Lately the internet has exploded with women chosing meeting a bear in the woods vs an unknown man in the woods. It boils down to bears won't rape women and men being evil because men. But questioning how getting mauled and disfigured is better than being raped, somehow makes me a rapist supporter. Like what the actual fuck?
I think I get what they're trying to say that one can't determine if a person is good or bad from a mere glance can be terrifying. Problem is that Bears are also as unpredictable. They end up claiming to not generalize bears, but they generalize men.
Somehow questioning the logic of this illogical premise means that "I'm OK with rapists" is not only illogical but fucked up.
Personally, I'd be more afraid of the men promoting team bear, than the men who criticize the "thought exercise."
 |
| Bear Grylls: Checkmate, feminists! Now I'm going to drink your pee! |
Then again, in 8 out of 10 rape cases, the victim knew their attacker. I'm trying to make sense out of the logic here but it doesn't make any sense at all. Now I wait for the shitstorm from the "transwomen in women's bathrooms" response that I've seen online.
Rape is bad, mmmkay! If you rape you're bad, mmmkay! But this "thought exercise" is beyond stupid.
"BuT tEaCh MeN tO bE bEtTeR"
