Responsibility #ForAllMen: Stop Being The Bear!

[We join mid-conversation, as I, Roboseyo, discuss the implications of the Bear In The Woods meme with Rocco, the Fictional Person Who Argues With Me.]

For context, read part one of my Bear In The Woods Manifesto

Rocco: “Okay. I get it. [See explanation in previous blog post] But I’d just like to point out that any persuadable person would have already been persuaded 400 words ago, Rob.”

So you admit you don’t want to be persuaded?

Rocco: “I admit no such thing. I just want to know why you are really still going on about this?”

I’m glad you asked.

Rocco: “Oh, no. That’s your ‘pontification’ face.”

It is.

Rocco: “What have I done?”

Let's travel back in time a bit, to see the bigger picture:

When #MeToo went super-viral in 2017, part of the conversation went underplayed. We got distracted by gleefully watching a few horrible men like Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein finally get their long-delayed desserts (both walk free at the time of writing, but that’s a different rant). However, one thread of the conversation kind of fell to the wayside: the threads discussing what part ordinary, non-rapist, well-meaning men could play.

The lone facebook post I saw on the topic, by some social media user now lost in the sands of time, had some choice words:

“Now that it has been successfully impressed upon us how common and far-reaching harassment and assault are, the next step is to reflect on the ways our society has … failed to notice or correct the attitudes and actions that led to [#metoo].

But real talk: using "as a society" and collective language is dangerous too. It is yet another way of absconding personal responsibility, of distancing myself from what is happening. No mincing words: I individually have participated in excusing, ignoring, tolerating, enabling, and otherwise failing to notice or correct attitudes and actions of sexual harassment and assault.

I want you to know that I don't just believe you, I'm acknowledging that I've exhibited some pretty unsavory behavior in my past. I've been looking at this for a long time now, and I've definitely been the guy who…

Here the poster lists some ways that he’s added to the environment where so much bad stuff is ignored, brushed off, or tolerated, that worse stuff happens too, and he finishes with this line, which I want to pull out of 2017 and bring it back to 2024.

“It does us no good if all the men think that every "me too" was somebody else's fault.”

Sometimes I teach the “self serving bias,” in class. It's the bias we use to re-interpret a situation, make ourselves an exception, and somehow let ourselves off the hook. #NotAllMen is an example of this "exceptional" thinking. "I'm one of the good ones, so #MeToo doesn't concern me!"

But one more time with emphasis: “It does us no good if all the men think that every "me too" was somebody else's fault.” ...and what are the protestations against the bear in the woods thought experiment, except men continuing to point fingers, and say that #MeToo was #NotMeThough, and seeing that it was #DefinitelySomeoneElse, #WhatDoYouThinkICanDoAboutItAnyway? Well, lots.

Rocco: #NotAllMen, amirite?

Me: (buries face in both hands for a bit)

This challenging sentiment didn't gain much traction, because given a choice between pointing a floodlight at our own bad behavior in order to have some uncomfortable, probing, high-stakes conversations with an indeterminate number of the women around us, and pointing fingers at a few obvious villains getting their just desserts, we predictably went the easy way, and schadenfreuded it up over Weinstein and Cosby having to do perp-walks. Add R. Kelly and Diddy to that list.

Bill Cosby's Perp Walk, in case you haven't watched it in a while.

Harvey Weinstein's perp walk.

Don't get me wrong, it was satisfying, and pointing fingers at monsters can be fun, but focusing on the atom-bomb-level awfulness of "America's Dad" serving women spiked drinks and an Oscar-winning bully in a bathrobe forcing himself on starlets drew attention away from a much harder, more nuanced topic.

And now, years later, The Bear Discourse is as good an opportunity as any to circle back to big ideas from 2017, and talk about the way even well-meaning men who Hold the Right Opinions can still contribute to the background radiation of sexist pain-in-the-assery that makes women feel a tiny bit unsafe most of the time. Sure, there’s no-brainer bad stuff going on: there'll always be somewhere to point fingers if I really want to wiggle out of my own culpability or pose on a moral high ground, but beyond the "call the cops or alert HR" stuff, there’s a lot of “death by a thousand paper cuts” stuff to discuss. Conversations about racism led to inventing the term “micro-aggressions” for these.

You know what I'm talking about. Mechanic shops assuming a woman knows nothing about cars. Asking only the female coworkers if they’ve thought about marrying or starting a family. Paying extra attention to the most attractive woman in a group, while ignoring older or unattractive women. That kind of stuff can be corrected with a little work. There’s even smaller stuff  (call them "nano-aggressions"?) that could be a micro-aggression, but might not even be noticed — either by the woman it targeted, or by the man who might have done it unconsciously. Stuff like giving women the up-and-down with the eyes as she walks by. Not catcalling, not whistling... but still eyeballing. Stuff that the culture just does, that we take for granted, might fit here -- like movie trailers and ads putting women's bodies on display. Movies pairing up a man over fifty with a woman under thirty. Maybe a particular woman doesn't consciously notice it all, but if she does, such tiny things all send the same message: “being a woman is the most important thing about you,” “being young and attractive is more important than any other thing about being a woman,” and, ultimately, “This is a man’s world.”

But that still doesn’t cover it, because it’s not even just the tiny things we do, the micro-aggressions. There are also what I’m calling micro-elisions -- the tiny things we don't do -- that make women unsure if a guy, even that guy who loudly announces he's a feminist and wears the t-shirt and writes multi-part blog posts, would believe her if she told him something.

Here’s a little text image meme that made the rounds a while ago that encapsulates the idea of micro-elisions better than pages of explanation, in a simple story: 

I'm just gonna write that out for anyone who's using a voice reader, or some other visual assistance for reading. Skip if you already read it.

 

"When my daughter was 15 we went for lunch at an upscale steakhouse. As she was walking to the ladies room a table full of men were staring at her. I saw, but could not hear, one of the men say something to her. She clenched her fists, her shoulders stiffened, and she speed walked away from them. 6 men at the table. One of them made a sexually suggestive comment to a child. Not one of them called him out on it.  

 

I got up from our table and went up to them. I looked the creep right in the eyes and told him that I didn't know what he said but I knew it made my child uncomfortable. I then told them all that when she walked back from the table if even one of them made eye contact with her, let alone said a single word to her, I would create a scene that they'd never forget.

Five men watched another man sexually harass a teenager and said not one f**king word. What the man said to my kid? "Are you my dessert? I'd eat you in a second."

She wasn't protected by the men who stayed silent. 

She was protected by me.

It. Is. All. Men. Period.

Six men at the table, meaning five men who heard Chad’s lewd comment could have said, “That was disgusting, bro. Don’t ever talk to women like that around me again. Especially minors.” Five men, who probably all think of themselves as good men, said nothing. “Well, it wasn’t ME making the comment.” If one of them had spoken up, Chad might think twice before being so disrespectful again. And next time, a second guy might agree that Chad was out of line. Called out by TWO buddies? That would change the color of that entire social group. Doing nothing IS a moral choice when something wrong is happening, and that’s why we need to talk about micro-elisions. Most of our lives don’t have moments where the time to take a moral stand is obvious, cut-and-dried, clear and signposted. If you wait for your August Landmesser moment, life will pass you by, and who knows how you'll feel looking back on those times you calculated it was better to go along to get along.

And that doesn’t just go for saluting genocidal madmen. Being at that rally, ready to salute a genocidal madman is one knot in a long long tangle of choices the other people in that photo made, in order to be where they are, willing to do what they did. That tangled string started long before the rally, and stretched from the day they took that photo in 1936, to all the horrors that followed. 

People don’t wake up in the morning and think, “I’d like to take part in a genocide today.” People make little decisions, over and over, and tell themselves they haven’t reached the point of no return yet, that they can turn back if they want. Maybe deciding that each decision was really "51-49%," or thinking, "I should speak up, but the timing is wrong," pacifies their conscience. Like smoking. Like frogs in a kettle. That’s the danger of micro-elisions, of choosing to be a bystander: those choices add up.

Micro-elisions aren’t the crime itself, but because of them, the crime becomes that much more possible. Less

still my favorite picture of sharks.
from memebase/cheezburger.com

unthinkable. It's like shark attacks. Shark attacks happen. They happen under certain conditions, but all those other conditions depend on this: there needs to be salt-water, because sharks can’t survive in fresh water. Imagine these micro-aggressions and micro-elisions are the salt that turns fresh water into salt water. After you've got salt water instead of fresh, those other conditions for shark attacks start to appear, and sometimes stack up, and from there it’s scary game of odds. That is the effect micro-aggressions and micro-elisions have. They aren’t the crimes, they don’t directly cause the crimes, they're so pervasive it's hard to measure them, and on its own, each one is far too insignificant to report, but added up together, well, now we’re swimming in water where shark attacks are possible, instead of water where they’re impossible. It’s the same color, but the water is no longer safe to drink. A little whisper says, "I bet you could get away with it." The unthinkable becomes thinkable. 

This is basically a fish-intensive way of explaining another phrase that always gets people’s backs up… the way fresh water becomes the type of water that can sustain the creatures responsible for shark attacks? That’s what people are trying to describe when they talk about “rape culture.” The R word is pretty shocking. This is the point for some people who use it. And the shock-value of the R word leads to a lot of defensive responses, but when someone starts talking about rape culture, fellas... try to cool it, and just think about Shark Week, ok? Please trust me on this, my put-upon-feeling brothers: the goal of using that word is to startle you out of complacency, not to accuse you, personally, of being a rapist or a would-be rapist. Promise. People who use that phrase want to talk about the process that takes something unthinkable, and makes it thinkable, that’s all.

I’m not a rapist. Far from it, but the whole point of having this conversation is to reckon with the fact all of us (even women) are tossing salt in the water, contributing to that atmosphere that makes the unthinkable thinkable. 

So… rape attempts? Nah. I’m not responsible for that one in six. But I’ve done my share of micro-aggressions - staring when I thought she didn't notice (maybe she didn't notice, but maybe she did), trying to make eye contact with someone who clearly wanted to be left alone, trying to turn a conversation into a flirtation, or a flirtation into whatever comes after a flirtation… that time at the club when we were dancing and I accidentally brushed a body part, and she might not have even noticed, or she might have taken it as flirting, so I tried to accidentally brush that body part again. Micro-aggressions, and some stuff that was bigger than micro, too, if you come right down to it.

I’ve certainly done my share of micro-elisions, too. I should have said, “That’s disrespectful, dude,” but instead I laughed at the joke. Didn’t want to be a stick in the mud. But my laugh might have sent a message to someone else who was also uncomfortable, “don’t be a stick in the mud; nobody else minds.” That micro-elision turned us both into bystanders. The time the couple was arguing, and the boyfriend — taller and much heavier — started looming. You know the way big boys sometimes loom, put their hand on their girlfriend’s neck with that faux-tenderness that is part threat. I moved down the subway platform, instead of staying close enough that the girlfriend knew there were witnesses nearby. “Don’t get involved.” Micro-elision. 

For my micro-aggressions and regular aggressions, for my micro-elisions and regular elisions, I have my excuses lined up: “I was young, I was in a bad place at the time, I thought I was being funny, we were both drunk, or tired, or both. We started out just being playful! I thought she was into it!” The excuses come to mind effortlessly, even years later. I’ve pushed a few lines when I knew better, or said nothing as someone around me pushed lines. I’ve gotten into situations I shouldn’t have, or stood by while someone engineered an unsafe situation, and instead of getting someone out of an unsafe situation, I lined up my excuses, putting my own conscience above someone’s safety. By ignoring, or never teaching myself to notice certain things, I could maintain my self-image as a good guy, while still getting away with some stuff, never suffering the discomfort or paying the social cost of being the stick in the mud. Did anyone else notice my action, or inaction? I'm not sure. Would anyone blame me? Probably not. There were other bystanders, too. Were there other incidents where I didn't even notice what I'd done, or what was going on? I'm absolutely sure of that. There were times I went far enough that I have made some apologies to some people. I've played my part.

It was easy to focus on the Weinsteins and the Cosbys. But that much subtler, much harder and more inward-looking work has to happen too if we want a real cultural change. Stuff like the bear meme will keep going around until one of them brings home the fact everyone plays a part, however small, and even well-meaning good guys who showed up at the rally can probably find ways to become better.

And it’d be a better world if part of some men doing better was by challenging other men to become better, too. Because if all we get is pick-me posturing, without self-reflection and accountability from man to man, the fact “one of the good ones” is doing less than he could is the other thing that makes women feel like no man is entirely safe, and the bear is a better pick.

“If the bear attacked me, people would believe me.” That women feel they won’t be believed shows that ALL of us have failed, not just the predators. 

When #MeToo first broke, a friend suggested I write something like what I just wrote above — about the part men need to play now that women have pulled the worst moments of their lives out and set them on display in order to plead with us to finally, at long last, believe them. It’s sad, and kind of gross, the scale of display that it took to get some men to snap out of denial and gaslighting, even for a short time. My friend suggested I talk about the little stuff, and the stuff even #GoodGuys do when they think no one’s looking, stuff I did, which she knew about, as a call for everyone to do better, not just to externalize the finger-pointing and claim an easy moral high-ground over the Cosbys of the world.

My friend suggested the hashtag, “#ItWasMe” – I was part of the background radiation that sets women slightly on edge about their safety at all times. And a few times, I was more than just the background radiation. To my shame, I didn’t have the courage to stand up with such a challenging position at the time, because I was worried about confessing some of my own actions and failures, those things I apologized for in the past, those apologies I made to others, and promises I made to myself.

When I look back on my life? 

I’ve held and expressed opinions that didn’t respect women. I might still be wrong about some stuff.

I’ve participated in a broad spectrum of shaming. I’ve held and passed on stereotypes and sexist judgments about a few women I’ve known. I’ve worked on this a lot.

Around other men, I’ve definitely laughed at that joke, or said nothing when I should have called out a gross word or attitude.

For all I know, one of those times, I sent somebody the message that it was okay, or cool, or acceptable even for people like me to hold such views or laugh at such jokes. That guy had lots of his own choices to make on his own personal path toward misogyny, and he’s responsible for himself in the end, but on his path, I could have been a roadblock, and instead, I stepped aside. For all I know, my choice to go along nudged someone else into becoming a bystander, too. Even trying to be mindful, I probably still miss some opportunities to be better. Maybe lots.

Back in my single days especially, I know I’ve pushed lines where I knew better, and I’ve been pushed away, had a line drawn, and tried again anyway. That's stuff I am ashamed of now, and sometimes stuff I was ashamed of then, too, but in the moment, I had my excuses lined up. I made some hard apologies to some people after a few such incidents. Twenty-plus years later, it’s hard even now to write this and hit “publish.” The temptation to make this paragraph even more vague than it already is, or delete it, or publish it as is, or add more details, is creating a little whirlpool of back-and-forth in my mind.

But without flinching, every man needs to reckon with their part in that background radiation making things crappy for women, with those times they pushed a line, or let it slide when a guy friend talked about pushing a line. The times they lined up excuses, and the things they did while hiding behind them. Men can’t fix sexism on their own, but there’s a lot of stuff men can do, and there’s stuff men are best positioned to do — like talking to other men. Maybe not even to change their mind, but just to plant a seed. Men can be there in the locker room to shut down “locker room talk” that creates the permission structure for further disrespect. Or maybe not shut it down, but take most of the fun out of it. The more of us do it, the easier it is for each of us. Many hands make light work.

To be less passive about that, men need to look in the mirror… be honest about why she chose the bear, and go about changing the conditions — one locker room and restaurant table at a time — that keep creating men who are scarier to women than a wild animal. The first step, men taking a look inside, accounting for their own thoughts, words, and behavior, and being honest about their own worst points and weakest moments, is pretty damn hard, but without it, all the other steps are just posturing.

On Meeting a Bear in the Woods

Social media has been buzzing with the news that if they were alone in the woods, many women would rather encounter a bear than a lone man. And the mens are MAD! Oh, they are in their feelings!

But before I engage further with the bear in the woods thing, I need to know: is the bear carrying a balloon and singing a song about hunny? Or wearing a raincoat, perhaps? Just want to check.

This meme is the exact opposite of mansplaining. Mansplaining is a man explaining something he might (might) understand, but definitely assumes the non-men around him do not understand. But here, we have non-men who understand something pleading with various men either to understand something they don’t understand, make a little more effort to understand something that shouldn’t be beyond their power of comprehension, stop pretending not to understand something they definitely do understand, or (and this is probably the real thing) to be a little less precious (perhaps even… man up) and show some dignity in the face of a truth that makes them uncomfortable. Whatever the words, there's a lot of gninialpsnam (plansmaining? Snailmanpin?) going on here.

What are men trying hard not to understand (or acting performatively offended to hear)? At its heart, a simple repackaging of the “all men are rapists,” discussion. If you get that idea, and why people deploy it in conversations, you can skip to part two of this blog post. You don't have to (maybe you like the way I write or something?) but you can.

There are some added paws, claws, marmalade and occasional ‘wakka wakka’s, but it boils down to the same reality: a lot, maybe most, perhaps even nearly all women feel unsafe around men they don’t know. We’re guilty until proven innocent. 

I probably deeply felt the injustice of being expected to prove my innocence, my good guy-ness, at some point in my life, but a lady friend really brought it home for me when she asked me, “how do you prepare for a date with someone you don’t know that well? For example a blind date?”

My checklist was pretty typical for my gender, I think: dress nice, shave, make sure there's cash in the wallet, gas in the car, tickets for the thing and reservations at the place. If things are hopeful and you weren’t raised in the “wait for marriage” community some of us were, condom in pocket, too. Check the trunk of the car for that duffel bag of fur handcuffs, riding crops, harnesses, fireman helmet and French maid costume, fresh batteries, consent forms, robe and wizard hat every sensible person keeps in the trunk of their car next to the spare tire. Nothing unusual for a garden variety man-on-a-date.

“Okay,” my lady friend said. “Here’s what I do…” 

-influence planning to ensure the date’s at a place and time that will be well-lit and busy enough to have witnesses

-locate her self-defense device (pepper spray, brass knuckles, taser, etc.)

-make sure it’s full/charged/loaded etc.

-put it in a spot in her handbag for very quick access

-match it with shoes that were ok for running in a pinch

-tell a trusted friend where she’d go, when she’d be back, and what time to start worrying (text updates for changes of plan)

-set up a “quick exit” codeword to text to that friend, at which time the friend would call back and pretend there was an emergency, so she had to go. (this was not, she assured me, as cool as when Trinity does it in the Matrix. It was scary.)

During the date:

-only visit the toilet when her drink was empty, or a girl has agreed to “watch my drink” while she goes

-scan places she entered for the number of exits, and number of women around

This friend wasn’t choosing “risky types” of boys to date - she did all this invisible work on the off-chance, because the most dangerous guys don’t look dangerous.

“On the off chance, you say?” says Rocco, the Fictional Person Who Argues With Me, “Sounds kind of… PARANOID!”

That’s a good word, paranoid. Let’s unpack it a bit.

Rocco: (Groans dramatically)

A paranoid person takes precautions, but not all precautions are paranoid. Can we agree on that? 

Rocco: (into his hands, muffled) yes.

Every day, everybody takes precautions for tons of bad stuff that might, or might not happen. Stuff like wearing seatbelts and bike helmets, installing smoke detectors, taking CPR training courses, tossing a few Tylenol in the backpack, and waiting at crosswalks are all precautions. We don't mind them, might not even think about them as precautions, because they don't cost us much time, money or inconvenience. Nobody thinks it's paranoid to wait at a crosswalk, or wear a bike helmet, or stuff an extra phone charger in their backpack.

Precautions only become paranoid when they don’t match the actual frequency or seriousness of the bad thing that might happen. Movie stunt drivers who come to work in airbag suits are being perfectly sensible, because filming car stunts is way dangerous. But in other contexts, like say, driving to church, that same airbag suit would generally be considered paranoid. The word paranoid means we’re having a conversation about risk, so we have to compare precautions to an accurate risk-assessment before deciding who’s paranoid. Not enough caution? Reckless. Appropriate caution? Sensible. Too much caution? Don’t be so paranoid!

If the risk is high enough, the word paranoid just doesn’t attach, no matter how many precautions we take. YES I want the skydiving pack with a triple redundant parachute release mechanism. Unless you have some quadruple redundant in storage. Me no want splat.

So, Rocco, we need to measure that "on the off chance" a bit more accurately before bringing the word paranoid into the conversation. Words mean things.

"and will you be having the fish, the chicken,
or our vegetarian option for the meal?"

If I wore a skydiving suit every time I took a commercial flight… would that be paranoid? 

Rocco: Airplane crashes are pretty devastating,, and yet I want to say it would be.

And your impulse would be correct. Here's why: most years, fewer than 1000 people worldwide die in airplane crashes (see below). 1000 is a big number to show up at your coffee shop during Tuesday lunch break, but for a global fatality rate in something, it’s really, really low! A skydiving suit IS a bit paranoid for a commercial flight. 

However, if there were 50 000 plane crash deaths per year, or 500 000, the calculation changes. Maybe a parachute isn't such a bad idea anymore. Or taking the train.

So what’s the risk of sexual assault, which is the real subject of the bear discourse, then? If a woman takes all the measures listed above, is she the weirdo wearing a skydiving suit on a commercial flight, or a perfectly normal soccer mom telling the kids, “buckle up” before she starts the car?

(that airplane crash chart is courtesy of Statista.com)

Well, let's make a risk assessment.

Even without data, if you were online in 2017, during that October when #MeToo first went viral, you know women's risk of being sexually assaulted is pretty high, that a lot of women experience that sometime in their lives.

Rocco: “…” 

You want data, I guess, Rocco? 

Rocco: “Yes.” 

Are you sure? 

Rocco: “Yes.” 

OK then. RAINN - the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network reports here (RAINN link) that one in six US women will be the victim of a rape attempt or a full-on actual rape in her lifetime. Men get raped too (1 in 71, sez Wikipedia, which isn’t nothing, but is fewer than 1 in 6) Wikipedia link (I know, I know), but even for male rape, the rapists are still overwhelmingly male. How overwhelmingly? Ninety-frikkin' nine percent. (no, that is not a typo). What percentage of rapists or would-be rapists are actual members of the Ursidae family? I think the number there is zero, or really really really close to zero (shudder).

Who are we meeting in the woods again?

1 in 6, plus 1 in 71, with 99% of it perpetrated by men… context-free, that’s enough on its own, isn't it? Is that enough risk assessment? Can we say precautions are not paranoid?

Rocco: "..."

Fine. Context: here are some other risky things humans do. Human bodies are not designed to survive a crash at automobile speeds. Yet many humans drive or ride in cars. Worldwide, 1.3 million people a year die in car accidents.

What precautions do we take to avoid being part of that 1.3 million? We pay car insurance, wear seatbelts, swallow the extra cost (without even complaining) of manufacturers building safety features (required by law) into our cars, consent to an entire complicated system of safety regulations and traffic laws run by the government and enforced by the police, and basically accept the tickets and fines we get if we don’t follow the rules. We may whine, but we pay, and we accept that those safety laws exist, and should. 

Consider smoking. Eight million people a year die of smoking-related diseases. For that eight million, society tolerates or even welcomes massive cigarette taxes, taxpayer-funded anti-smoking advertising and education campaigns, extensive regulations over every aspect of the tobacco industry, and we even let them put horrifying photos on every cigarette package, often out on display where kids can see them. We send smokers off to designated smoking areas like grade-school kids standing in the corner. IMAGINE how much complaining we'd hear from any other group with any other habit if we told them they had to leave the building and stand in the winter wind to indulge their habit of... reading celebrity gossip. But eight million deaths a year is enough that none of that stuff strikes us as unreasonable in 2025.

Is one in six US women (sometime in their lifetime), extrapolated to some bigger number worldwide, more than eight million dead smokers a year worldwide? I’m not going to torture you with back-of-the-napkin math here: the math doesn't math smoothly because:

It’s hard to stack that 1 in 6 up with other countries. Differences in laws, definitions of rape, cultural understandings of consent, and other factors make it hard to compare one country to another and feel confident that we’re comparing apples to apples, and not oranges. Compound that by the fact a lot of rapes and rape attempts go unreported, even in anonymous surveys, for various reasons, and the real number might be more than one in six. Maybe a lot more. Probably not less, though.

Most of the data I’ve found about sexual harassment and rape is of the “at some time in her life” or "during her university years" type, which is hard to translate into a “per year” number that stacks up directly against the 1.3 million car crash deaths and the eight million smoking deaths per year. It is hard for me to brain those numbers because I am a words guy, not a statistics guy.

But even without braining them rigorously, I can lick my finger, stick it in the air, and say I’m pretty sure, in fact almost certain that 1 in 6 (and 1 in 71) shakes out to WAY more than 8 million assaults a year worldwide, even more than the 9.3 million car crash deaths and smoking deaths combined. If men were a car, there’d be a recall.

If anyone knows a link where someone brained the math more mathily, please share it! Or if someone is data-brained enough to number-crunch those numbers, I’d be grateful. But for today, it is enough to say we are definitely way above the threshold of “dangerous enough to take precautions.” What level of precautions, exactly? We'd still be far, far from paranoid at the "everybody wears a seatbelt every time a car is in motion, by law, and pays $1000 a year in car insurance" level of precaution, which is pretty disruptive, if you think about it. If you disagree, Evil Knievel and the cast of Jackass would like a word with you.

1 in 6 is one spin of Russian roulette.

And that 1 in 6 was ONLY for rape and rape attempts. Add other stuff that's gross but not rape -- leering, following, catcalling, obscene texts or phone calls, stalking, groping, lewd comments, gross nonconsensual camera stuff, and how high does the ratio go? That stuff, which all adds to that constantly on-edge, unsafe feeling women are talking about when they bring up the bear thing, isn’t even counted in the one in six.

If you’re a man reading this, and you’re mad about being compared to a bear, find a woman who’ll tell you the truth, promise you won't argue with her, and ask how high above one in six she thinks the ratio would go if we counted all that noise, too, and then just listen to her. I have a feeling I know what answer you'll get.

One spin of Russian roulette. It’s perfectly reasonable to be nervous about a strange man in the woods.

(This webpage says 35% of women have faced sexual harassment… but again, what are our definitions?)

Rocco: “I’m not convinced.”

Really? Well, let’s keep going, then.

Next question: Why DO bears hang out in the woods? What are they up to? And what is a MAN doing in the woods?

Think of all the things bears do. 100% of those things happen in the woods. They eat, sleep, climb things, get jiggy, search for Eeyore’s tail, and make marmalade, all in the woods. That means, “find and harm a lone woman” is a long ways down on a bear’s to-do list, far far below "find a tree trunk that is also a back-scratcher." 

Ask “What is that bear up to, by itself in the woods?” and the answer is, “Where else would it be?”

Now, ask what that MAN in the woods, by himself, is up to?

Because, of all the things men do, most do not happen in the woods. Towns, villages, buildings, houses, cars, sports bars and bowling alleys all rank higher than the woods. Plus, the things men DO do in the woods are usually group activities, like hiking or camping or LARPing or calling on dark spirits from the unknowable beyond. Of the things men ONLY do in the woods, and ONLY alone… the list is getting short. Still, the top few items are still probably harmless: (find a cool walking stick, practice ninja skills, commune with nature, practice writing in the snow, perhaps) but a little ways down the list are a few things that happen in the woods specifically because the woods don't have escape routes, lines of sight, locking doors, CCTVs, law enforcement, or nearby witnesses. What activities check THOSE boxes? Nothing wholesome. 

Asked, “What is that man up to by himself in the woods?” I think, “I don’t know, and I don’t care to find out," is a very reasonable reply.

There’s a very small cost for thinking a lone man in the woods is up to no good, and being wrong. My punishment for avoiding him: a little lost time, and a lost chance to meet someone who might be cool.

On the other hand, there’s a terrifically high cost for thinking a man in the woods is probably fine, and being wrong. Assume the wrong man is safe, and we’re looking at life-altering trauma. 

Better safe than sorry, oh, so very sorry.

Rocco: “I’m not saying you’ve persuaded me, but…”

At this point, Rocco, it’s starting to seem like you just don’t WANT to see it from women’s point of view. Really think about whether that's happening right now, and what that would mean.

Rocco: “No comment.”

Another thing about bears: the stuff in the forest safety pamphlet will keep you safe from almost every bear. Unless that bear really really wants you to win an Oscar, three to five minutes of reading will get you home from your hike un-mauled.

But men are not so predictable. Back-talking a catcaller, or any other response, really, can have a range of effects, from nothing to an abashed apology to being followed and worse. You never know what you get, from man to man, even from the same man on different days. That uncertainty is terrifying when someone is bigger, probably stronger, and might be inclined to violence (and you won’t know if he is until it's too late). Add to this the knowledge that if he attacks you, a lot of people won’t believe you, and might even blame you if you report it. 

Compare that to bears. If you follow the tips on the safety pamphlet, bears usually aren’t inclined to violence. They’re inclined to bear stuff, like catching salmon, the bare necessities of life, and preventing forest fires.

Rocco: “But I’m a Good Guy! I’m not One Of Those Guys! Not All Men are like that!”

Sure, but our hypothetical female hiker doesn’t know that about you, does she? And don't forget that human predators know how to make themselves appear harmless, so rando mando is guilty until proven innocent.

Rocco: “Perhaps if I just had a chance to explain that I’m not a predator…”

Good luck with that, but think on this: all the things you'd say to try show someone you're okay... are the exact things a predator might say to gain her trust in order to… preda her. Saying you're one of the good ones IS a red flag itself, kind of the same way the people who say "Trust me" the most are the biggest liars, and real experts in stuff don't proclaim, "I know a lot about this."

Rocco: Well, ok. I’m not saying those reservations are unreasonable. I’m really not. But… if I’m guilty until proven innocent, isn’t it fair that I get a chance to, you know, prove that I am… innocent?

Fair point, and you should get that chance… but perhaps alone in the woods is the wrong time and place to try?

Rocco: So what can I do?

Read the fucking room! Instead of alone in the woods, approach women in the places where it’s socially acceptable and normal for men to approach women, like singles bars, club meetings, and social gatherings. Take your shot in places where the answer to the question “what’s he doing by himself HERE” is something obvious and boring like "getting a latte, looking for a book to read, or sharing one of his interests with like-minded people.”

Rocco: “Okay. I get it. Join a book club. But I’d just like to point out that any persuadable person would have already been persuaded 400 words ago, Rob.”

So you admit you don’t want to be persuaded?

Rocco: “I admit no such thing. I just want to know why you are really still going on about this?”

I’m glad you asked.

Rocco: “Oh shit. That’s your ‘pontification’ face.”

It is.

Rocco: “What have I done?”

Stay tuned for part two, which is live now!!

Things I've Learned about Korea by doing the Radio Show

Soundtrack: Press play and start reading.

Haven't done a bliss-out in a while, and you don't know this one is going to be one, until the last minute of the song, when it keeps celebrating, and then ends with about fifteen seconds on an entirely different plane... but like other good bliss-outs, you have to listen to the whole song, or those last fifteen seconds don't have the support to actually launch you into that other place.

I've always liked Stevie Wonder, but those ten seconds at the end of this song made me love him.

So yeah, I've been doing a section of The Evening Show for TBS eFM: the show's hosted by a fella named Mike, whom you can find here @MikeOnTBS.  You can also keep up with what The Evening Show's doing at @TheEveningShow.  Or follow me on twitter @Roboseyo (didn't see that coming, did you?) or friend me on facebook (facebook.com/roboseyo).  I'm a facebook friend whore: I'll totally accept.

The show's been hella fun so far, mostly due to the awesome callers we've had call into the show.  (and you can be one of those callers, readers!)

Anyway, before I turn into a pure pimp, one of the fun things about the show, to me, is this:

Every day I get a new Korea-related topic, and I have to become a fifteen-minute expert in it.  Fifteen-minute expert means not that I spend fifteen minutes researching, and bluff, but that I have to learn enough about a topic to talk about it in an informed way for fifteen minutes.  Every day the topic's different, which means I've learned about all sorts of things since I started the show three weeks ago.

So, here are ten things I've learned about Korea by doing The Evening Show's call-in segment:

1. Korea's actually doing quite well in trying to improve its environmental standing.

Given that Korea has very few energy resources of its own, it's important for Korea to use the oil it imports, or the nuclear energy it generates, as efficiently as possible; Korea's currently the world's fifth largest oil importer.  That's bad news.  The good news: Korea's actually put a LOT of energy and money into environmental initiatives.  Natural gas buses, public transit, bus lanes, Samsung's lithium batteries, smart, efficient buildings (which, I learned, burn more fuel than cars): Korea's working hard.

Now if only the country also took care of its wetlands...

The four rivers' project has become too politically embroiled to get a straight story about it from either side.

2. Korea's traditions of gift-giving for marriage are really interesting... and the richer you were back in the day, the more ridiculously extravagant the gift-giving became.

Chests full of silk, carried by the bride's family, bribed into the groom's house, watches, clothes, three keys (car, office and house) and more: the gift-giving expectations for Korean weddings are mad lengthy, and the higher your position you'd attained, the more your family demanded from your spouse-to-be's family.

3. In recent years, the largest demographic decline in Korea's smoking rate was in middle-aged men.  Young men (20s and 30s) has remained about the same.  Meanwhile, the smoking rate for women is probably waaay under-reported.

4. The secretary general of the Korea smokers' association doesn't like people using the term "smokers" - he prefers "cigarette consumers" because it's less stigmatized.

5. The experts we spoke to think the black market (where food is traded and distributed in North Korea, when the centralized food-distribution system falls short) is good for North Korea, for two different reasons: one because that's where North Koreans learn about how life is in the South - that's where Korean wave illegal DVDs are bought and traded - and the other because a mini-free enterprise system will help North Koreans adjust to living in a free market system, in the event of reunification.

6. North Korea has its own international economic zone, called Rajin-Sonbong.  So far, the main investor there is China.

7. There's a movie called Bangga Bangga about a Korean who pretends to be from Bhutan in order to get a job in a factory.  Sounds super-interesting: I heard about it from Paul Ajosshi, and I hope he has a chance to write about it sometime on his blog.  On that same topic, another reader commented that a farmer he knows started hiring migrant workers not because they were cheaper, but because the Koreans she employed kept stealing from her.

8. I already kind of knew this, but covering it from different angles really brought it home: long working hours, women's workplace rights, the low birthrate, lack of government support for parents, the aging population and the approaching welfare crisis, and the need to give migrant workers a more recognized place in Korean society, all connect to each other in a big, ugly bundle.

9. Pay day loan companies in Korea are very, badly under-regulated, and though it's illegal, some of them charge interest as high as 3000% per annum on their loans.  Yep.  All those zeros are supposed to be there.  The payday loan companies are supposed to be regulated by their gu office, but those offices are too under-staffed to be properly vigilant.

10. Standard versions of language are a kind of expression of cultural hegemony, and the degree of connection between language, culture, identity, and power, are quite inextricable.

More later, readers.

And all the best...

Roboseyo

Happy New Year! Is Korean Seollal Changing?

Happy new year, readers.

It's a good day, the weather's finally not so bone-chilling, and the wife is away on vacation.

Not that I'm up to any mischief... I wouldn't be here blogging if I were, now, would I?

Since I've come to Korea, one of the things I've noticed is a big change in how the Korean traditional holidays (that is, Seollal/Lunar New Year) and Chuseok (Harvest festival) are practiced.

The typical/normative Korean Traditional Holiday^(tm) experience remains that of going to the grandparents' house, having a ritual for the ancestors that involves big tables full of traditional foods that take a long time to prepare and clean up, the women spending hours in the kitchen, the men playing cards or games in the other room, and the consuming of chapchae, ddeokkuk (new year) and songpyeon (chuseok).  Grandparents give money to the children, and the children bow to the living ancestors (parents, uncles, especially grandparents) and some or all of the family goes up the mountain to trim the grass and perform maintenance on the family gravesite.  And the children wear really cute Hanbok.

Frankly, I'm not the guy to describe all those ceremonies.  The Korean does an admirable job of it.

I'm interested in the way the holiday's changed: my first year in Korea, Seoul was a ghost town during the new year celebration.  The usual complaints were raised: traffic is a pain, it's impossible to get tickets,  the women do all the work, it's boring sitting around at your grandparents' house all day.

Meanwhile, this year Seoul's museums are staying open, and a lot of the palaces and plazas are featuring cultural events, displays and performances this Seollal.  People are traveling overseas instead of visiting the family.  Meanwhile, a recent survey reports that only one in five Koreans consider their grandparents part of their family.

Tonight's topic on TBS eFM is the ways we celebrate Seollal/Lunar New Year: what do you do, and is it different than it used to be?  It's a holiday, so we're picking a happy topic, and I'd love to hear from readers, how do YOU celebrate the new year?  Have travel concerns changed the way you celebrate? Have you spent holidays away from family? Why?  Have you ever attended the cultural events instead?Whether you're Korean or not, we'd love to hear what you get up to on Korea's traditional holidays.

The Evening Show Fun, plus: Korean Soccer

Yes, readers, I finished one week at The Evening Show.  Every night, I do a segment that's about 15 minutes long, and it's called "The Bigger Picture."

It's a call-in show where listeners call and share their opinions.  Last week went really well, but because it's a call-in show, the show's only as good as the callers.  So, readers, follow me on Twitter, and friend me on Facebook (yep, it's a verb now) and follow my tweets and status updates.

Question of the day today: how will Team Korea do now that Park Jisung has retired from international play?  He'll no longer be representing Korea in competitions like the Asia Cup, or World Cup qualifiers...

on the other hand, he's had a pretty good run, with he and Lee Young-pyo being the only remaining players who were part of the 2002 World Cup team that went to the semi-finals.

Are you a soccer fan?  Are you a Team Korea fan?  Who's going to take Park Jisung's place, are there young guns ready to fill his shoes?

Leave a comment, or shoot me an e-mail if you want to call into the show.

Is Divorce in Korea finally Socially Acceptable?

Update:  The show went well... apologies to James from The Grand Narrative, who was supposed to be on the show, but who we missed because of a miscommunication.  Fortunately for you, readers, he's written some of what he would have said, over on his blog.  Awesome.  I hope I'll have a chance to invite you on the show later, James.

Also, thanks to Jennifer, facebook pals Hyunsoo, Sun Heo, and twitter pals @aaronnamba @Ben_Kwon and @TWolfejr, Wet Casements and 3Gyupsal, and everybody who listens, calls, or comments.

In my first year in Korea, I met a woman, the mother of one of my students, who lied to her family for two years, rather than admit that she had divorced her abusive husband.

Today, Yonhap News reports the launching of a magazine specifically targeted at divorcees.

So the question we're discussing tonight on "Argue with Roboseyo" or "The Bigger Picture" at TBS eFM radio is whether the launch of this magazine is an indication that divorce has finally become socially acceptable in Korea.

What do you think?  Write your thoughts in the comments, and I'll try to read them on air during the segment, from 7:40-7:55 tonight on 101.3 TBS eFM's evening show.  Or phone in at 02-778-1013.

Questions:

1. What are the gender issues and social issues at play?  In Choseon Korea, men could have concubines, and women had very few rights.  The danger of destitution and discrimination were the main disincentives for divorce in the past.  What about now?  Have women's rights improved enough that divorce no longer guarantees poverty?

2. Is it a sign of social progress, if women feel independent and liberated enough to get a divorce, rather than feeling trapped in a bad marriage?

3. Is this a sign that Korea's vaunted "family values" are disintegrating?  Maybe people just don't care as much as they used to about bringing shame on their family?

4. Other than family pressures, what were the obstacles to getting a divorce in the past?

Put your comments below, and if you have a strong opinion, or if you have experience with divorce in Korea, let drop me a line at roboseyo at gmail: the show's always looking for callers.

Argue with Roboseyo: Jeju Island's Dialect is in Danger... So What?

[Update/Recap:

It was a good show, with a bunch of callers, including a professor from Jeju University, who's studied the Jeju Dialect, and assures us it's a language of its own.

Thank you to Mike Hurt and Rachel for calling, and on Twitter, thanks to @Cocoinkorea, @rjmlee, @DGFEZ, @HJKomo @chrisinseoulsk, and @aaronnamba for their opinions on Twitter, Bora, Charles, Rachel, Danielle and Soyeon for their opinions on Facebook.]

For more information about endangered languages, check out this AMAZING TED Talk by Wade Davis:


And check out the UNESCO "Endangered Languages" map.

Last night, we talked on TBS eFM's evening show about Korea's "Mart Kids" - it was an awesome show, with tons of callers!  (Callers are fun.)

Tonight, we're discussing the Jeju Island Dialect: UNESCO has named the Jeju Island dialect (satturi) a critically endangered language.

If you're a linguist, a heritage lover, or if you have connections to Jeju Island (lived there, taught there, speak the dialect yourself), shoot me an e-mail, because we'd love to talk to you on the show!

These are the issues that come up:

1. When hanok buildings are being bulldozed, and archaeological sites are getting converted into apartment complexes, what's the big deal about a language?  Which aspects of a culture do you think need to be made a priority, in terms of preservation?

2. Why is this dialect disappearing?  

3. With English mania in Korea, should we be concerned that sometime in the future, the Korean language as a whole will be in danger, crowded out by English or some other "global language"? 

4. Is it the cost of progress to lose these kinds of local varieties?  Supermarket culture has led to the disappearance of regional breeds of tomatoes... but if the supermarket variety grows and ships and stores better, 

5. Is it possible to preserve a language?  Languages constantly change, adding new words, ceasing to use old ones -- if the language is falling out of use, that means it is no longer serving a purpose, so why preserve it?

6. Are Korea's other local dialects next?  Everybody's moving to Seoul and watching Seoul-made dramas and movies.  Will the Daegu, Busan or Gwangju dialects be next to go?

7. What steps should be made to preserve it, if it's worth preserving?

Did you learn your parents' mother tongue or not?  (I know I didn't); are regional accents where you're from disappearing?  Write in!

Argue with Roboseyo: Feral Kids/Latch-Key Kids

Update: the show went great!  We had more callers than we knew what to do with, and that's always the way to have the most fun on the radio.  Thanks to everybody who called.

Also, thanks for the awesome comments here; to get your comments read on air (we won't always have time to get to every one of them), following the patterns of Marc Hogi, and Dan, in the comments to this point, is great: concise, specific responses, with concrete experiences or points.  I especially like how Dan did one or two sentence point-by-point comments.  Thanks a lot.  Well done, readers!  See you tomorrow!

Well, folks, I'm hosting a part of The Evening Show on TBS E FM, one of Korea's English radio stations now.  It's a call-in show, where you can phone the station and voice your opinion about different topics, and the more callers we get, the more fun it is.  You'll see previews about the topics here, and any comment you leave here might get read on air, and if you really have something to say, drop your e-mail address in here and I'll write you about calling into the show: it's more fun with callers than with me reading comments on air.

The topic today is "Mart Kids" - this really sad article in the Korea Times looks at kids whose parents are working long hours, who aren't signed up for hagwons (the way most kids fill their hours until mom and dad get home), so they hang out in shopping malls killing time until the folks get home.

Questions that I'd love you to have an opinion about:

1. Is this any different from the latch-key kids of double-income families in North America?

2. Whose responsibility is it to make sure these kids have safe places to pass their time (the government? schools? charities? parents?)

3. What are their parents thinking?  Where's the disconnect, where these kids fall through the gaps?

4. The idea of free-range parenting: giving kids enough freedom to develop a sense of independence - is good, but it should be age-appropriate, right?  What age do you think is an OK age for a kid to hang out alone, or with two or three other classmates, at the mall all afternoon?

5. Is it so bad for kids to have minimal parental supervision?  When I was a kid, my brother biked all around the city, as long as he was home by dark.  Why are people so freaked out now by unsupervised kids?

6. After talking about "Tiger Moms" who fill their kids' entire days with study and lessons, and "Mart Kids" who don't have any structure at all, what do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems?

7. If you were a latch-key kid, or grew up without much supervision, and turned out really well, or had a rough time, share your experience.  If you knew a kid who grew up without much supervision, share what you saw with them.  If you're a parent, what's your policy, and why?

Write in, folks.  The show's at 7:30: the more opinions we have, the more fun it is!