In MetroTalk: the problem with comparing men and bears to stop and search.
In today’s MetroTalk, the juries out on what our readers would rather be alone in the woods with; and they pick bear.
But, as one reader points out, the hypothetical question of ‘man versus bear’ is incomparable to the reality of stop and search that prompted this discussion in the first place. So, is it fair to conflate the two?
Meanwhile, are politicians using defence spending as an election tactic? And, a reader shares something to keep in mind when you drive to the supermarket.
Share your thoughts on these topics and more in the comments.
Matt (MetroTalk, Mon) compares young men from ethnic minorities who are unfairly stopped and searched with innocent men treated as potential sexual predators by women.
He says both are subject to the injustice of being treated as guilty of something they haven’t done.
Matt was referencing the ‘man vs bear’ question doing the rounds on social media, which asked whether women would feel safer being alone in the woods with a bear or a man. Many choose a bear.
He appears to conflate a hypothetical question posed to women (men vs bear), with a real-lfe system of policing (stop and search).
Apart from both situations relating to men, they aren’t remotely comparable, as different, as the saying goes, as apples and pears.
While his comment makes no mention of race, it is easy to deduce from the content and structure of his post, that he is a white male.
The man vs bear debate is not racialised, (so it includes Matt’s ‘group’), while stop and search is, which has no effect on him personally.
He has either chosen to be deliberately obtuse by claiming that the MvB debate labels all men as ‘guilty’ (it does not) or he genuinely cannot comprehend why most women would feel safer with a bear, (one can anticipate the behaviour of a bear and respond accordingly).
Instead, he chooses to feel victimised by a hypothetical question, while hijacking an unrelated, real-life issue, that has real-life consequences for others. Chloe O, London
Matt unfortunately misses the point in his attempts to compare man vs bear with an unfair stop and search system. People like to point out that its ‘not all men’, but we already know this. So do the women who have been dealing with the backlash from over-sensitive men who either get extremely vitriolic over the subject, despite claiming they are a ‘nice guy’, or who try to twist the question as a way to demean and belittle women for making this choice.
When you start to see someone throwing around the excuses that ‘it’s not all men’, or talking about ‘guilty by association’, and see how upset and angry they get about it, it’s easy to think they might be the type of man a woman would choose a bear over.
Because at least with the bear, it will either ignore or attack them, but the men getting upset over this choice can be the types to try to abuse and manipulate women and happily spend years, even decades belittling someone to try and make them more subservient. Rather then look to why these hypothetical questions are getting a result they don’t like and looking to help fix the problem, too many people will moan about being ‘associated’ with it, rather than try to understand why. Matthew, Birmingham
Matt misses the point I think. Women are choosing the bear because you know a bear will, well, bear. A man may or may not be a threat. People also rarely victim- blame for bear attacks. Bears don’t say, ‘I’m sorry, babe, you made me crazy.’ A man may or may not be a threat and may or may not be held responsible if they are. Aidan, Dartford, Man (Who’d Also Pick The Bear)
Matt, when the police stop and search you, nobody is saying you are guilty. There is an uproar about the terrible level of crime in recent years and yet people complain when the police do something about it. What do people want them to do, stop and search little old ladies? Nick, London
The prime minister, in a major speech on Monday, said that in our increasingly dangerous world, Britain’s security could not be trusted in the hands of Sir Keir Starmer.
However, the Labour leader hit back, saying that the government had not only hollowed out Britain’s armed forces, but had wasted billions of pounds on procurement. So who is right?
Sunak has said that the proportion of GDP being spent on defence would rise to 2.5 per cent by the year 2030.
Sir Keir, on the other hand, has said that a Labour government would raise defence spending to 2.5 per cent, when the country could afford it.
My view is that 2.5 per cent is nowhere near high enough. By 2030 and perhaps even sooner, Nato allies could be in a war with Russia or even in a third world war.
Britain’s armaments industries need to be working night and day to prepare for the eventuality of war and our country’s defence spending should increase to at least 2.5 percent of GDP now.
Have our politicians been fast asleep at the wheel?
They have known for at least ten to 20 years that the world was becoming a much more dangerous place.
Why are they only making speeches now, about increasing our defence spending? Could it be because there is a general election in a few months’ time? Why don’t Britain’s politicians put the country’s safety and security before political party interest? Alan Jensen, West Hampstead
Why do people reverse into parking spaces at supermarkets?
I see them in their large SUVs, trying to back in, going backwards and forwards until they finally get it right.
And when they come out of the supermarket with their trolley of groceries, they have to squeeze between their car and the one parked next to it, only to find there is little space to open the tailgate and load the groceries.
It would be much easier to reverse out of a parking space, and if you park nose first you can get your groceries in the car much more easily.
Common sense isn’t all that common, in my experience. John, Edinburgh
MORE : Is your date ‘paper clipping’ you? Avoid getting bent out of shape by the latest toxic trend
MORE : Let’s catch up with Ukip as it elects its eighth leader since Nigel Farage
MORE : Piers Morgan hits out at ‘real Martha’ Fiona Harvey’s £1,000,000 demand after interview
