Man vs. Bear at work
Content warning: sexual violence, physical violence, murder
Have you seen this Man vs. Bear thing that flooded the English-speaking internet in late April and early May?
It’s based on a hypothetical question posed to random women:*
“Would you rather be stuck in a forest with a man or a bear?”
Both in video interviews and on social media posts, women overwhelmingly chose a bear. Their comments include:
“Some men are very scary out there.”
“Bear, because if I got attacked by a bear, people would believe me.”
“If I survive the bear attack, I won’t have to see the bear at family reunions.”
“The bear sees me as a human being.”
“The bear didn’t pretend to be my friend for months beforehand.”
“No one will talk about the bear’s bright future.”
“To get most bears to leave you alone, all you have to do is scream loud enough.”
The Man vs. Bear conversation became a way for women to talk openly about their experiences with and fears of sexual violence, physical violence, intimate partner violence, and murder at the hands of men.
To show how unsafe they can feel. Because it can be really hard to tell who is a “safe” man and who is a “dangerous” man.
TikTok video showing Bears 6 Men 0
But almost immediately, the conversation was hijacked by a set of men who felt attacked by women choosing a bear over a man.
I will spare you the gory details and just summarize. A set of men** went to the internet to make graphics and memes with women mauled and eaten by bears. And a set of men made comments and posts that said that they hoped these women choosing the bear got raped, that they hoped these women got murdered.
And a good number of men posted videos where they expressed shock and incomprehension that women would choose the bear. There are lots and lots of these videos, and there are also responses to these videos, where other men do ally work and clarify what’s going on.
In one stitch, one man answered another’s disbelief, explaining, “This is a hypothetical situation, and you still can’t take a no for an answer…the entire point…is to demonstrate how [some] men are incapable of respecting a woman’s choice or ability to reject you. That is the point.”
It is well known that a very common trigger for male violence is rejection by a woman.
To sum up Man vs. Bear:
Some women said, basically, “Some men are dangerous and it’s not clear which men they are.”
And in response, some men said, “This is incomprehensible to me,” and some other men said, “You deserve to get raped or killed.”
At work
I see this same pattern in workplaces all the time.
A person says to their manager or an HR rep or on a Slack thread something like, “I don’t feel safe/welcome/valued here. People keep on saying Thing A or doing Thing B. It’s having a negative impact, and I’d like it to stop.”
And instead of saying, “this sounds bad, tell me more” and committing to fix the problem, the manager or HR rep or co-workers go on the offensive. They attack the person pointing out the problem.
They use inflating language to say things like, “You’re oversensitive,” or “You’re playing the race card again,” or “You’re so aggressive, why are you attacking us?” They may cry to show how hurt they are.
And they use softening language to minimize the actions of the people causing harm. “He has good intentions.” “They’re just curious.” “It’s nothing, really.”
They use DARVO to shift the blame. They Deny there is a problem. They Attack the person pointing out the problem. And they Reverse Victim and Offender.
They will sometimes demote or reassign or fire the person reporting the problem, just like with whistleblower retaliation.
All because someone said, “I have a problem with this particular bad behavior that is coming from some people. Can you help make it stop?”
Identity vs. behavior
Many people who write about unfairness start with identity as their organizing principle.
That’s because bias is usually expressed against an identity. Sexism, racism, ageism, homophobia, transphobia — you can see that each word starts with the identity category or marker and then ends with -phobia or -ism.
For those -ism words, the identity category is agnostic. It doesn’t say which sex or race or age is being focused on. But we all know exactly which group is stigmatized and who is the target.
By contrast, I focus on behavior as my organizing principle.
One big reason is that anyone in any group can say or do something problematic. It’s not just “the usual suspects.” I’ve seen plenty of anti-female things said by women, anti-Black things said by someone Black, and anti-LGBTQ things said by someone gay.
Another big reason is that I’m dedicated to accurate and precise language. If our goal is that bad behavior stops, then the focus should be on the behavior.
out in the world
But! Somehow out in the world it often goes off the rails. Here’s how it usually plays out at a societal level.
1. There is a request from a group. Basically:
Some people in Group X do Y thing. It’s not an ok thing to do. It would be better if they stopped. They really need to stop.
The focus is on behavior. The behavior needs to stop. Yes, identity is part of it, but it is because of accuracy. Who is doing the problematic thing? You need to know in order to ask for change and for accountability.
Let’s get specific, based on Man vs. Bear. The observation and request:
Some men are aggressive and violent against women. This includes sexual violence, physical violence, and murder. At incredibly high rates. It’s not ok, and it needs to stop.
2. People in Group X distort the observation and the request. Suddenly it becomes an attack on Group X and now identity is at the center. Here is the common reinterpretation:
All people in X group are being falsely blamed for only some people’s actions. NOT ALL X people!
#MeToo → #NotAllMen
In other words:
Behavior: Stop sexually assaulting and harassing women →
Identity: Don’t attack all men! We’re not all to blame!
#BlackLivesMatter → #BlueLivesMatter
In other words:
Behavior: Police need to stop their extrajudicial killing of Black people →
Identity: Don’t attack all police! We’re not all to blame!
And so on.
By shifting the focus to identity and claiming that the entire group is being attacked, there is a move away from accountability, responsibility, and necessary change.
There are many, many, many people in the world who twist constructive criticism and a request for changed behavior into an attack.
So let’s do what we can to shift the focus from the identity to the behavior.
1. What’s the problematic behavior?
2. Who is doing the problematic behavior?
3. What behavior should they switch to instead?
Honestly, anyone can behave badly. Including your friends, your family, and members of your identity groups. Let’s help people move away from taking constructive criticism as a personal attack and towards accountability and better behavior.
* As always, this is about people who are perceived to be women. Their actual gender identity is unknown. But when it comes to bias, what’s important is that people perceive you as a woman or girl, not your actual identity.
** Based on their comments and behavior, these people seem to identify as male.
Industry-leading inclusive language expert Suzanne Wertheim facilitates in-person and virtual inclusive language trainings, as well as offering empowering and educational inclusive language keynotes.
Copyright 2024 © Worthwhile Research & Consulting