But this is what provides the views for Mr. Weingarten - it’s the great outdoorsman fantasy, to defend themselves successfully from a powerful animal predator. It’s kinda weird, but I guess better than being a ‘furrie’.
In actual history - while researching some genealogy, found a 2nd great-uncle of my spouse that went grizzly bear hunting in Montana with two others gents just before WW1. Final score was one dead bear, one wounded bear, two dead hunters and one severely mauled great-uncle.
In actual history - while researching some genealogy, found a 2nd great-uncle of my spouse that went grizzly bear hunting in Montana with two others gents just before WW1.
Final score was:
- one dead bear,
- one wounded bear,
- two dead hunters, and
- one severely mauled great-uncle.
Is there something “weird” to you about man vs, nature, man in the great outdoors facing the elements and a worthy adversary? The heroism of man vs. beast? This is a tale as old as time, the epitome of the masculine archetype and an expression of courage and virtue.
But you sit on your presumably flabby buttocks typing that it is “weird”. Is “Moby Dick” also weird? Here I was thinking it was a great work of literature. This is the inferior castigating what it dare not achieve. Does it substitute for your missing masculinity?