Even then it’s contradictory. Men wouldn’t be upset about being chosen over a bear and women wouldn’t be safe if the bear was chosen, so in that specific context it’s nonsensical.
Most bears don’t seek out and attack women, but many men do. One of those happens far more often than the other, and you’re either uninformed or willfully ignorant about that fact.
Yet another exhibit of people not knowing anything about bears. If bears and women had anywhere near the same amount of interactions as men and women, maulings would be up by a percentage with an alarming number of zeroes. This is like the literal equivalent to the Face Eating Leopard Party supporters being surprised that the Leopards are eating their faces.
Hey no worries. More people should act in good faith in my opinion. We don’t even have to agree with everyone but we should have mutual respect for each other and want a better world.
Indeed. It strikes me as pointlessly gendered. All people, safety is more important than feelings.
The whole thing was meant to be rage bait.
or it’s purposefully gendered in response to the man vs bear thing
Which is also rage bait
Even then it’s contradictory. Men wouldn’t be upset about being chosen over a bear and women wouldn’t be safe if the bear was chosen, so in that specific context it’s nonsensical.
What wat? What do you want to know?
Most bears don’t seek out and attack women, but many men do. One of those happens far more often than the other, and you’re either uninformed or willfully ignorant about that fact.
Yet another exhibit of people not knowing anything about bears. If bears and women had anywhere near the same amount of interactions as men and women, maulings would be up by a percentage with an alarming number of zeroes. This is like the literal equivalent to the Face Eating Leopard Party supporters being surprised that the Leopards are eating their faces.
you know what else is pointlessly gendered? the patriarchyfeminist messaging has to be gendered because the patriarchy is a gender issue.
that said, feminism is for everybody. liberating women from oppressive structures by nature does the same for men.
If it’s not gendered and is for everybody, that isn’t that just the original statement? That safety is for everybody? That seems rather circular.
But I think I get what you’re saying. We focus on lifting up women, and everyone benefits.
yeah i see how my comment was a little confusing let me try to edit :p thanks for the good faith question tho
Hey no worries. More people should act in good faith in my opinion. We don’t even have to agree with everyone but we should have mutual respect for each other and want a better world.
If this weren’t gendered I’m not sure I would connect that this was posted as result of people’s reaction to the bears vs men thing.
Ah, good point! None of us would be here in that case.