'Man or bear' obscures the real issue of violence against women

What if the current “man or bear” debate does little (if anything) to advance the cause of preventing violence against women? What if it actually hinders us from understanding it.

That’s what vague generalizations tend to do.

But it seems that today’s culture is consumed with them. We’d rather jump on bandwagons and share memes than actually investigating issues in any depth. The result is a spread of misinformation and false facts that does far more harm than good.

For the uninitiated, the “man or bear” debate revolves around a simple question posed to women: “Would you rather encounter a bear in the forest or a male stranger?” Many women have responded by declaring they’d rather take their chances with the bear, which (predictably) has put a lot of men on the defensive.

The phenomenon is just another symptom of a much larger problem in a culture that has, through laziness, embraced crude binary choices—choices that oversimplify complex issues. And choices that, by their very nature, cultivate distrust and resentment between those who take one side or the other. We’ve become so accustomed to this approach that we’ve become numb to it, as though “this is just the way things are.”

On the contrary, however, this is precisely the way things are not!

That’s the problem.

The chances of being assaulted by a strange man in a forest are, to be blunt, extremely remote. Focusing on a very unlikely hypothetical situation makes it easier to blame men in general (stereotyping), rather than identifying the most likely assailants. It also deflects attention from the specific kinds of situations in which real assaults occur.

Communication breakdown

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

A few things are important to communication:

Enough detail to facilitate a constructive dialogue.

The ability to speak in such a way that the hearer understands you.

The ability to listen.

The “man or bear” hypothetical fails on all three counts.

First off, we are given so little information that it’s impossible to give an informed answer. We do not know if the stranger is an athletic man in his twenties or an old man walking with a cane. Is he armed? And if so, is he carrying a handgun or a hunting rifle? Is he sober or intoxicated? Is he alone or accompanied by someone—and if so, by whom: another man or men, a female companion, a child, a hunting dog…?

And what about the bear? Is it off minding its own business or directly in the woman’s path? Is it a mother protecting her cub? Is it a grizzly or a black bear? This is important because grizzlies are larger and much more likely to be aggressive than black bears, which are more likely to run up a tree than charge at you. (Polar bears are the most dangerous: They’ll actually hunt you down and eat you, but you’re far less likely to come across them in a forest.)

We don’t know any of these things. The truth of the matter is that it’s prudent to be wary of any stranger or any bear you might come across. It’s not an either-or proposition.

Second, asking someone about a hypothetical without providing adequate information is to invite stereotypes and prejudice… which is exactly what this question does. It amplifies resentment among women toward men in general, which in turn puts many men on the defensive, therefore making men in general (here’s the third impediment to communication) less likely to listen. They therefore won’t hear legitimate concerns about violence against women.

No one likes to be stereotyped or accused of something they haven’t done. That’s human nature, not limited to males, yet that’s precisely what this sort of thing does.

Hence, the predictable #NotAllMen reaction, which in turn triggers an “I told you so” type response in some women, and ’round and ’round we go in an endless cycle of recriminations.

Anyone who knows how communication works will tell you that, if you want to be heard, you should speak in a way that your audience can understand or accept. If you’re talking to a Spanish speaker, you speak Spanish, not English. If you want to enlist someone’s compassion, you don’t start off by making broad accusations. It simply doesn’t work.

Bad example

The 21st century has seen a dramatic increase in the tendency to put outrage and emotion ahead of facts. The “man or bear” hypothetical is yet another instance of this.

The problem is, if you’re dealing with false assumptions, you won’t be equipped to address the real problem: actual violence against real women.

It so happens that our hypothetical is a red herring: something that very rarely happens. Women are not comparatively likely to be attacked by a stranger, let alone a stranger in the woods. To focus on such an unlikely scenario is to obscure the real danger. And to identify that danger (which is essential to addressing the problem), we need statistics. Facts.

So here we go:

The truth is that women are far less likely to be attacked by a stranger than by someone they know. A study posted on the National Institutes of Health website shows that perpetrators in 76% of sexual assaults were known to the victim. In other words, they were not strangers. Of the remaining 24%, nearly half (43%) took place in the victim’s home. That means just over 10% of such assaults are initiated by strangers outside the home.

It’s reasonable to assume (horror movie tropes notwithstanding) that most of those attacks occur in populated places such as city streets or outside clubs. Not in a forest.

In search of help and healing

Shouldn’t we be focusing on the real problem, not some farfetched hypothetical? And if we’re doing the latter, why are we doing so?

The answer I hear most often is to “raise awareness.” Yet raising awareness of a problem that barely exists (encountering violent men in a forest), doesn’t make sense to me. And raising awareness by putting your audience on the defensive doesn’t make sense, either, because that means they aren’t likely to listen. This is especially true online, where people tend to be spoiling for a fight and salivating over the prospect of being outraged.

So what’s the endgame here?

It’s possible that victims are simply venting, which is entirely understandable: People who have been hurt need an outlet. But I would suggest that, rather than addressing this very serious topic with memes and broad generalizations, a better course of action would be to share with someone you know is listening. I would maintain that these discussions are best initiated one-on-one with people you trust. (Or at least in small groups, where each participant has enough time to speak and feel heard.)

If you don’t trust men in general, don’t vent to them. Instead, share your experiences with someone you know will listen and make a good-faith effort to understand you. A female friend or family member; a therapist; or if you have a trusted male friend, share with him. The important thing is to share with someone you trust who you know will listen. Because it’s important that you’re heard. You deserve it. I would offer the same kind of advice to men who have, in whatever way, been hurt by women… or anyone.

We’ve focused so much on the #NotAllMen defensiveness that maybe we’ve overlooked the fact that not all women respond to assault in the same way. Some may want to talk; others may prefer not to. Some may avoid men altogether; others may be more conscious of men in certain situations; others still might say, “I’m not going to let this keep me from living my life.” Victims of violence experience a wide range of emotions and; assuming every woman will react the same way is as inaccurate and self-defeating as any generalizations made about men.

Forget “not all men.” Try…

Not all women.

Not all bears.

Not all situations.

Truly seeing one another begins with seeing each other as individuals, not simply members of some generic whole. It’s also the only way we can create a strategy for actually addressing this issue. Or any issue.

It’s only through hearing and understanding one another that this very real and very serious issue can be addressed with some hope of making a difference: both in showing compassion to the victims of past violence and preventing further violence in the future.

 Note: This blog was written after consultation with a woman trained in criminal forensics.