my friends haven't responded yet hey Tumblr wanna hear my man vs bear thoughts
I have more thoughts but idk if I can fully articulate them all they escape me. but the fact that everyone seems to be missing a fundamental part of the thought experiment when discussing it enrages me to no end so I will try
it's strange because I think the core of men's reactions to man vs bear is the idea that men do not instinctively think of other men (or, perhaps generally, humans, but this applies to men more specifically when you contrast to how non-men approach it) as capable of murder, rape or general cruelty.
Not in the sense that they would be physically incapable of doing the act, but in the sense that they don't think about men specifically doing it. They likely imagine a man when they picture a murderer, but not because most murderers are men-- they do so because male is their default. The concept of a murderer or a rapist is gender neutral to men. The concept of gender in violent acts does not cross their mind.
But while man is the default to them, placing it in contrast to women automatically makes the question a gender issue. By having women be the ones asked, "who would you rather find in the woods, a man or a bear?", gender is seemingly unjustifiably thrust into an otherwise neutral question. Something otherwise akin to, say, speculating if you could win a fight against a bear.
Men do not associate other men with potential danger, thus the comparison to something they do understand as potentially dangerous is both confusing and insulting.
Non-men in comparison can instantly understand the real focus of the question: which of these two potential threats would you prefer? So they choose the bear. And the men, still grappling with the concept that men can be viewed as potential dangers, lose their fucking minds.
That initial logic gap makes explaining the ways in which dying to a bear-- in the worst case scenario of the question-- is still more preferable than dying to a man really difficult.
And perhaps there's a little bit of technical logic widening the gap as well. Men might not imagine torture or rape when thinking of being murdered, thus making the likely gruesome mauling by a bear seem far more horrific.
I don't know if I'd ever be able to explain it in a single sentence.
A bear can never kill a human the way a human does. No amount of perceived or deduced intentionality in the act can compare to that of human cruelty. The bear will not ever fully understand the agony in its victims eyes. A human can, can take joy and delight in it, and often does.
A bear only has itself: its teeth, its claws, its hulking body weight. A human has everything.
areudirty
turnnoffyourmind
jimmyeatworldofficial
romaincrisis
2087
prguitarman
amandla
pixelskylines
kianamaiart