"Then You Should Understand People Choosing The Bear"

"Then you should understand people choosing the bear"

I'm a sexual assault survivor. When I was 15, a 55-year-old woman assaulted me and three of my friends at a party where she served a bunch of 15-year-olds alcohol. Way to go Granny.

And I don't hate women. I've stepped in to defend women against attacks from men in city streets or bars. I can't say if they're all sexually related or sexually motivated - they probably were.

But when we get to the question of this, I mean, like I do empathize for victims. I get that.

But the question isn't real. And we all know the question isn't real. It's hypothetical.

I was just at a store. There are hundreds or thousands of people at this Walmart, men and women walking around, doing their thing minding their own business. Not a single woman in there was shifty eyed, dysphoric or afraid of any of the men in that store.

I was just at a restaurant. I was at a bank. I was at a coffee shop. I was walking through a park. No one was afraid of men.

Replace any of those men with one bear and see what happens.

So, because we know it's hypothetical, let's have an adult conversation. Ready?

The existence of the question at all creates bias against men. I can trick you just the same way. I'd say, what do you think more Islamic men use to murder their wives with, guns or knives or rope?

The fact that I asked the question, you go, well why is he asking that question? Do they murder their wives a lot?

The queston is: safety, bear, man, alone. Right, those are the four real words in that question. It is embedding a bias against men. Every woman that has answered that question "bear" has stepped out in public since, has interracted with hundreds of men. The average woman will interact with 300 men per day.

Maybe they'd opted for the bear just cause they wanna mix it up. They're like, I'm getting so bored with the thousands of men that I see every week that maybe I just wanna see a bear.

I don't think you understand the gravity of this question. As a abuse survivor, I'm standing up against a false claim against the nature of men, where one in a thousand men - or maybe just a hair over one in one thousand men - will commit a crime of this nature. It's a very thin number of men.

And as a man whose family was responsible for starting World War I - you know, the assassination by the Black Hand, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, my family paid for that assassination. We started World War I, which is why World War II happened. Because I'm so closely tied to that genocide, I've studied it.

And, Hitler and the Germans use the same type of questionings and comparative logic to wage war against Jews. I am literally trying to stop thousands of women who don't know any better but than to participate in a trend from creating this wave of propaganda against men.

Someone is trying to use this question against men, and women think it's a cool, dramatic way to say, "I'm afraid of men." But they're really actually not afraid of men. Cause they wouldn't go outside. They wouldn't go shopping. They wouldn't walk through the park. They wouldn't do anything. They'd be so actually mortified of men.

The question appeals to a logical fallacy called the Fallacy of Relative Privation. They're trying to say that because a single man could do more harm than a single bear, that all men are more dangerous than all bears on average. Regardless of the context of the interaction. That strips away all sense of goodwill or truth to the fact that women interact with 300 men per day on average. That strips away the truth that a woman, per male exposure, if you walk down the sidewalk and you see a guy, you have a 1 in 35 million chance of being forcibly [g]raped in that walk by on the sidewalk.

That Fallacy of Relative Privation strips all logic to the fact that men are, by and large, safe. But yeah, 81% of women will report being sexually harassed or assaulted. 43% of men just the same.

The number of people who will experience unwanted sexual contact, men and women, are roughly the same[**]. Men will underreport at three times the rate of women. Men are victimized just as much, but we're stigmatized against talking about it.

Both sides are victims, but men are not doing this campaign to smear women to try to damage the entire, like, gender of women.

Except for me, now. I'm doing what's called logical parallels. My whole argument for the last two weeks has been such: since women assault children, their children, their biological kids at 2.5 times the rate that all men assault women sexually, then women should lose custody of their kids until they stop it. Because, the phrase going around online right now is all men until no men. So, until no women, all women. Women do not deserve custody of their biological kids if any of them are capable of harming a child. Because children are innocent and honestly, all parallels aside, it's the abuse of children that is propagating people who are becoming monsters later on in life.

So, if anyone could make a decision right now to make the world a better place in the next 15 years, it's women not abusing their kids. It's already too late for us as adults. We're already screwed. We all have our trauma that we have to work through, and that's gonna be a dog fight. But if we wanna guarantee the world's gonna be a better place, let's stop abusing kids.

So, the reason why women are choosing the bears is cause it's not a real question and they won't have consequences if they answer in a dramatic way for effect.

Just like the 30-something percent of boys are like, well, dude, if like, there's no consequences, I'd totally take advantage of a chick. See, yeah, maybe people are bad people by nature, but people still obey the law. And that's why if 32% of college men would commit SA if there's no consequences, but then only one out of every thousand men will commit that crime, that shows how much people have discipline over their nature.

And you cannot say the same thing about a bear.

==

** The following numbers are taken from the CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) from 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2016/2017.

--

P.S. I'll just leave this here.

The World Economic Forum is a (self-anointed) global thought leader on politics, sustainability, innovation and equality.

In fact, I actually know the World Economic Forum quite well, I’ve worked with them professionally dozens of times; we’ve collaborated on important projects, we’ve shaken hands, sat around tables and pretended to laugh at each other’s jokes. I’ve even scaled the icy mountains of Switzerland to spend the week documenting the ultra-VIP Davos conference.

Their Global Gender Gap Report is a highly anticipated and respected annual barometer for how the world is doing on its meandering journey toward equality. But with no sense of irony, the report’s methodology is itself, systemically sexist.

So, let’s turn the beady eye of equality onto those pointing the finger, is the GGGR sexist and how?

It’s time to say GG, to the GGGR

Read it for yourself - https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2021.pdf

-

Sources

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/aug/13/girls-overtake-boys-in-a-level-and-gcse-maths-so-are-they-smarter

[2] https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/global-study-on-homicide.html

[3] https://www.scielosp.org/article/bwho/2014.v92n8/618-620/en/

[4] https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/mars-vs-venus-the-gender-gap-in-health

like i'm gonna be real-- this is not good. they can now frame the left as the violent and dangerous people that they've wanted to all this time. they can now actually claim to be the victims that they've been saying they are this whole time. they can use this as a mandate to crack down on everyone who opposes them. with biden already in freefall this is the galvanizing thing that will make those who were unsure about aligning with the democrats the motivation to swing to the republicans in droves. it will give the already united republicans the "moral" authority to condemn not only the elected officials in the democratic party but characterize the entire progressive movement as violent anarchists based on social media reactions. if we were cooked before, we've just entered the flash fryer.

O lightless creature… Embrace thine oblivion, as shall I.