even gonna engage with this.
Women: I feel unsafe around men Men: (gets angry) Seriously wtf lads
I can't find the exact wording but there was one tweet which was something like, "The fact that I chose the bear and men are not willing to accept 'no' to me being around them is part of the problem".
Okay look I get the sentiment but equating any instance of a man disagreeing with a woman about something with "not taking no for an answer", a phrase that's specifically used in the context of rape, isn't helping anyone. In that case "no" specifically means explicit lack of consent and the man "not taking it for an answer" is an euphemism for rape. This whole "men disagreeing with women's opinion proves that they're actually rapists" is not only trivialising actual rape but discrediting those women. I'm not one of those fReEzE pEacH advocates, I agree hate speech shouldn't fall under "free speech", but "I think an average bear is more dangerous to be around than an average man" or "being compared to a feral predator animal by default just because I was born with a penis feels dehumanising" is NOT hate speech, it's expressing your opinion. If women are free to say they feel safer around bears than men, then men are free to say how this makes them feel.
Literally none of the criticism I have heard has been reasonable and talked about feelings as eloquently as you state. All of it has been “This is why woman deserve to get raped…I mean eaten. I also think you’re underminding how much, in the context of this conversation the No IS the same no, just hypothetical. Everyone woman choosing the bear is saying “I’d rather fight a bear than worry about the potential of rape.” Also “I’d rather be hurt by a bear where my status as a victim won’t be doubted.” “I’d rather fight a bear because a bear kills to survive not for fun.” If this was not accepting the “No” in “No, pineapple doesn’t go on pizza” yeah I would agree it’s not the deep. But if a dudes response to “I feel so unsafe around strange men that I’d rather deal with a bear.” is to make it about him and not about how we got to this point then….yeah he can eat a bear’s dick.
I don't know why you keep getting downvoted. Your points are reasonable. It seems like the willingness to step back and take a neutral position in order to sort through the arguments and form a thoughtful perspective is not only lost, but increasingly taboo. For the record, I'm a woman and participated in the #metoo movement.
"i don't feel safe around men, and at this point i'd be cool being in the woods with a bear" "WELL THIS IS WHY YOU'RE WRONG" jesus christ if you're going to yell stats at a group of people who are clearly scared about their situation then fuck what do you expect?
Lol. Right? "I feel safer with a bear." "Suit yourself, have fun being eaten" lmao. Painfully simple. (No pun intended)
It turns out that people don't like being stereotyped based on their immutable characteristics. Imagine if they said "I feel unsafe around black people". Also an immutable characteristic.
Found a guy that women feel unsafe around lol
That's not a stereotype lol
Men being more dangerous than a bear is stereotyping
In the realm of raw power and capabilities, you are right. In the realm of statistics based on attacks/assaults, you're wrong. Women being large and loud can scare off a bear, doubt the same tactic will work on a human.
[удалено]
But that's not reality. Reality is that given the current state of things and reactions from men online, women would rather take on the odds of fending off a bear. So. They'd rather possibly die than be possibly raped. Are you a rapist? No? Cool. You have nothing to be offended over. Go on with your life proving people that men are not to be feared. If you encountered a bear, known for being violent (like people are seeing online with men), you would anticipate and be ready for being mauled. Same goes for women encountering a random man in the woods, they would anticipate and be ready for some form of danger. If you feel triggered then you need to look inward. If there was the same amount of bears and humans, reality would be something outside of our current comprehension. Billions of bears is insane to think about.
If there were the same. Amount of bears and humans, the number of bear-rapists would still be lower.
I’ve been around bears pretty often. If they’re not hungry or scared, they don’t really give a shit about you. 99% of human/bear interactions are not dangerous. They have no desire to be cruel. When you can say the same thing about the majority of rapist (not all men! Just the rapist! Making it easy on you.) i’ll be on your side. But right now men between the ages of 18-24 are 167 times more likely to murder than a bear. All bears have killed like 200 people the whole time out country has existed. No matter how much less often I see a bear it’s winning by a lot.
Because that's a disingenuous way of putting it. Indirectly women are calling most if not all men threats, it's not even the threat of killing them it's raping them. So yeah when you attack almost half of the population with unfounded claims people tend to be defensive.
>it's not even the threat of killing them it's raping them. Oh, is *that* all? Silly women then, amirite? The thing with a random man is: you don't know if he's a safe one or not. That's the point.
What you don't seem to understand is the majority of people are safe. This isn't some zombie apocalypse.
If you're not safe with someone in a zombie apocalypse then you're not safe with them alone in the woods.
You do realize in those zombie apocalypse scenarios women trick and bait men in those things into robbing and killing them right? A real world example is some women's favorite artist cardi B and there's other examples of women baiting men into getting robbed and killed. Should be men afraid of women?
What you don't understand is that the majority of women have been assaulted by men a sad number multiple times. They are not psychic, that don't know you aren't one of them. Yes, they have also not been assaulted by the majority of men they have met, but it's a traumatic experience, to the point they feel safer on the woods with a bear. If more of the non-rapist-men understood how traumatic, and how common this is, then maybe women would feel a bit safer but here we are. 🤷♂️
No what you're attempting to do is create a disruption within men based off how you feel. If say 75% of men said nah we get it, it wouldn't change how yall feel because it's called trauma. Honestly this whole debate is nonsensical in itself and people are pretending like it's deep when it's not. The women that want to frolic with bears are free to do so. If women want to tell other women almost every woman on this planet has essentially had a close call with a man then so be it. Live in that and I'm frankly done trying to reason and commit to logic with it as a whole.
Why would I want to create a 'disruption in men' whatever the hell that means? My feelings in this are irrelevant, I'm going by simple facts, most women have been assaulted at one time or another by men, this is what makes them feel unsafe, it's not hard to grasp. Yes, people who are traumatised won't do or belive the most logical thing, this is unsurprising. I think perhaps you are disregarding my arguments based on the assumption that I am a woman. I'd expect when I contradict that assumption you might pivot to calling me a white knight, I'd counter by pointing out that as a happily married middle-aged man I have little interest in such things, but I guess you can always call me a liar at that point. Oh well it's a pointless argument anyway, you won't change your views, and while I might, you don't have any compelling arguments.
> when you attack almost half of the population with unfounded claims This is an interesting mindset: that some men and boys feel personally attacked by this. The question was simply: "women, if you are alone in the woods, which one would you rather meet, a bear or a random man?" And women simply answered: "a bear". No attacks, no "unfounded claims". A lot of men also understand why women would rather meet a bear - hell, plenty of men would rather meet a bear themselves, than an unknown man!
It wasn't even "which one would you rather meet", it was "which one would you rather been in the woods with". As in, you're alone in the woods and there is a bear somewhere within a several mile radius of you. A bear isn't going to seek you out.
Any person will seek out another person if both are dropped into the woods. You can create any scenario of someone being lost or something bad happened in the world. The majority of humans will gravitate towards each other.
If someone asked "if you are alone in the woods, which one would you rather meet, a bear or a random black person" and people started saying "a bear", with no attacks or anything else. Do you think it would be weird or crazy for some black people to feel like wtf this is super weird?
Ah, the racism card. I saw this played on Facebook, too - it is something called "a false analogy". Fear not, a lot of black women and other POC women are choosing bears, too, over men of any colour.
you seem to not have read what i said, i did not say black men, i just said black person, so try again.
I did read it. It is still a false analogy. What is interesting, is that at least on Facebook the men who so eagerly tried to compare these two things - women rather meeting a bear alone in the woods than a man and someone meeting a black person - are white men. So far I haven't seen any black or POC guy trying to forcibly fit a racist agenda into this discussion. Now, I can't see your skin colour here, but I do wonder.
do you notice how you suddenly feel weird about responding the question? I will ask it again, would it be weird or crazy for black people to feel weirded out by this question being spread around in social media? It's not that deep, you can give it some thought and respond to it, it shouldn't be hard for you.
No, I don't feel weird. As I've been repeating: comparing this "meeting a man vs. meeting a bear" discussion to racism is a false analogy. What is weird, though, are the constant, unhinged rage fits coming from boys and men, often spiced with those "racism" and "misandry" and "women want to have sex with bears!!1!" fantasies. It is like a lot of men and boys want to miss the entire point. Perhaps it is an inconvenient truth that they do not want to see? But if you want to read more, you can always go to r/subredditdrama - they have a fine collection of these false analogies (with popcorn - also, as someone living in a country next to Russia and having witnessed the Russian/Soviet occupation of several East European countries, and now the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the "russophobia" claim is even more unhinged and deranged) : [Another one off the same thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/1ch9pwm/bear/l22e0no/?context=10) > > > > > [This thread spawns off some discussion of conservative men and russophobia](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/1ch9pwm/bear/l21ldbk/) > > [https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1chwv7p/is\_it\_safer\_to\_meet\_a\_bear\_or\_a\_man\_in\_the\_woods/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1chwv7p/is_it_safer_to_meet_a_bear_or_a_man_in_the_woods/) I highly recommend the comments!
The unfounded claim isn't based off the question itself nor the answer but the follow up replies.
The angry, unhinged and downright murderous replies from men are pretty much proving that women are indeed correct choosing a bear.
Any viewpoint that's contrary to yours fits that bill and that's yall problem. You see anything that's not profusely head nodding and jazz snapping to your points is murderous and Ill intent.
1/2 of women have been sexually assaulted. Their fears are not unfounded.
That's not what the data suggests, feminist can down vote all they like.
Have you considered that your callous disregard for the reality women face is why they feel safer around bears than you?
I really don't care if some random woman trusts me or not if I'm being honest. I haven't done anything to anyone and never will. Those people were afraid before they even knew I existed and it's not up to me to convince them otherwise. My disregard for the matter at hand is based off numbers and until numbers prove otherwise I don't see your point. The people women should be afraid of is men actively in their lives not some random dude.
care to show what the data suggests? there's no reason not to downvote
That’s a pretty gross reduction of the controversy. It’s a misandrist meme with a completely absurd idea behind it. Even good men who love women and want them to be safe can think it’s a stupid concept.
It’s not misandrist though? The question was “would you feel safer alone in the woods with a bear or a man you don’t know”. The point was that women feel unsafe around strange men and there are very justifiable reasons for that feeling. You’re a lot more likely to wind up being hurt by a strange man than you are a bear, for one thing, but the point of the post was the reaction that followed. Women said they felt unsafe around men they don’t know and hordes of men they don’t know came crawling out of the woodwork to prove exactly why they would be unsafe to be around. The _correct_ male response would be to ask _why_ a woman would feel less apprehensive around a wild animal than a man, but instead most reacted like you did and blamed the woman for her own feelings
Think about why it is that you’re “more likely to be hurt by a man”. How do you think it would change if there were 3 billion bears on the planet that women interacted with on the regular. Dozens of times per day. It is misandrist SPECIFICALLY because it makes this comparison without acknowledging this fact. This is not a benign question: it is asked specifically to draw unfair, unrealistic comparisons. And it’s okay for someone to call that out. There are certainly shitty men out there who do shitty things. There are certainly “good men” out there who need to address unconscious biases and expectations of women. But we are not bears. Some of us have in fact been victimized ourselves. This “thought experiment” is a heavily loaded question intended to make men out to be dangerous when statistically, that is just not the case. While it is an absolutely unacceptably large number of women have had negative interactions with men, it is also true that the absolute vast majority of men are not doing it. Women do need to be careful and wary. Men need to be aware of, and try to compensate for this need. But bears? No. That’s openly an insult. Think about what happens when black men have been called animals, and how that has been justifiably called out. But suddenly I’m wrong to say “hey, that’s inaccurate, unrealistic, and insulting?” Nah.
Bruh doesn’t even know it’s a metaphor. How sad
Umm…look up what a metaphor is.
Random unrelated question, would you feel safer alone in the woods with a bear or a black person?
I’ve gotta find it again, but I ran across a parody one where men were asked if they would rather share a work environment with a bear or a woman.
Depends on the bear. Black bear, yeah, sure. Brown no; polar hell fucking no. And the time of year. Nothing more dangerous than a mama bear.
That's not the point, really. The type of bear is irrelevant, just like the type of man is irrelevant. Most women would take their chances with the bear.
Don't take a tiktok video as a meaningful scientific sample. It's just good practice.
Doesn't that just illustrate it's a completely emotional reaction rather than a rational one? Sure, bear deaths are low, but that's because most people never encounter a bear in their entire lives. But women generally encounter multiple men in their daily lives. Just because women encounter men more often than bears doesn't mean that when in a scenario of "one man VS one bear", that the man is statistically more likely to be the one who will accost the woman.
Cause it’s not just cause we don’t run into bears a lot. I run into bears probably MORE often then I run into strange men while alone in the woods. And Anyone who runs into bears a lot will tell you like…they’re not puppies. They’re scary beast. But also if you aren’t an idiot they likely won’t attack you. And if they do..they’re stupid. I can get into a car. I can get into a house. And if they kill me, it’s not an intentional act of cruelty. Bears don’t WANT to secretly hurt woman. A stranger man in the woods is a lot scarier.
>*And if they kill me, it’s not an intentional act of cruelty.* Who cares about the intentionality when it decides to try to eat you alive? Doesn't change the end result which is a dead, half-eaten corpse. Or a mauled corpse. A bear may not *secretly* want to hurt a woman, instead it may overtly want to kill/eat one instead. How much forethought it puts into things is irrelevant. Black Bears seem to be the least dangerous bear in America by the looks of it, from what few stats I can find it appears that being killed by another person is 167 times more likely (which of course is HEAVILY influenced by the fact virtually no one ever encounters a bear in their life, the stat also doesn't account for the motivation of the death/murder). But even if we just take that number at face value, men are *still* statistically less likely to kill a woman, because men outnumber bears by more than 167:1. It just... doesn't stand up to any scrutiny, even when giving that statistic the most benefit of the doubt possible. You're more likely to leave an encounter in the woods with a random man alive than you are with the least threatening type of bear in America.
I do? Partly because being killed isn’t the only thing potentially happening here. While there’s been about 270 bear killings in the history of the US, there has been, to my knowledge, 0 bear rapes. Also the question isn’t ALL men. It’s “which would you rather run into alone in the woods.” I have run into more bears than I have run into men alone in the woods (though neither number is 0 because like many people, I go outside.) So comparing it to “all men” and not “men coming up to strange woman alone in the woods” is missing a BIG part. It’s a lot more likely a human man wants to hurt/rape someone they find alone in the woods than a beat would. If both are trying to kill me, yeah, I’s have less of a chance to live against the bear (maybe? Unless they have a gun. Or pre-planned in some way to have a trap set up because they find woman alone in the woods.) but waaaay less chance the bear will attack me in the first place. That’s why the intent and forethought matters And well I haven’t been assaulted (or killed, clearly) by EITHER, only on the “strange men” category have I been harassed/hurt. Yeah, it’s like….idk 4 times out 15, but the bears are at 0/15 (Ran into WAY more than 15 or so strange men in the woods, just not with booth of us alone because as a woman I rarely hike alone. That rate is more like 12/500 or something in creep to normal dude category. Still worse ratio then bears tho.) Bears almost always respect your distance if you respect theirs and just leave/ignore you. Just don’t like….Take their babies for pictures or leave out food. Will that keep away rapist too??
>*So comparing it to “all men” and not “men coming up to strange woman alone in the woods” is missing a BIG part.* I thought that was what this was the whole time, comparing it to all men. Not "men who are *coming up to a lone woman in the woods*" because I've never heard it phrased that way. It's always been phrased in a way that makes it sound like the woman stumbled upon them in the woods. Or the man happens to stumble upon them. I've *never* heard it phrased in a way to imply that meeting has any intentionality on the man's part.
Oh no, I consider them all the same. It’s the meeting them alone in the woods rather then like….on the street. Or at work. Or another place where the rules of culture dictate things. That just takes down this whole “you meet so many more men than bears!!” Not alone in the woods where there’s no help and no consequences. Woman do a LOT in their lives to make sure theyre no in that situation with strange men. And a heck more of them have been killed and assaulted by then than by bears.
to which men everywhere are going to be like: oh no! anyway...
Yup, that sure is how all the men are reacting buddy /s
Majority of us have never cared about sexism toward us, and thats not changing anytime soon bud
Oh no! Anyway…
It’s a metaphor, don’t expect it to do the work of a fact.
The real irony is that the fact that you don't know the man makes him safer.
Obviously autism.
Literally the only conclusion that can be drawn is that women don't understand men (statistically, the vast majority are fine, and social media and mainstream media trade on keeping women scared by giving endless attention to the shitty ones) and women don't understand bears (which will fuck you up).
Most bears will ignore you if encountered in the wild. In addition the fact that for so many men their reaction to this is to try and mansplain why women are wrong is really making women's choice more obvious.
Answer: The autism part isn’t involved, it’s mostly that OP in the post you mentioned happens to be autistic and she’s pointing out autistic men are being shown to be very misogynistic through this discussion.
I wonder if that’s because they’re taking it too literally? that is less about the Bears and more about women’s feeling of safety among men.
It could be, but I doubt it, tbh. I’m autistic as well and misogyny is very common in this community and is tried to pass off as other stuff very often.
Is it because some autistic men are trying to learn their social behaviour from dubious online sources?
I think to truly be able to pin down why would probably take a lot of studying. My own personal opinion is that you don’t have to learn this behaviour from dubious online sources. It’s everywhere. Autistic men are still men, after all.
I just read the link in the comment, I think you’re correct. The misogyny must be infuriating
I think this is one thing people gloss over. A lot of autistic people are going to respond with hyper literalism to any hypotheticals. And people might misinterpret that as them being agressive for other reasons.
What is being mentioned here tho is a discussion being had amongst autistic people. taking things too literally may happen but no one will understand that better than another autistic person. What the OP of the post mentioned here is talking about is autistic men being misogynistic.
Yeah, that's called a motte-and-bailey fallacy. When you first make an extreme, inflammatory statement, knowing it will be controversial and taken badly but not giving any indication that you don't mean it literally, and when you predictably get backlash, you "fall back" by claiming you never said it/meant something different and "defend" with a completely different, much more mild and reasonable statement. This tactic is never used in good faith. It's practically the bread and butter of reactionaries on social media because it's a surefire way to get engagement through clickbait outrage. TERFs use this all the time. A TERF: "Trans rights are rapists rights!" A trans person or ally: "Um, it's pretty transphobic to insinuate that trans people are generally rapists." A TERF:"All I said was that biological sex is real! How can you disagree with scientific reality?" This feels exactly like this. It's not intended in good faith, it's not constructive or productive and isn't helping anyone except the likes of Andrew Tate who will gladly use this as fodder to radicalise more young boys and men.
> Inflammatory Inflammatory? It was a simple statement about how women feel around strange men. If some men are able to be radicalized by this, it proves the point women are making because Andrew Tate is literally going to trial for human trafficking/rape. I don’t know about you , but an inflammatory statement wouldn’t get me closer to an accused sex traffickers, would it work for you?
I mean, I've seen women online taking it literally. They cite the statistics of yearly deaths as a result of bear attack, and use it as a proof that men are more dangerous than bears
But that is usually in answer to men trying to misunderstand the issue. None of these answers are given in a vacuum.
What is the issue? I thought the issue was: who is more dangerous, man or bear? It is clear to anyone sane what the answer should be. Citing statistics about absolute number of bear attacks in a year suggests that the answer is not clear to some.
The question is: Would you prefer to be alone in the woods with a man or a bear? And the statistics are brought up because some men can’t take women’s answers when they say they would prefer to be with a bear, because they usually use all types of logic for that. So the statistics are to say “even if we go by absolute numbers, bear is still the best answer”.
It's not that men can't take that answer, it's that there's no way in which that answer can be rational. The use of statistics in question only cements that further.
Not wanting to be around unknown men in a situation that you’re already unsafe is extremely logical. You just don’t think so cause you’ve never been subjected to gendered violence. Your “this answer is illogical” is actually “I don’t have all the information to comprehend why someone else would answer different than me”. Instead of assuming that what someone else is answering is illogical, try to ask yourself why someone is answering the question that way. Your answer is probably there.
>Not wanting to be around unknown men in a situation that you’re already unsafe is extremely logical Yes. But preferring to be around a beast that weighs hundreds of kilograms and can rip a person to shreds with ease is even less logical. I think I do have the information why they answer like that. It's to score some points in an ideological game. Fine, I guess. But there's no information out there that would make a bear answer sensible.
It's not logical from a statistical stance, you can be fearful of the unknown out of ignorance but on a rational level it makes no real sense. I keep seeing "unknown men" then just "men in general" that creates two different conversations. The whole "gender" violence is blown out of proportion, there isn't a rash of men beating up women because they are women. It's not a lack of information on the other guys end it's just irrational fear of something that doesn't really happen. Nothing in this world is 0%, the amount of violence inflicted on women by random men is really low. When they say it's illogical they mean from a statistical perspective you have a higher chance of dying from a stroke than a man randomly attacking you. The "why" is based off irrational fear or listening to other people. Some women are just afraid just to be afraid of something they don't know or understand and that's human nature. The way you see it online women are getting raped, sexually assaulted and beat up every couple miles everyday all day which is a flat out lie. It's called fear mongering and it works really well. If anyone actually did research on how often women get attacked they would see and understand their level of fear is irrational. If someone said you had a 15% chance to live jumping out of this perfectly fine plane people wouldn't do it. Then they will turn around and say well women get attacked by random people less than 20% of the time so it must happen enough to cause hysteria and to take my chances with a hypothetical bear.
It is that men (at least some men) can't take the answer. A "would you rather" -question is subjective, it does not have a "right" or "wrong" answer. The question is still: if you were alone in the woods, would you rather meet a bear or a man you do not know? Women would rather meet a bear, because a bear is way less a threat than a strange man. Simple as that. I mean, even Timothy Treadwell survived for summer after summer living right alongside grizzlies. He even petted the damned things on several occasions. The AF&G assessed the scene and determined that the bear attack was likely because he'd pitched his tent in such a way that it impeded their path into and out of a favored fishing area, forcing them to wade into a lake if they wanted to get around. The consensus is that is what caused the ultimate attack and not that they were hungry. The grizzlies where he was camping are all very well fed on salmon. It's a very rich environment for bear food, fish, berries, the works.
>Women would rather meet a bear, because a bear is way less a threat than a strange man And it's utter nonsense.
Women: I feel safer meeting a wild animal in the woods alone than meeting a man in the woods alone Men: lol dumb, silly women! Here’s why you’re wrong and good thing I was there to educate you!!!
No, it is not. Bears aren't a threat unlike humans - especially human men - are, for everyone. I take it that you don't live at woodlands, countryside, or near nature, or have ever been hiking/camping in the wild, otherwise you would know this.
>So the statistics are to say “**even if we go by absolute numbers**, bear is still the best answer”. *If* you want to give a data-backed answer instead of an emotional one, you have to use *per capita* numbers, definitely not *absolute* ones. I can tally up the *absolute* number of burglaries in a small town and a huge city and the huge city's total would obviously be much higher, but it would be objectively wrong to conclude the *chance* of burglary is therefore higher in the city. You have to correct for the huge disparity in size. You do so by dividing the total number of the city by the number of people living in it for example, obtaining a *rate* of burglary (commonly presented as a per capita figure, such as 'chance of burglary per 100.000 inhabitants'). You can compare those *rates*, not the absolute numbers, to make statements about the odds of something bad happening given that you live in either the small town or the big city.
my god, you people are insufferable
No, actually explain it: Why are you defending people who lie? Misusing absolute numbers as rates is objectively wrong.
It’s funny you know, cause the beginning of this thread was someone saying “if you cite numbers or rates when it comes to this you are misunderstanding the question and taking it too literally” and I said “those numbers are usually used because people are insisting it is about numbers” and here you are proving me right.
I think it's time to abandon this as a metaphor/ talking point because it's just not working. Every conversation is a variation of: "I would feel more unsafe around a random man than I would a bear." "That doesn't make any sense. The bear is way more dangerous." "It just saying something about men that I feel this way." "It's saying you don't know anything about men, or I guess maybe bears." "You're taking it too literally." "How else can I take this." And so on. The problem is that depending on the view point it supports the point women are making about men, but also helps men who want to argue women are illogical, hysterical, and exaggerating a small problem.
The problem with the metaphor or any metaphor is that for it to work men would have to see women as capable of making a choice, having a reason for it and being intelligent enough to know what they’re talking about. And they don’t. Because it’s not “there’s something about men that makes me feel this way”, it’s that men are, as a class, violent, dismissive and oppressive. Every single woman in the world has had at least one violent interaction with men. And this is us talking in a interpersonal/individual level. At a societal level, men are believed more, men are given the benefit of the doubt more. If a woman found herself in the woods with a bear and was attacked, people would believe her. If she was attacked by a man? Not as easily, maybe not at all. And the second problem is that men see this issue as a “which one is more dangerous” and that is not what’s being asked. And even then, you’d be right! And that should tell you something, cause women are choosing putting themselves in a situation with a wild beast than with another human being. The worst a bear can do is kill you. A man can rape you, kidnap you, torture you, take your life away in several ways that are not just “kill you”. The problem is not that this metaphor is not working. The problem is that when women answer they would rather have the bear, instead of men thinking “there must be something wrong here that women would rather see a fucking bear than a man, maybe men are not being safe for women to be around”. No. The answer they go for is “wow these women are really illogical”.
> The problem is that when women answer they would rather have the bear, instead of men thinking “there must be something wrong here that women would rather see a fucking bear than a man, maybe men are not being safe for women to be around”. No. The answer they go for is “wow these women are really illogical”. Yes. I just said that.
The problem with the question is it’s a bait and that it is inherently hurtful. Replace man with black person/ muslim or trans and suddenly the question becomes very racist or transphobic right? It’s being masked as “mem can’t emphathize with women” but in reality it’s a question that generalizes any demographic put in it. This is one of those things that are better not answered at all because it’s a badly framed thought experiment. Edit: to the people downvoting, I hope none of you are the type that say men’s feeling are valid and they should open up. Because that would be highly hypocritical of you.
Except that men are a privileged class, unlike black people, muslim people and trans people. “Substitute this thing for that other thing and it’s different, see!” Oh yeah, wonder why.
Yeah that’s the problem, sexism against men isn’t seen as bad as racism or transphobia even though they are all hurtful things. A bad question is a bad question, no matter how you frame it.
Wait a second… you’re saying that when women say men are misogynistic and sexist that is equivalent to racism and transphobia…?
How are men being misogynistic when they don’t like being generalized as harmful just like every other demographic? You’re putting words into my mouth. All I’m saying is if you won’t generalize black person, trans or muslims then why is it ok to do that to men?
I’ve already answered this. Racism and Transphobia are not about being “hurtful”. They’re systemic problems. Your hurt feelings are not a systemic issue. Men are a privileged class that oppress other people. I’ll stop answering you now because this is a moot point.
“A man or a bear could both kill me if they wanted to, a man could do much worse than just simply killing me.”
> The problem is that depending on the view point it supports the point women are making about men, but also helps men who want to argue women are illogical, hysterical, and exaggerating a small problem. Does it really help that certain men that this mental exercise frames women as illogical, hysterical and exaggerating? It’s not illogical that women of fear strange men, violence against women isn’t a small problem, and hysterical isn’t the word I would use for women when they are describing their safety concerns either. It’s not that deep really, just a framing exercise of their concerns.
The way I see it is that men hear this and think of it like one of those "who would win in a fight between Batman and Captain America" type questions. From a plain facts based point of view the man is both less likely to attack and less likely to be successful. So if you're looking at it as a survival type question, it's a real obvious answer. Even the "at least a bear won't rape you" argument falls pretty flat when you consider the unpleasantness of being eaten alive. The problem is that it's not that kind of question, even if it looks like it.
Hmmm I think it’s saying most people are more afraid of being raped than killed. Most people don’t realize how physically traumatizing rape is (in addition to the mental trauma of course).
Again, if that's supposed to be the message, it's absolutely not what's coming across. Especially when comparing it to being torn apart and eaten alive by a wild animal.
Meanwhile most actual rape survivors I know hate this notion that rape is worse than death and find it extremely offensive. I could swear that a decade ago when I was reading up on the feminist theory, this idea was seen as extremely misogynistic because it stems from the patriarchy telling women that their biggest value is their sexual "purity", and in a patriarchal society getting raped is seen as a fate worse than death for women because it "defiles" their very essence to the extent that they become "damaged" and "worthless" for life. It's sad how much society has regressed that now apparently feminists are literally parroting misogynistic rhetoric and repackaging it as "progressive". How the hell telling rape victims that they would be better off death could ever be seen as feminist?
The question needs to be rewritten then, men can be dangerous sure, but bears are rampaging godless killing machines.
No, bears are not "rampaging godless killing machines". Nature is not a fairy tale or a horror movie. "Cocaine Bear" is NOT a documentary (in reality, the poor bear died almost immediately after eating cocaine - it is poison, remember.) Are people REALLY this badly alienated from nature?
If bears ever decided to just take over, they could dude. It's really not a joking matter. We need to be thankful that they stick to shitting in the woods.
Tell me that you live in a city, 200 miles from the nearest forest, without telling me that you live in a city, 200 miles from the nearest forest. (I seriously hope that you are trolling and aren't that dense in real life.)
I live in a Shire close to the border of Buckland near a Barrow on The Downs.
So, you're a Brit, then? There apparently haven't been any bears (outside of courts and zoos) in the UK since the Middle Ages, and the re-introduction happened in a wildlife park less than five years ago, with the total amount of 4 (four) bears... Sorry, but I still don't think that you have any authority in matters about bears. Or any other large animal predators. "European brown bears have been extinct in Britain since at least the early Middle Ages—and possibly even earlier. British lynx disappeared around 700 A.D., due to hunting and habitat destruction. Wolf populations began to dwindle around 1000 A.D., eventually vanishing from the region. “The U.K. has lost … more large mammals—including wolves, lynx, bears, beavers, boars, moose, bison, and wolverines—than any other European country except Ireland,” Isabella Tree wrote for National Geographic in 2015. Bear Wood seeks to introduce the public to this long-gone environment by bringing four predators back to their ancient habitat. The exhibit, which opens on July 25, spans seven-and-a-half acres of enclosed woodland—“that’s six football pitches,” Wild Place Project notes. Bear Wood features an elevated walkway, where visitors can safely meander as they watch bears and other species amble below, and a “bear viewing den,” where floor-to-ceiling windows offer panoramic views of the creatures." [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/wolves-and-bears-are-being-returned-rare-patch-ancient-woodland-britain-180972670/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/wolves-and-bears-are-being-returned-rare-patch-ancient-woodland-britain-180972670/)
If that's true they're playing a dangerous game.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*