What are your thoughts on women choosing bears over men
i think that's where you end up when you view men as inherently dangerous just by virtue of being men.
and i do get why people pick the bear and defend picking the bear - it's Schrodinger's rapist and stranger danger PSAs and all the statistics about violence against women etc. i understand where that fear comes from. but a lot of it stems from radfem rhetoric that has wormed its way into mainstream feminist discussions and produced this take that men are The Problem - not because of learned behaviours, not because of the patriarchy, but just because of something inherent to men and masculinity that means men are always a danger.
so whilst i'm sympathetic to the fears that lead to women going "i'll take my chances with the bear!" i do think it's worth reflecting on why exactly so many people would rather meet an apex predator than a fellow human being who happens to be of the Wrong Gender. the scenario doesn't specify that the man in the woods is doing anything threatening: he's not wearing a MAGA hat or blasting Andrew Tate podcasts on his bluetooth speaker or leering at every woman who walks past on the hiking trail. he's just some guy in the woods minding his own business. is it easier to imagine a sympathetic wild animal than a sympathetic man? why?
and the thing is, i'm old enough to remember a time when the feminist actions du jour were things like slut walk and 'take back the night' because the whole point was women shouldn't have to be scared. that women deserve to walk around in public and feel safe. somehow we've gone backwards on that to where women living in abject terror of 50% of their fellow humans is defended as the "feminist position" and going "that seems kinda bonkers actually maybe that should not in fact be how women experience the world" is anti-feminist. how did we get here. what went wrong.
the fear of men and choosing the bear are usually justified by talking about statistics on male violence against women. these statistics point to very real problems, but the talk of stranger danger and choosing the bear elides the fact that. statistically. you are more likely to be harmed by a man you know than by a stranger. over 85% of sexual assault victims knew their attacker beforehand (see this NIJ report and this BBC article). or see the UN Women report on global violence against women: "While 55 per cent of all female homicides are committed by intimate partners or other family members, only 12 per cent of all male homicides are perpetrated in the private sphere." Or this report from the BJS in America: "76% of female murders and 56% of male murders were perpetrated by someone known to the victim". The same report also states that 21% of male homicide victims were murdered by strangers, compared to 12% of female victims.
based on actual statistics on violence rates, men are more justified in fearing strangers than women are. but the "stranger danger" myth persists, and it feeds into the radfem narrative that yes, men are an existential threat and inherently violent just for existing, and yes you should be terrified of every strange man you see on the street. it's worth asking: who benefits from this? who benefits from women being scared of strangers all the time? given the high rates of domestic violence and other violence directed at women by men they know, family members, partners or ex-partners, fathers, brothers... who is benefitting from a population of women terrified to walk into the woods alone?
the most dangerous man in the woods is the one you brought with you.
