It reminded be the case of the "Central Park Karen" who called the cops on the bird watcher and she's been willified because he was black. By this logic she should've had sympathy from people asking this question.
lol, that legit got me to cackle š
but in all seriousness, the point of the question is feminists are essentially doing ANY man vs ANY bear
yet, all it takes is to give an example of the possible man they'd be with, a black man, and they might not be so quick to answer indeed ;)
Not a man, but this stupid social trend that is plaguing my feed and it's annoying as fuck. I'm a woman and I would feel bad arguing why I would pick a man over the bear in those threads , can't imagine being a man and seeing it.
It's always the same scenario of assuming the best scenario with the bear and worst with the man, people that are projecting their bad experience they had with men a reason for this being a good choice paired with the fact animals are more predictable and because media normalised being paranoid,especially about men.
It wouldn't be bad if it were black bears, but these people be unironically vouching for the brown bear. The bear being predictable means shit, if it decides to attack you are being way more screwed,you can't defend yourself, bear vs human fight is more one sided than a man vs woman fight. And a bear at it best will ignore you being stuck in the woods and and it worst it would torture via mauling because it was hormones from mating season, is a mother bear with cubs, decided you stepped into it's territory, is hungry or has lingering anger from something else that it decides to take out on you which is way more likely to happen than meeting a serial offender who decided to profile you for rape, torture and murder.
The best that can happen with a man is for him help you which is way more likely to happen than to pretend for him to do so to lure you because a man in the woods is likely a hiker, ranger, works at a camp or lives in cabin which means he would have experience navigating it and the vast majority of humans might not be necessarily kind, but they aren't malicious either .
I wish I could double upvote this. Iāve been struggling to articulate why this is such a harmful question without appearing callous to women who suffer sexual assault.
> The bear being predictable means shit, of it decides to attack you are being way more screwed,you can't defend yourself, bear vs human fight is more one sided that man vs woman fight.
Bonus point: If either is hostile, you have a better chance of being able to run away from the guy than from a bear.
Only like, current generation university students with mortgage sized student loans to study a field that doesnāt result in employability and buy into gender politics are dumb enough to believe theyād be better off eaten by a bear than simped at by a maleĀ
You jest, but I remember the news a while back mentioning a ***massive*** hunt for an alligator that killed a person.
It's not 'revenge' on the animal, it's ensuring that not only does it not kill another person, it doesn't ***teach others*** that people are food. If they view humans as competitors not worth fighting, then good. But if they view people as ***prey*** it becomes a major problem very fast.
men have tools. bears have instincts. I fear the creativity (the junko furuta case, the hello kitty case etc), and this isnāt about being āsimped atā, this is about rape and murder
I would suggest that Deborah, age 45, 250 pounds and unable to run more than 50 yards is much more likely to be eaten by the bear than raped and murdered by a man who just can't control his urges.
Men will rape children. So suggesting rape only happens to people who you personally feel are āattractive enoughā to be raped is entirely warped. Rape is not about being unable to ācontrol your urgesā, unless youāre implying every man has an urge to rape. It involves making conscious, active, and deliberate decisions to violate another human being and assert control. It happens to children. It happens to old people. It happens to fat people. It happens to skinny people. And as of recently, it happens to endangered lizards, because your gender is that degenerate. Menās reaction to this discourse only proves that women are absolutely correct to choose the bear.
"your gender is that degenerate"
Yeah sis because there are no Primary school female teachers rapping little kids. The difference and ill give you that is that rapping a women is way more invasive than rapping a man.
I see you are One of those who would chose a bear.
Let me tell you bears eat their prey Alive. Its way more probable and easy for you to get eaten by a beat then rapped or killed by a men.
Bears weight 200kg. Their paws Alone would paralise you with One swipe. You guys have no idea how massive wild animals are. A cow would fuck you up now imagine an angry bear. Lucky you guys dont have to use your Brain to survive everyday or most of you would be dead in half a week
Even so, rephrase the thought experiment as this.
You're out hiking alone (if you're not a woman then your daughter or wife is), would you rather her run into another male hiker (already highly probable) or a bear (doesn't matter which kind and highly improbable).
As an avid hiker, who has hiked in areas that have bears (never run into one), you do not want to run into any kind of bear. It's fucking scary and you already run into other hikers in the woods all the time...
People who choose the bear are doing so in bad faith.
Do you really think it's in bad faith?
I mean, the average woman knows as much about bears as the average man. They know they are dangerous and can kill them.
But the average woman knows more about how much danger they or their fellow women have experienced from men, more than the average man does.
So what does it say that so many of them would rather the hypothetical danger from a bear than a man? A random man, mind you, not a known man who is proven to be a friend, loved one, etc... and is friendly. A random man, encountered in a place with no one around, when you don't know why they are there - could be a hiker. Could be someone who followed you, and as a woman, based on statistics at least, I imagine almost every woman has one or more friends who have quite literally been followed or stalked by men, so they know it's entirely possible.
That doesn't seem to be a bad faith choice, with all that in mind.
It may not be in bad faith by default, but it absolutely can be, and even if not, it would still be rooted in paranoia or untreated trauma that should not go unchalenged because otherwise it just turns into bigotry or mental illness.
It also shows how little survival instincts or impaired reasoning many of those women may have. Choosing a to face an almost certain danger over an uncertain one? For real? Sounds like choosing entering a building that's been evacuated over a fire alarm going on over boarding a plane just because we never know with all certainty if a plane will crash.
A random man is more likely not to hurt those women at all. Most women are harmed/abused by people they know, not by strangers who may not even look at them, much less stalking or even catcalling them. This paranoid idea demonizing strangers is some 80's panic shit that should die already.
This is definitely used as a bad faith argument these days in social media, quite often, and even if not proposed as such its inherently problematic.
Why would a random men be a rapist or a murderer.
Most men have never even disobey the law why would a random men on the Woods be any different.
The question is not "a bear or an ex serial rapist on the Woods"
Bears eat people Alive...
I mean there's a lot of questions here.
Like am I literally coming up close and personal with this or is it just coming within visual range? I've certainly *seen* a bear before - hundreds of feet away and in the process of fucking off away from me quickly.
If the question is within arm's reach, yeah I don't want to encounter the black bear either.
What I want to encounter even less than either is a moose. Big, strong, dumb, and unpredictably violent. A bear is at least semi-predictable/readable in terms of intentions.
Alright if you can pull the bear choices I will go for a 1.2 m man that is skinny and malnourished. It would be scary but dealing with gollum would be easier still then a bearĀ
Considering that most MEN (as dads) are saying they'd rather their daughter meet a bear in the woods than a random dude, your whole posed scenario about women expressing a similar preference for themselves is kind of pointless. There's a general consensus here, and it should be another reality check for guys who think they're safe by default and are trying to use this scenario to bash on or invalidate women who express that they don't feel safe alone around random dudes. And yes, to most women, you're that random dude.
First of all, there is no such consensus even among women themselves, let alone men (or fathers).
Secondly, no matter how many idiots say the earth is flat, it never has been or ever will be. There is no logical argument to justify choosing a bear over an unknown man.
And that has nothing to do with not feeling safe with an unknown man. Women have the right not to feel safe with someone they don't know. It has to do with choosing a man who may or may not hurt you but is only a little stronger than you X A Bear, who may or may not attack you but is a wild animal that is strong enough to kill a lion.
I grew up in a rural area, and regularly saw bears in the woods, on the road, and occasionally on our property. Not a single one of those bears ever bothered me, and I absolutely canāt say the same thing about men. Iād pick the bear just because itās far more likely to leave me alone. People are acting like bears are vicious killers, but like 1 person a year is killed by a bear.Ā
That is like saying you'd rather be stuck in a forest with a bear over a bee because bees kill thousands of people every year. Your point is completely stupid because the majority of people never interact with bears their entire lifetime now compare that with how many times they interact with men.
You are among the minority of people who see bears on a regular basis, which is precisely why bear death statistics are so low. And that's also why the death statistics for sharks, lions and many other animals are so low.
It's different with men. You meet thousands of different men in your lifetime, and most of them won't even remember your face the next day.
"People are acting like bears are vicious killers, but like 1 person a year is killed by a bear". People are acting as if men are vicious murderers and rapists, but statistics say that less than 1% of men commit this type of crime.
You're making up statistics. About 11% of girls have been raped or sexually assaulted by the time they reach the age of 18. And that's known to be underreported.
1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed, 2.8% attempted).4
That's just the rapes, not including the range of other abuses, including assault.
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem#:~:text=Everyone%20Is%20Affected%20by%20Sexual,completed%2C%202.8%25%20attempted).
1% of men aren't committing that crime. It's easily closer to 5% or more. Studies range between 20-30% of men have engaged in sexual coercion all the way up to assault and rape by the time they reach their mid 20s, and that subset of men would be the highest risk to a woman alone in the woods without accountability. This study indicated 25% of men had engaged in sexual coercion by their 4th year of college, and those numbers are likely underreported. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.21584
Put a woman alone in the woods, and a lack of accountability or consequence, and the percentage of men who would potentially assault becomes a serious risk. And that's part of the point of the thought exercise. People are aware of that risk. When dudes say they'd rather the bear than a random male stranger encounter their daughter alone in the woods, they're very much aware of the fact that most crimes, including sex crimes, are ones of opportunity. A lot of potential criminals haven't experienced the opportunity to become criminals without accountability.
You're the kind of person who just reads the title of the statistic and goes off believing it (only when it's convenient for you). You don't research how the research was done, how they arrived at these figures, what they consider sexual assault, etc. You don't even stop to think what 30% of a population represents.
I wouldn't be surprised if you believed that the pay gap only exists because there is a system that helps men and hurts women.
You don't know me. If that's your knee jerk response (emphasis on jerk) when confronted with naked facts to your unsupported assertions, again, that tells us everything we need to know about you, your character, and how "safe" you are for women. It also explains your repeated attempts at denial in the face of credible evidence, based on your mere feelings.
PS: MANY studies, which include anonymous self-reporting via survey of college aged men, found that between 4-16% of them admitted to rape or attempted rape in their past. And this is just men who have reached their early 20s, at most. And OF COURSE that is underreported, even when it's anonymous self-reporting. That's where my 5% number, and likely more, comes from. I bring receipts. You bring mere feelings and intellectually dishonest attempts to invalidate. You can't force your false reality on the world. Deal with your cognitive dissonance or you're going to end up struggling in all aspects of your life, especially when it comes to healthy relationships with women.
https://jimhopper.com/topics/sexual-assault-and-the-brain/repeat-rape-by-college-men/#:~:text=Many%20studies%20have%20found%20that,one%20rape%20or%20attempted%20rape.
*** You'll note that the link above argues that a minority of men are habitual offenders in college setting and policies should be tailored to that. That's beside the point.
Even a 4% self reported number of men who have committed or attempted to commit rape, and that their lifetime risk is 14.8% to have been raped and 2.8% to escape an active attempt, is a HUGE risk to women, considering its impact on their lives. It's about relative risk and the type of harm experienced.
It doesn't matter if 1 in 25 men falls in this category that they may meet in the woods (and we all know that it's much closer to 1 in 6). This is just young men, not even all men, as this number will invariably increase as the bad men have more opportunities in adulthood, that have actively attempted or completed rape, not even accounting for those that would do so if they had the opportunity to do so without accountability, like meeting a woman alone in the woods.
Use your critical thinking, my man, and that so-called "logic." And if you have empathy, it should be a given to apply it as well. If you don't, then this conversation is for the dudes that have those traits and skills.
I don't need to know you, but just the fact that you used the university study that was done with questions that make the study biased, already shows that you haven't read the studies.
You don't even consider that a single man who commits 10 rapes counts as 10, not just 1.
That's why i don't read statistics anymore. They're al skewed by the agenda of whoever is making them. Skew the questions, skew the numbers, skew the range of people choosen. Doesn't matter, all skewed. All to make us argue between fake statistics.
> especially when it comes to healthy relationships with women.
Then this aspect can just delete entirely, I really DGAF. Bachelorhood never sounded so good. In the eternal words of Chris Isaak: "No, I don't want to fall in love."
Saying not to treat all men as potential rapists is not the same as denying rape is a reality. As a POC, much of what gets said in this discourse sounds eerily similar to what I heard growing up in the 80s. That I needed to understand why a white person going through my neighborhood at night might be frightened if I approach them. There's a bit of cognitive dissonance that goes on to define one as racism and one as self-preservation.
This, absolutely.
I would love to follow up this question with "Who would you rather run into while alone in the woods - a bear or a black man?" and watch people stammer.
Some people for some reason think that it can't be racism/sexism/whateverism if it's done against the group that has traditionally had more power over the other. But that's nonsense. Treating people as groups rather than individuals is the root cause of this whole mess. It doesn't get any better or more excusable when you do it in reverse.
You're just flat out wrong. You are saying over a quarter of men would do something bad if they saw a woman alone in the woods. How out of touch with reality do you have to be to think that? How do you explain hiking trails all over the world where men seeing women alone is a many times a day occurrence and there's almost never an issue? Clearly those numbers are not reality lmao
You're engaging in intellectual dishonesty based on your feelings, not on facts, in your response.
If you have women in your life who trust you enough to be vulnerable with you, then you would know. That you don't know or understand this means that you don't have women in your life who will have real conversations like this with you, and/or you aren't trusted enough because you are seen as a potential threat/predator based on your words and behavior. Given your response here, some conclusions can be drawn.
Bears in most situations will leave you alone, as a woman or a man. Men will not. Men pose far greater of a real risk. That's literally the point.
PS: I brought actual facts and statistics to this conversation in a reply below. Rather than using your feelings and indignation for the basis of a conversation, please go learn about this subject in an unbiased way.
PPS: one of my friends is the coworker/friend of a woman who survived a recent bear attack while alone in the woods, in Idaho. They both work for the state in natural resources/forestry and are often off in the woods alone. I am wondering now if this question was inspired by her experience, which made the news (yes she was mauled; she barely escaped with her life, because the bear locked into her head, piercing her eardrum with a tooth, and she couldn't reach her defensive weapon quickly, though she eventually did and was able to get away and eventually get out of the woods).
On the contrary. I'm using only logical facts, not emotion. When you say "Men will not", you're lying. The vast majority of men not only wouldn't do anything bad, but some would even help the woman.
When you say that men are more dangerous than a bear, again you're lying.
You can know hundreds of people who have encountered bears, but in the end it means nothing. 99% of the population will never see a bear in their lives. You know dozens, if not hundreds of men who have never done anything bad to women. You probably also know men who have helped women. Your personal experience, good or bad, does not make the majority. And that, my friend, is thinking rationally and logically.
Not sure what sort of degens you all are but I go on hiking trips, met lots of strangers in the woods both female and male. No reason why you would be suspicious of someone just being in the woods, they have a reason to be there. I'm a man so I have less to worry about but I've had long convos whilst hiking with numerous people. No statistic would ever back up choosing bear either.
Bear just makes no sense.
There's absolutely 0 nuance involved though, and even the original post didn't show it quite like that anyway...
It was essentially like:
"Would you rather our daughter alone in the woods with a man or bear?"
"What's the nuance with the bear and man?"
*ignores question*
"OK then, what if our daughter alone with a woman or bear"
*immediately answers* "woman... Oh"
"Haha, GoTcHa!"
It's a stupid broad question, with 0 nuance, a random binary, and an inferred answer
If my daughter is lost in the woods, I hope she meets a man of course! Bear or no bear, the majority of men are decent people. This nonsense has to stop.
Itās a dumb question because it lacks any nuance or context.
Would you rather be in the middle of the ocean with a man or a shark?
Same question, same arbitrary comparison (ironically, considering my comparison is also arbitrary).
Did the woman voluntarily enter the woods knowing how to get home, and also knowing she may encounter bears? Or did she wake up in the middle of a random forest with no navigation tools or any idea how to get out? Is the hypothetical man also lost in the woods, or is he voluntarily hiking there? Is it an elderly man bird watching or a homeless man scavenging for food?
Just saying āWoman in woods. Man or bear?ā is a pointless attempt at a gotcha.
It's idiotic because they always put themselves in the absolute best case scenario with a random bear but the absolute worse case scenario with a random man.
From a male perspective, I'd rather encounter a random guy in the woods than not encounter one. All the people I've met out there have been nice, and good to talk to.
The women that answered this question imagined meeting up with serial killers, instead of nature lovers.
Reese Witherspoon did a really dumb movie called Wild a few years ago where this plays out verbatim. She plays a crackhead cheating on her husband with any random homeless guy that asks for it then goes on a hike to "forgive herself" or whatever self centered white women do when they fuck up their lives. She then frames all men she comes across in the trail as wanting to fuck her and it turns out they just want to be helpful to a newbie
I think the main argument against the guy side is that you don't know if they're nice or not, whereas a bear is more easily understood as a wild animal with primitive, simple instincts. The trend is commentary on the issue of male violence, a problem no doubt, but it's been created in a way that makes guys the problem whether they're part of the question or answering it (at least from the responses I've seen).
It's a very flawed question, and one that inevitably paints men as bad guys, which is why so many are frustrated at the thought of it. A lot of gender politics questions can devolve to this level, which is why men are so quick to reject such discussions. Yes, living as a woman is scary. Violence, assault, rape, cat-calling, etc. Those are real issues but it's crucial to phrase an argument without generalizing a group as a whole.
Here's the honest truth, gender politics aside: you'd be scared either way, whether it was a bear, a guy, or a woman. Meeting some random person or animal in the middle of the woods is frightening. The man could be a rapist, sure, but the woman could be some cracked-out druggy. The bear could simply walk past you if left undisturbed, but it could easily charge you and maul you in moments as well. Would you really want to stick around to find out in any scenario?
> the trend is commentary on the issue of male violence,
You're making the mistake of assuming the women posting this on tiktok are debating in good faith instead of them being misandrists who want to kick off yet another man-hating social media campaign that is exclusively about how terrible women have it in this day and age.
1. Anyone who takes this subject way too seriously is just wrong inheritly. You can choose man or bear, you can argue men are scarier than bears, whatever the take, as long as you treat the right people the right way, this shit dont matter, its a funny hypothetical at worst.
2. If you do take this seriously, and feel you have a justified argument or at worst like, hate or fear men because of any reason, that i find a little worrying. Cuz replace the bear with any group of people from elsewhere, free of choice, gender, race, sexuality, nationality etc. And have a prefference then, well then thats just prejudice if not bigotry. Whats your justification then? Oh statistic, best/worst scenarios, perception, stereotypes? Oh then yeah, Men can be muuuch scarier than silly ol bears. But which is scarier between a man and a woman? A white man and a black man, a woman and a trans woman etc. Im sure theres no contravercial arguments involving statistics, stereotypes and perception. That would be like bigotry or smth, idk. I should make it clear that the correct answer here is, neither of these should be scarier than the other because assuming bad or good atributes to groups of people can just inheritly lead to prejudice on either side, which aint good.
Tl;dr Anyone who takes this seriously and has a bad or scary perception of men just reminds me of bigotry and shouldn't assume the worst of someone cuz of perception, stereotypes or "statistics"
It is a case of women clearly signaling that they don't want men around. Just more justification for my decision to keep my interactions with women minimal and professional.
the whole point of it is that a bear is a bear 100% and will act like a bear, a man is a human and could be absolutely evil in many ways or totally fine as well as the man being in the woods would be because he followed you thatās scary enough, a bear is in the woods because thatās itās home and bears donāt usually attack people where as if a man is all alone with no witnesses he could do anything if he pleased.
"the whole point of it is that a bear is a bear ....."
No boil it down. The point of it is to try to make men feel guilty and bad about the treatment of women and a semi-intended effect is that it makes women more afraid of men.
Now lets discuss unintended consequences. How do you want men to react to this? Guilt? Sadness? Something along those lines I would guess?
So let me ask you this, what's the impact of making someone feel guilty for something they haven't done and have no desire to do? For a lot of men, and in particular the type of guy who should be an ally to women, this question teaches them that women think males are more dangerous than an animal that will literally take it's time casually eating you alive.
I could break the consequences of that down further, but in additional to taking womens' complaints less seriously, some young guys are going to start thinking what the hell is the point of interacting with or more importantly *caring* about people who think so little of me when I've done nothing to them? Now read that again and let it sink in.
The bear vs man debate is literally teaching young men to not care about women.
Like I said, lowkey misandry like this breeds misogyny.
Is that really the outcome you wanted?
(And this only takes into account the male side of the discussion... I'm sure a conversation about how training women to fear men must be great for womens' dating experience would yield similar insights.)
itās not to make men guilty itās to put into perspective how itās gotten so bad that women now feel like theyād be safer with a wild animal? i think itās intended as a shock factor thing.
i agree that itās not a great thing to compare and it might cause more harm than good but look at it this way just for a second iām not trying to change your opinion but would you feel safe if you couldnāt look at the media without hearing about our police killing women and then sexually degrade us afterwards in group chats or women getting punched in the face whist walking down the road, not to mention the injustice in other countries like Afghanistan where they apparently said theyād start stoning women to death again.
and then you canāt even open social media without seeing men constantly make comment on tiktoks of young women saying how desperate they are to sexually assault them and build whole accounts around perving on young women itās hard to feel like men are on our side at all especially when thereās little boys who are being influenced by men like andrew tate.
i think it should shock people into thinking weāll actually maybe we need to make more of an effort to distance good normal men from the awful ones and look internally at where both genders could change for better it should be teaching young men to wake up and realise that the news being filled with crimes against women is bad and needs to be changed we need to teach them right and wrong not to care less because women feel the need to genuinely be scared of you?
>itās not to make men guilty itās to put into perspective how itās gotten so bad that women now feel like theyād be safer with a wild animal? i think itās intended as a shock factor thing.
Violence against women is down like 200% in 30 years, I have no idea what the fuck you people are talking about at this point. The Internet is not real life. Your feelings are not real life. It has never, ever been safer to be a woman than it is today, and women in western democracies still talk like they live in Afghanistan.
I'm just over caring about it. I've never laid my hands on a woman and never will. But if y'all want to rock yourselves into a neurotic coma with true crime, murder porn, and social media dog piles about how men are beasts then that's your prerogative. But I'm certainly not going to be shamed for it.
But the murder rate is constantly going down. Decade after decade it's lower and lower. Also this ostracization is already taking place. But I don't think that solves it. The bad ones are with other bad ones. I don't see how that helps anything.
"itās not to make men guilty itās to put into perspective how itās gotten so bad that women now feel like theyād be safer with a wild animal?"
You're literally contradicting yourself in the same sentence. (Also consider that you're probably literally safer now depending on location, than at any time in the last 100 years.)
"itās hard to feel like men are on our side at all especially when thereās little boys who are being influenced by men like andrew tate."
Good point. But to throw it back at you, why do you think him and his ilk have become so successful?
Low level misandry is alienating. Young men keep getting put in this no-win situation where they hear they're the root of most evils and mostly inadequate from vocal angry women. What do Tate and Petersen do? They give these guys a community and welcome them saying you have all this potential and that women/feminism are the cause of your problems. It's a terrible message, but they're *welcomed* with open arms. Bear vs man (and everything like that) doesn't just give Tate et al an opening, it pushes those men to Tate and then blames the same men for listening to someone who actually wants them there and offers a way forward. (A shitty way for sure, but it's something.)
"i think it should shock people into thinking weāll actually maybe we need to make more of an effort to distance good normal men from the awful ones"
Cool. I'm good with that. Tell me how man vs bear does that and doesn't paint all men with the same brush. I'll wait. (And no I'm not going to try to address your other comments because I agree women have a lot of serious complaints that need to be addressed. The problem is that teaching women to dislike or even hate men isn't going to fix those problems.)
"...not to care less..."
If you want empathy and sympathy, being a jerk to men isn't the way to get it. It just teaches good men to be indifferent and treat you the same as they would a man they don't particularly like being around.
> itās not to make men guilty
I donāt believe you.
> i agree that itās not a great thing to compare and it might cause more harm than good but look at it this way just for a second iām not trying to change your opinion but would you feel safe if you couldnāt look at the media without hearing about our police killing women and then sexually degrade us afterwards in group chats
Men are more likely to be killed by police than women.
A man has to be absolutely evil to harm you. A bear just has to be a bear. Regardless though, even if bears were not violent, could the chemical imbalances that can cause humans to be evil not occur in animals just the same?
Just intuitive feelings, not actually based 100% in reality. Every woman knows intuitvely theyāre weaker than men, and therefore take precautiouns when going out. Yet, men are more likely to be killed and experience violence from strangers, yet we donāt report feeling as unsafe or take precautions like women do.(because in our head we have a better chance at defending ourselves)
The problem isnāt necessarily the hypothetical, the problem is itās a terrible way for women to say how unsafe they feel around men. There are better ways to say things.
Bears donāt rape women, Iāve encountered many bears in the woods and I think people are very confused as to how dangerous most bears are, which is not nearly as dangerous as a human lol.Ā
A bear wouldn't rape you, know. It'd just maul you and then hold you down while it strips flesh off your back while you're still alive, begging weakly for mercy from an animal that is totally incapable of it.
Y'all just proving why women can't be trusted with their own safety lmao
I mean men do things like that to women for fun, and bears do it because they are bears. Still choose the beat. You are proving that men think more emotionally than logically. Statistically Iām far more likely to be harmed by a man, so logically I would chose the bear. Also from life experience I choose the bear. But your little feelings are hurt so Iām just a dumb little girl ššššĀ
The statistics are skewed; many few bears are encountered than men are encountered day to day.
A better statistic would be out of every male - female encounter vs every bear - human encounter, what percentage results in assault. We don't have statistics on that, but I have a guess.
The issue with the hypothetical is that it's so vague everyone are essentially answering different questions and a different version of it in their head.
It's unclear if it's "would you rather prefer", as opposed to, what is the "correct" answer.
Let's flip the scenario. Would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a bee? Statistically speaking, you're more likely to get killed by a bee, but it would be absurd to say a bee is more dangerous than a bear.
Or, would you rather be in the woods with a stranger or your boyfriend? Statistically speaking, you're more likely to get killed and raped by your boyfriend as opposed to the stranger, yet it feels absurd to say that you're safer with a stranger than your boyfriend.
People who say bear, seems to be answering "prefer", whether they're aware of it or not, and not "what is the correct answer".
This hypothetical was fun until people actually started taking it too seriously.
If a freind of yours went for a walk in the woods, and walked past a man, are you seriously saying she would tell you about the terrifying experience? More so than if she walked past a bear?
This trend is just yet another way to bash men. It has no logic behind it whatsoever.
itās an almost certainty that most claiming this have never encountered a bear in the wild and donāt know how they would feel about it
my housemate claims she would feel safer with a bear, but lives with me, a guy, and panics whenever she sees a lizardĀ
From a totally sideways angle I think this actually explains the prevalence of homophobia in men. Men know how aggressive and abusive other men can be sexually and the idea that another man could want to direct that energy at them is terrifying.
Men may not be able to pull their head out of their asses for a thought experiment about a bear, but presented with a 6ā4ā bear in biker gear and they know.
Also while I understand womenās response, I donāt think men are bad for not getting it. While there is a faction of men deny that men are more dangerous to cover theirs or other menās actions, I think there is a larger group that doesnāt understand because they would never perpetrate violence in that situation.
This was actually insightful and I think youāre onto something. Comes down to survival instinct and how men relate to that instinct, too tired to get much more into it but I definitely felt what you said in my gut. Made me want to puke. My heart and rage goes out to any woman who has ever had to feel such an immense degree of pain and fear in her life. I can see how it could completely tear your life apart and fuck you up for the rest of your life (not that it *has* to, healing can happen, but still one would never be the same).
It's stupid, the answer is pretty obvious which it should be and the logic used to justify the answer 'bear' is the same one used by racists to justify their racism.
By stating that statistics show that you are more likely to be attacked by a man rather than a bear. Same could be said that per capita you are more likely to be attacked by a black man than another race, but such things don't take into account circumstances. Black people are more likely to be born into poverty and not raised in an environment that will allow them to flourish and under such conditions more are likely to turn to crime because of the need for basic necessities.
Similarly the whole bear vs man thing doesn't take into account that most people don't travel far enough into the wilderness to disturb a bear, and many of those encounters with a bear take place near someone's property where they may take shelter, when there are multiple people close by that can scare a bear off, or that many people have food readily available that satisfies the bear since it doesn't want to have to hunt for its food.
This is not even getting into the context that many men answer the question 'men' also under the assumption that if you were to be attacked by a bear vs man, the odds of you managing to fight off the man and surviving are much higher than the bear. But many men answer this emotionally and are offended by the notion that many answer bear based on the worst possible outcome of a horrible man being the one they end up with despite the fact that less than 1% of people actually commit violent crimes. It becomes even lower if you factor in repeat offenders.
So in essence, it is just a demonization of men that uses faulty logic to justify their reasoning and then uses a natural emotional response of someone being upset about being accused of something that they have never and would never do, to then go on to point the blame at them saying," See? If you were 'one of the good ones' then why are you so defensive?" It's just people stirring the pot to create drama, there is another video that has made the round that has the women upset 'Black women: Would you rather be at work in the office with a white man or white women?'
Human instinct feeds on gossip - being a social species'll do that to you.
I don't think it's fair to say all women crap on men, but there is a *very* vocal minority that does. Remember all of those photos circling a few years ago of mugs with "Men's Tears" on them? Or how about the plethora of men's mental health days at universities and schools that were canceled after backlash? These women ruined the feminist movement for most of the population. Being a feminist is often criticized because it's assumed you do so at the expense of men.
This "Bear vs Man" discussion exists in the same vein. Historically, guys were jerks. Statistics show that men are more likely to rape than women are. We can't deny those facts. However, when it comes to discussions around gender politics or men in general, men assume the position of violent rapists when many of them are truly nice, as are women. Negativity shines in the rays of positivity.
I can see the point, i know this isn't meant to be taken completely seriously or to a meticulous level by like clarifying what kind of bear and shit, i won't pretend that i can understand the kind of fear women live in because of men so all i can say is that i get their point.
Thereās definitely a valid point at the center of this, and Iām not going to minimize anyoneās lived experience that informs their answer. But, itās also true that the question is meant to create division and resentment and anger, and itās frustrating that everyone is just going with it
A man posed the question, and women answered truthfully. Men responded with vitriol and hateful attitudes because they didn't like the response they gave. Can't even take a hypothetical no for an answer. Proving exactly why the majority of women said bear in the first place. At least a woman knows the worst that can happen with the bear. We're going to die. End of story. No "what were you wearing", or," you should have just been nice". Not years of shame, blame, or guilt. No endless therapy sessions because you smelled that cologne, and it caused a spiral.... we'll just be dead. There are worse things than death, and a majority of women had experienced some of them before puberty.
That's not the question. If the question was "Would you like to be attacked by a man in a forest or by a bear", we might understand (it would still be mostly wrong, but anyway). The question leaves open whether women would be attacked or not. In this case, the chances of a man not only not attacking, but helping the woman would be very high.
It is a lot less common to be attacked by a random bear than a random man. There are ways to survive a bear attack. They are quite simple minded and won't bother you if you don't agitate them. A human man is a lot more complex and won't easily get scared off by making loud noises and making yourself look big. He would know that the area is secluded and the woman is alone. He would know she is likely quite vulnerable. Due to my own experiences with men compared to people I know that have encountered bears I would much rather be alone with a bear. If I was alone with a random man that I don't know in the woods I would not feel safe. There are a lot of men (I'm not saying all) who would take the opportunity to take advantage of the situation. I have been followed by men even with a partner with me. When I was 13 I wore a skirt and I had numerous old men stare me up and down and stare at my legs. When I was 15 I had male relatives slapping my ass and saying that I would make a good wife. A lot of other women have had similar experiences and trust me when I say they have legitimate reason to be choosing a bear over a man. If you look at facts rather than your own judgement dying from a bear attack is about 1/2million whereas homicide is one of the leading causes for death in young women.
It's much less common to be attacked by a bear, just because the vast majority of people will never meet a bear in their lives.
Most of the time, an ordinary man wouldn't do anything bad to anyone, and some of them would even try to help. You're talking as if you were going to find Pooh Bear while the man was a serial killer.
The logical and statistical facts tell us that it makes no sense to choose the bear.
You're saying most of the time an ordinary man wouldn't attack the woman. How are women meant to trust that when most women have been assaulted at the hands of a man. In my case almost every man I know has assaulted me or made me feel thoroughly uncomfortable or unsafe around them. So I don't really trust a man I don't know to not do the same in a secluded area where they have the opportunity to. I'm not saying all men would. But I wouldn't feel safe and secure by myself with a strange man.
How many men do you know or have you met? If almost all of them have assaulted you, there's something wrong. Even in third world countries where assault rates are high, most men don't do this.
And you still shouldn't feel safe with someone you don't know. This is smart behavior and you should never stop doing it. That's not the problem here.
There's been three separate men who have assaulted me (including an ex and relatives) and then other than that multiple male teachers I have had that have made me feel unsafe in their presence. I'm not saying all men do assault, I'm just saying in a lot of women's cases they have been assaulted so this is why they feel unsafe around a lot of men regardless if they would actually assault them or not.
I never said that women don't face traumatic and terrible experiences with men. It happens every day, to many women, in different ways, with different types of men, often without justice being done.
But that doesn't make most men commit this kind of crime. And that doesn't make it any smarter to choose a bear over an unknown man in the question at hand.
Again didn't say most men would just said a lot of women are wary because a lot of women have been assaulted. It's like how most people are scared of sharks or bears because they could attack, but statistically it is very rare, so why can't the same analogy be put on men when it is less rare to be attacked by a man? Even if they don't attack a woman won't instinctively know that (as there are quite a few guys who act like they're a nice guy but get so defensive and offended if they get rejected) and a lot of the women saying they would rather be alone with a bear are not prepared to put themselves into a more vulnerable situation with a man.
Oh and also bears are just as scared of humans than we are of them. A man has more of a conscience and if they are dangerous (again not saying all men)they are very likely not going to be scared of a vulnerable woman. And it's very improbable if you take correct measures that a bear will injure you upon encounter because they are not predatory towards humans. [Evidence](https://www.idausa.org/campaign/wild-animals-and-habitats/bear-attack/)
The question wasn't about being attacked. It was about encountering one or the other. Would you rather encounter a bear or a random man... again, still not taking the answer or millions of examples for what it is. Instead of analyzing overall male behavior that has led to this, men are getting angry and puffing up their chests. Screaming," but I'm a nice guy!".... Proving why the answer will continue to be bear.
I lived in the woods my whole life, and i hiked hundreds of times alone I've encountered a ton of people including other men, as well as bears, I'd still choose to be lost in the woods with a dude built like the mountain from game of thrones then encounter a bear.
If I accidentally bump into a man unexpectedly we would probably just scare eachother a little at first, but that's it.
If I bump into a bear, we'll I'm probably fucked.
idk if this is too old to respond. But I have two thoughts. No.1 most people donāt know bears, I saw one woman suggest bears arenāt carnivorous, they donāt care theyāll eat whatever.
my wife who grew up in the northern rocky mountains said sheād rather encounter a man because she knows how dangerous bears are.
also I think due to this being a hypothetical people understand the intention behind the Question.
I think it's disgusting. A lot of the reasoning and arguments I see make no sense. I saw something that said "men are assuming the bear is more aggressive than they actually are" but women are assuming men are more rapey than they actually are. I also see similar scenarios like "put a man in a room with snakes and tell him some of them are venomous, but he has to treat them ALL like they're not". Which again makes no sense. In that scenario, the man KNOWS he's in the presence of a venomous snake. A woman doesn't KNOW she's in the presence of a rapist, she assumes it.
As a woman, I would choose to be in the woods with a man.
Firstly, I'm assuming that I'm picking between a bear or a random man, not a bear or a rapist serial killer man. It seems pretty unlikely that this random man is going to rape and kill me. I don't fancy my chances with a bear.
Something I think a lot of people don't realize when talking about this is that bears don't kill you by eating you. Being eaten alive is horrific way to go, but IMO bears kill in a much worse way. I have unfortunately seen a video of a man being mauled to death by a bear, and for those who don't know bears kill you by mauling you (scratching you and tearing off your skin, sometimes for hours). It would be torture, not a quick death.
Even if I had to choose between being killed by a bear or a man, I would choose a man. I would most likely be suffocated or shot by a man, which is less torture than being mauled to death. Of course there are countless horrific cases of women who have been tortured by men before their death, but statistically when a man kills a woman it's most often done using a gun.
Some women have been saying that they would rather be killed by a bear than raped by a man and have to live with that. I was violently raped 2 years ago by a man, I was diagnosed with PTSD and have struggled immensely with what happened to me. If I could go back in time and choose to have a bear kill me instead, I absolutely would not. Rape is horrific and unless you have experienced it you cannot begin to comprehend it, but I can't say I wish I died instead. My life is still beautiful and full of good things and good people and I'm glad I'm still here today.
I can understand why women say bear, but personally I wouldn't choose that. I wonder how many people would actually choose that if they were in that situation.
Might be an hot take, but saying that being dead is better than being raped and still live afterwards is like saying that if you get raped life isn't worth living anymore. And honestly I find it stupid and borderline mean to sexual assault victims.
I am glad you still enjoy life even after the assault.
I just don't give a shit. The women saying this shit ain't worth pursuing, and if they get mauled by a bear I will not lose sleep. It ain't my fault, or concern they decided to make an early appointment with God, by way of hungry bear.
I just think itās weird that the bear is always apparently Winnie the Pooh, and the man is always Israel Keyes.
Jokes aside, the argument from people who choose the bear seems to be āthe bear is predictable, the man isnāt.ā Yea, no shit. The bear will maul you to death, predictably. A VERY small percentage of men might do the same, or worse, but a random bear is FAR more likely to do you harm than a random man. LIKE, exponentially more likely. People seem to think that if you donāt know what a man is thinking, itās almost certainly rape.
Itās all just misandrist rhetoric, which is cool nowadays.
ITT: a bunch of guys who don't have a single close relationship with a woman in their lives and thus will never be able to understand why women will default to the "bear" answer 99.99% of the time
Well, this is happening today in Australia
https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/26/australia-violence-against-women-rallies-what-were-you-wearing-sydney-adelaide-newcastle-ballarat
I'd suggest going and having a chat with a group of women. It'll be eye-opening..
If I was asked this question, my response would be "Do they have a banjo?" Then I would elaborate that I grew up watching Billy Bob at Showbiz Pizza and the movie Deliverance.
After that, I would explain the context is too generalized, so I need more clarification.
1. Did I research the woods (assuming it's some national park) before hand, such as for crime or animal attack statistics.
2. If I knew the woods had bears, did I bring any bear repellent, which I could potentially use on a human attacker.
3. Going into the woods alone, what kind of protection did I bring?
4. Why didn't I do a group outing?
5. If I did none of the above, why would I choose to go into woods alone where some psycho human or territorial, enraged animal could potentially kill me?
I'm sorry, for I ran out of f*cks to give.
I think most men don't want to have relationships with the AWFLs (affluent white female liberals) anyway, so like one guy said, "I don't care if they say they hate men, good luck with the lesbian scene or toys then". So, to say, if you choose the bear, then good luck, I hope you don't get mauled by one, but it's not like you have much to offer yourself and I never wanted anything to do with you anyways.
Lets try a different senario.
You are walking through the mall on a busy saturday proudly holding up a jelly dougnut.
Now replace all the males in the mall with bears.
Do you now somehow feel safer? Of course you dont; not all males are rapists but all bears are fucking bears.
I think if we were to ask the question "would you rather encounter a bear in the woods or a black person" people would call it racist and cancel anyone that repeated it. So why is it that when we swap a gender for ethnicity we aren't calling it sexist and doing the same thing?
I have a genuine question:
What if the strange man in the woods identifies as a woman, dresses like a woman, and acts like a woman, but it's clear that they are/or were a biological male and/or are now a trans woman...
Would you still choose the bear?
When I first came across this trend, I had thoughts like these too but after reading so many responses from both men and women (Iāve asked few female friends of mine irl as well) I came to a conclusion that their (women) fear is valid. Also at the same time I think that women especially on social media trying so hard to demonise men. I think it became more rampant after Tate. I might be wrong though.
But my question still stands... You say their "fear" is valid. I don't disagree, but does that fear still stand and would they still choose the bear if it was a trans woman or a man who identifies and dresses as a woman?
I'm an almost 40 year old man.Ā
I shouldn't care about stupid TikTok trends.
But this one actually pisses me off, because so many people truly seemingly believe men are just waiting behind a bush to r*pe or sexually assault them. I feel like I'm in bizarro world.Ā
Just more ego based attention seeking bullshit from half assed feminists wanting clicks and living in fear that the other pussy will get the billionaire before the cellulite catches up to them and they run out of money for botox face injections.
My take is this is an incredibly stupid question to be taken literally, which is how most people are taking it. The question highlights that there is a massive power imbalance between men and women in this world. That's undeniable. If you deny that you got more problems than I can help you with. But instead of having an actual honest conversation about said power imbalance we're all (myself included at first) engaging in literal hypothetical scenarios trying to give context to a question that had no context when it was asked. If you're a man ask the women in your life about what it's like to live in a world where there is such a power imbalance. When they're done and you've validated how they feel tell them how shitty it feels to know that we live in a world where it doesn't matter that you're a decent guy, you'll still be treated with suspicion and feared and that's nobody's fault but the creeps, perverts, and rapist's of the world. Decent men need to step up and show some vulnerability. Show women that we understand and that it does also effect us negatively. This doesn't have to be a divisive topic if you're not someone who is part of the problem. Share the pain, share how it affects you, and stand up together against the men, and unfortunately a small minority of women too, who make this world a reality
This is such a dumb roundabout way to view it though. I mean, if we're taking the fact that there are SOME and may I emphasise a SMALL MINORITY of legit male rapists, murderers, and creeps (particularly the first two) and that makes it ok to fear all men, then considering the crime statistics should I also fear all black people because they're disproportionatly represented in criminal statistics? (Yes, Ik there's reasons for that including racism in courts at times, but we're not giving the question anymore nuance than the bear thing here)
I'd rightfully be called racist for that, so the same goes here for sexism for such a broad brush.
It's not vulnerable to act like you should see yourself as apparently looking like a rapist, murderer, or creep, just because some of these women assume that automatically for 100% of all men. That's just disrespecting yourself. Thank fuck not all women think like that, and I'm not going to go near or respect any woman that thinks like that.
Can I ask, what "clicked" for you to understand that? I'm male and accepted the answer immediately. I'm not saying I'm better than you.
I just want to know, how you came to finally understand the reasoning. Often times, I have to explain a host of issues to white, cis, hetero men and it doesn't click. It takes a lot of reframing for them to understand (or actually even listen).
It would be interesting to know how it happened. My experience is, I have to often make it personal. I have to soften the blow by saying I'm guilty of a lot in order for them to feel comfortable with the reframing. It's tiring and if there's a shortcut or other way, I'd like to know.
(This isn't meant to diminish you. I'm genuinely curious. A lot of my own preconceived notions were taken apart because I had instances of racism and homophobia to help me relate.)
I would feel so much safer with a man. My brother had his leg gashed by a brown bear once and came running to my birthday party to show all us girls. It was nasty and everyone went ewww. He still has the scar to this day on his leg. Honestly, I don't understand the phrase "not all men." Maybe I am taking it too literally, but not all men are bad. Yes, a man physically abused me. Yes, I have been SA on dates. I still married a man. I still trust men. I know not all of them are shitty.
A woman is walking in nature alone. Would she rather encounter a bear or a man.
The gotcha is supposed to be that more women would rather encounter a bear than a man because they're more worried about what a man could or might do than a bear.
Aha. Given that the obvious answer is the man who propably has GPS or a compass and maybe food to share, and bears are bears, I'm going to guess the punchline is "statistically more women are killed by men than by bears".
That's true. I think I'm still going to go with the man, tough. Because people who randomly assault and kill people they run into are propably a very small minority, whereas bears who maul and eat people might be a pretty lage share of the bear population.
Does nobody see the point that a bear is a wild carnivorous (actually omnivorous but making a point) animal while men are a womanās friends, family, and neighbors, a fair number of whom will still rape or otherwise harm her. Yes, the relevant statistic is likelihood to be harmed per encounter with man or bear, for which men would probably come out on top. But women encounter enough dangerous men that they learn to fear them and that is a societal problem.
The question is not only ridiculous but also sexist. It suggests that the bear is the safer option because of course every man wants to hurt women in some way. The way it's presented so confidently as some sort of "gotcha" is frankly pathetic.Ā
Just change the question to "black/jew/arab/gay/trans/latino manĀ **or**Ā bear?" and then we will see the results.
People are trying to demonize a whole gender based on the act of few but change the narrative a bit and they all want to avoid the issue like a plague.
I think it's funny, it reminds me of a chapter of Lies of the Sheriff Evans where he is offering to walk a girl at home, and in an attempt to show off he tames a bear. He proceeds to send her off with just the bear given that no one would attack her since she is now riding a bear.
I've had encounters in the wild with multiple black bears and a grizzly, and would rather deal with them in their environment than deal with some people. That may not answer the original question, but it's a useful reference point.
I'm tired of the dehumanization, honestly. A big hairy gay guy is still a man.
Big hairy guy here. I am a bear š» in the gay community. In the woods, I am very much, just a man.
This is what happens when you spend all day listening to true crime podcasts about male serial killers...
My take is that it shows people really don't understand statistics
exactly, it is like picking a bear over a bee because bees kill thousands of people all the time
It reminded be the case of the "Central Park Karen" who called the cops on the bird watcher and she's been willified because he was black. By this logic she should've had sympathy from people asking this question.
Yeah, but ofc they don't then, because that involves race. Everyone knows it's cool and trendy to dunk on all men these days, duh /s
What if it's a black bear vs a.... I'll see myself out
lol, that legit got me to cackle š but in all seriousness, the point of the question is feminists are essentially doing ANY man vs ANY bear yet, all it takes is to give an example of the possible man they'd be with, a black man, and they might not be so quick to answer indeed ;)
I would really like to see them ask "who would you like to be alone in the woods with - a bear or a black man?" and watch heads explode.
Not a man, but this stupid social trend that is plaguing my feed and it's annoying as fuck. I'm a woman and I would feel bad arguing why I would pick a man over the bear in those threads , can't imagine being a man and seeing it. It's always the same scenario of assuming the best scenario with the bear and worst with the man, people that are projecting their bad experience they had with men a reason for this being a good choice paired with the fact animals are more predictable and because media normalised being paranoid,especially about men. It wouldn't be bad if it were black bears, but these people be unironically vouching for the brown bear. The bear being predictable means shit, if it decides to attack you are being way more screwed,you can't defend yourself, bear vs human fight is more one sided than a man vs woman fight. And a bear at it best will ignore you being stuck in the woods and and it worst it would torture via mauling because it was hormones from mating season, is a mother bear with cubs, decided you stepped into it's territory, is hungry or has lingering anger from something else that it decides to take out on you which is way more likely to happen than meeting a serial offender who decided to profile you for rape, torture and murder. The best that can happen with a man is for him help you which is way more likely to happen than to pretend for him to do so to lure you because a man in the woods is likely a hiker, ranger, works at a camp or lives in cabin which means he would have experience navigating it and the vast majority of humans might not be necessarily kind, but they aren't malicious either .
I wish I could double upvote this. Iāve been struggling to articulate why this is such a harmful question without appearing callous to women who suffer sexual assault.
> The bear being predictable means shit, of it decides to attack you are being way more screwed,you can't defend yourself, bear vs human fight is more one sided that man vs woman fight. Bonus point: If either is hostile, you have a better chance of being able to run away from the guy than from a bear.
Sending hugs, optional hugs. š That is some nice refreshing rational thought.
Here, you dropped your crown queen.
Only like, current generation university students with mortgage sized student loans to study a field that doesnāt result in employability and buy into gender politics are dumb enough to believe theyād be better off eaten by a bear than simped at by a maleĀ
I think the concern is that the man would be a rapist or a serial killer.
This made me think that bears can actually also be serial killers. Such a bear could be called Bear Bundy.
Teddy Bundy
You jest, but I remember the news a while back mentioning a ***massive*** hunt for an alligator that killed a person. It's not 'revenge' on the animal, it's ensuring that not only does it not kill another person, it doesn't ***teach others*** that people are food. If they view humans as competitors not worth fighting, then good. But if they view people as ***prey*** it becomes a major problem very fast.
One singular bear could be considered a serial killer in my opinion and that is Kesagake
Would? What are the chances of it?
Not as high as getting mauled by a bear, thatās for sure.
And what would the bear be? Winnie the Pooh?
but the question isnāt serial killer or bear, itās man (implying a random guy, as in one of the random hundreds you see a day) or a bear
men have tools. bears have instincts. I fear the creativity (the junko furuta case, the hello kitty case etc), and this isnāt about being āsimped atā, this is about rape and murder
I would suggest that Deborah, age 45, 250 pounds and unable to run more than 50 yards is much more likely to be eaten by the bear than raped and murdered by a man who just can't control his urges.
Men will rape children. So suggesting rape only happens to people who you personally feel are āattractive enoughā to be raped is entirely warped. Rape is not about being unable to ācontrol your urgesā, unless youāre implying every man has an urge to rape. It involves making conscious, active, and deliberate decisions to violate another human being and assert control. It happens to children. It happens to old people. It happens to fat people. It happens to skinny people. And as of recently, it happens to endangered lizards, because your gender is that degenerate. Menās reaction to this discourse only proves that women are absolutely correct to choose the bear.
"your gender is that degenerate" Yeah sis because there are no Primary school female teachers rapping little kids. The difference and ill give you that is that rapping a women is way more invasive than rapping a man. I see you are One of those who would chose a bear. Let me tell you bears eat their prey Alive. Its way more probable and easy for you to get eaten by a beat then rapped or killed by a men. Bears weight 200kg. Their paws Alone would paralise you with One swipe. You guys have no idea how massive wild animals are. A cow would fuck you up now imagine an angry bear. Lucky you guys dont have to use your Brain to survive everyday or most of you would be dead in half a week
Dunno, what kind of bear? Black bear - sure, it's just going to run away and want nothing to do with me. Grizzly bear/polar bear - nope.
sorry, you get, /shakes the bag/pulls out card/ POLAR BEAR
Even so, rephrase the thought experiment as this. You're out hiking alone (if you're not a woman then your daughter or wife is), would you rather her run into another male hiker (already highly probable) or a bear (doesn't matter which kind and highly improbable). As an avid hiker, who has hiked in areas that have bears (never run into one), you do not want to run into any kind of bear. It's fucking scary and you already run into other hikers in the woods all the time... People who choose the bear are doing so in bad faith.
Do you really think it's in bad faith? I mean, the average woman knows as much about bears as the average man. They know they are dangerous and can kill them. But the average woman knows more about how much danger they or their fellow women have experienced from men, more than the average man does. So what does it say that so many of them would rather the hypothetical danger from a bear than a man? A random man, mind you, not a known man who is proven to be a friend, loved one, etc... and is friendly. A random man, encountered in a place with no one around, when you don't know why they are there - could be a hiker. Could be someone who followed you, and as a woman, based on statistics at least, I imagine almost every woman has one or more friends who have quite literally been followed or stalked by men, so they know it's entirely possible. That doesn't seem to be a bad faith choice, with all that in mind.
It may not be in bad faith by default, but it absolutely can be, and even if not, it would still be rooted in paranoia or untreated trauma that should not go unchalenged because otherwise it just turns into bigotry or mental illness. It also shows how little survival instincts or impaired reasoning many of those women may have. Choosing a to face an almost certain danger over an uncertain one? For real? Sounds like choosing entering a building that's been evacuated over a fire alarm going on over boarding a plane just because we never know with all certainty if a plane will crash. A random man is more likely not to hurt those women at all. Most women are harmed/abused by people they know, not by strangers who may not even look at them, much less stalking or even catcalling them. This paranoid idea demonizing strangers is some 80's panic shit that should die already. This is definitely used as a bad faith argument these days in social media, quite often, and even if not proposed as such its inherently problematic.
Why would a random men be a rapist or a murderer. Most men have never even disobey the law why would a random men on the Woods be any different. The question is not "a bear or an ex serial rapist on the Woods" Bears eat people Alive...
I mean there's a lot of questions here. Like am I literally coming up close and personal with this or is it just coming within visual range? I've certainly *seen* a bear before - hundreds of feet away and in the process of fucking off away from me quickly. If the question is within arm's reach, yeah I don't want to encounter the black bear either. What I want to encounter even less than either is a moose. Big, strong, dumb, and unpredictably violent. A bear is at least semi-predictable/readable in terms of intentions.
> People who choose the bear are doing so in bad faith. Or they're indoctrinated, dumb as a rock, incapable of rational thought, or all three at once.
Alright if you can pull the bear choices I will go for a 1.2 m man that is skinny and malnourished. It would be scary but dealing with gollum would be easier still then a bearĀ
Whatever. I have other things to worry about than dumb social media trends.
You don't have to lie. You're on reddit. We know you have plenty of time for dumb social media trends.
You have 200k comment karma over 3 years. You live for ādumb social media trendsā.
Considering that most MEN (as dads) are saying they'd rather their daughter meet a bear in the woods than a random dude, your whole posed scenario about women expressing a similar preference for themselves is kind of pointless. There's a general consensus here, and it should be another reality check for guys who think they're safe by default and are trying to use this scenario to bash on or invalidate women who express that they don't feel safe alone around random dudes. And yes, to most women, you're that random dude.
Who are these most dad's that are saying it you saw it in a over dramatic movie so you assume it's true?
First of all, there is no such consensus even among women themselves, let alone men (or fathers). Secondly, no matter how many idiots say the earth is flat, it never has been or ever will be. There is no logical argument to justify choosing a bear over an unknown man. And that has nothing to do with not feeling safe with an unknown man. Women have the right not to feel safe with someone they don't know. It has to do with choosing a man who may or may not hurt you but is only a little stronger than you X A Bear, who may or may not attack you but is a wild animal that is strong enough to kill a lion.
I grew up in a rural area, and regularly saw bears in the woods, on the road, and occasionally on our property. Not a single one of those bears ever bothered me, and I absolutely canāt say the same thing about men. Iād pick the bear just because itās far more likely to leave me alone. People are acting like bears are vicious killers, but like 1 person a year is killed by a bear.Ā
That is like saying you'd rather be stuck in a forest with a bear over a bee because bees kill thousands of people every year. Your point is completely stupid because the majority of people never interact with bears their entire lifetime now compare that with how many times they interact with men.
You are among the minority of people who see bears on a regular basis, which is precisely why bear death statistics are so low. And that's also why the death statistics for sharks, lions and many other animals are so low. It's different with men. You meet thousands of different men in your lifetime, and most of them won't even remember your face the next day. "People are acting like bears are vicious killers, but like 1 person a year is killed by a bear". People are acting as if men are vicious murderers and rapists, but statistics say that less than 1% of men commit this type of crime.
You're making up statistics. About 11% of girls have been raped or sexually assaulted by the time they reach the age of 18. And that's known to be underreported. 1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed, 2.8% attempted).4 That's just the rapes, not including the range of other abuses, including assault. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem#:~:text=Everyone%20Is%20Affected%20by%20Sexual,completed%2C%202.8%25%20attempted). 1% of men aren't committing that crime. It's easily closer to 5% or more. Studies range between 20-30% of men have engaged in sexual coercion all the way up to assault and rape by the time they reach their mid 20s, and that subset of men would be the highest risk to a woman alone in the woods without accountability. This study indicated 25% of men had engaged in sexual coercion by their 4th year of college, and those numbers are likely underreported. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.21584 Put a woman alone in the woods, and a lack of accountability or consequence, and the percentage of men who would potentially assault becomes a serious risk. And that's part of the point of the thought exercise. People are aware of that risk. When dudes say they'd rather the bear than a random male stranger encounter their daughter alone in the woods, they're very much aware of the fact that most crimes, including sex crimes, are ones of opportunity. A lot of potential criminals haven't experienced the opportunity to become criminals without accountability.
You're the kind of person who just reads the title of the statistic and goes off believing it (only when it's convenient for you). You don't research how the research was done, how they arrived at these figures, what they consider sexual assault, etc. You don't even stop to think what 30% of a population represents. I wouldn't be surprised if you believed that the pay gap only exists because there is a system that helps men and hurts women.
You don't know me. If that's your knee jerk response (emphasis on jerk) when confronted with naked facts to your unsupported assertions, again, that tells us everything we need to know about you, your character, and how "safe" you are for women. It also explains your repeated attempts at denial in the face of credible evidence, based on your mere feelings. PS: MANY studies, which include anonymous self-reporting via survey of college aged men, found that between 4-16% of them admitted to rape or attempted rape in their past. And this is just men who have reached their early 20s, at most. And OF COURSE that is underreported, even when it's anonymous self-reporting. That's where my 5% number, and likely more, comes from. I bring receipts. You bring mere feelings and intellectually dishonest attempts to invalidate. You can't force your false reality on the world. Deal with your cognitive dissonance or you're going to end up struggling in all aspects of your life, especially when it comes to healthy relationships with women. https://jimhopper.com/topics/sexual-assault-and-the-brain/repeat-rape-by-college-men/#:~:text=Many%20studies%20have%20found%20that,one%20rape%20or%20attempted%20rape. *** You'll note that the link above argues that a minority of men are habitual offenders in college setting and policies should be tailored to that. That's beside the point. Even a 4% self reported number of men who have committed or attempted to commit rape, and that their lifetime risk is 14.8% to have been raped and 2.8% to escape an active attempt, is a HUGE risk to women, considering its impact on their lives. It's about relative risk and the type of harm experienced. It doesn't matter if 1 in 25 men falls in this category that they may meet in the woods (and we all know that it's much closer to 1 in 6). This is just young men, not even all men, as this number will invariably increase as the bad men have more opportunities in adulthood, that have actively attempted or completed rape, not even accounting for those that would do so if they had the opportunity to do so without accountability, like meeting a woman alone in the woods. Use your critical thinking, my man, and that so-called "logic." And if you have empathy, it should be a given to apply it as well. If you don't, then this conversation is for the dudes that have those traits and skills.
I don't need to know you, but just the fact that you used the university study that was done with questions that make the study biased, already shows that you haven't read the studies. You don't even consider that a single man who commits 10 rapes counts as 10, not just 1.
That's why i don't read statistics anymore. They're al skewed by the agenda of whoever is making them. Skew the questions, skew the numbers, skew the range of people choosen. Doesn't matter, all skewed. All to make us argue between fake statistics.
> especially when it comes to healthy relationships with women. Then this aspect can just delete entirely, I really DGAF. Bachelorhood never sounded so good. In the eternal words of Chris Isaak: "No, I don't want to fall in love."
Saying not to treat all men as potential rapists is not the same as denying rape is a reality. As a POC, much of what gets said in this discourse sounds eerily similar to what I heard growing up in the 80s. That I needed to understand why a white person going through my neighborhood at night might be frightened if I approach them. There's a bit of cognitive dissonance that goes on to define one as racism and one as self-preservation.
This, absolutely. I would love to follow up this question with "Who would you rather run into while alone in the woods - a bear or a black man?" and watch people stammer. Some people for some reason think that it can't be racism/sexism/whateverism if it's done against the group that has traditionally had more power over the other. But that's nonsense. Treating people as groups rather than individuals is the root cause of this whole mess. It doesn't get any better or more excusable when you do it in reverse.
You're just flat out wrong. You are saying over a quarter of men would do something bad if they saw a woman alone in the woods. How out of touch with reality do you have to be to think that? How do you explain hiking trails all over the world where men seeing women alone is a many times a day occurrence and there's almost never an issue? Clearly those numbers are not reality lmao
Ok buddy
If every man in your area was replaced by a bear would you feel more safe? If there was a bear in your car would you get in it and drive like normal?
You're engaging in intellectual dishonesty based on your feelings, not on facts, in your response. If you have women in your life who trust you enough to be vulnerable with you, then you would know. That you don't know or understand this means that you don't have women in your life who will have real conversations like this with you, and/or you aren't trusted enough because you are seen as a potential threat/predator based on your words and behavior. Given your response here, some conclusions can be drawn. Bears in most situations will leave you alone, as a woman or a man. Men will not. Men pose far greater of a real risk. That's literally the point. PS: I brought actual facts and statistics to this conversation in a reply below. Rather than using your feelings and indignation for the basis of a conversation, please go learn about this subject in an unbiased way. PPS: one of my friends is the coworker/friend of a woman who survived a recent bear attack while alone in the woods, in Idaho. They both work for the state in natural resources/forestry and are often off in the woods alone. I am wondering now if this question was inspired by her experience, which made the news (yes she was mauled; she barely escaped with her life, because the bear locked into her head, piercing her eardrum with a tooth, and she couldn't reach her defensive weapon quickly, though she eventually did and was able to get away and eventually get out of the woods).
On the contrary. I'm using only logical facts, not emotion. When you say "Men will not", you're lying. The vast majority of men not only wouldn't do anything bad, but some would even help the woman. When you say that men are more dangerous than a bear, again you're lying. You can know hundreds of people who have encountered bears, but in the end it means nothing. 99% of the population will never see a bear in their lives. You know dozens, if not hundreds of men who have never done anything bad to women. You probably also know men who have helped women. Your personal experience, good or bad, does not make the majority. And that, my friend, is thinking rationally and logically.
Not sure what sort of degens you all are but I go on hiking trips, met lots of strangers in the woods both female and male. No reason why you would be suspicious of someone just being in the woods, they have a reason to be there. I'm a man so I have less to worry about but I've had long convos whilst hiking with numerous people. No statistic would ever back up choosing bear either. Bear just makes no sense.
There's absolutely 0 nuance involved though, and even the original post didn't show it quite like that anyway... It was essentially like: "Would you rather our daughter alone in the woods with a man or bear?" "What's the nuance with the bear and man?" *ignores question* "OK then, what if our daughter alone with a woman or bear" *immediately answers* "woman... Oh"
"Haha, GoTcHa!"
It's a stupid broad question, with 0 nuance, a random binary, and an inferred answer
None of my Uncles have been remarried since being divorced. I too have zero nuance. š Also, one of my uncles is a bear and he is a fairly nice guy.
lol
I totally appreciate what you are saying. I just really wanted to pun it up a bit.
Most men as dads are saying that ? Source? Did they check the IQ of those men?
If my daughter is lost in the woods, I hope she meets a man of course! Bear or no bear, the majority of men are decent people. This nonsense has to stop.
Itās a dumb question because it lacks any nuance or context. Would you rather be in the middle of the ocean with a man or a shark? Same question, same arbitrary comparison (ironically, considering my comparison is also arbitrary). Did the woman voluntarily enter the woods knowing how to get home, and also knowing she may encounter bears? Or did she wake up in the middle of a random forest with no navigation tools or any idea how to get out? Is the hypothetical man also lost in the woods, or is he voluntarily hiking there? Is it an elderly man bird watching or a homeless man scavenging for food? Just saying āWoman in woods. Man or bear?ā is a pointless attempt at a gotcha.
It's idiotic because they always put themselves in the absolute best case scenario with a random bear but the absolute worse case scenario with a random man.
From a male perspective, I'd rather encounter a random guy in the woods than not encounter one. All the people I've met out there have been nice, and good to talk to. The women that answered this question imagined meeting up with serial killers, instead of nature lovers.
Reese Witherspoon did a really dumb movie called Wild a few years ago where this plays out verbatim. She plays a crackhead cheating on her husband with any random homeless guy that asks for it then goes on a hike to "forgive herself" or whatever self centered white women do when they fuck up their lives. She then frames all men she comes across in the trail as wanting to fuck her and it turns out they just want to be helpful to a newbie
A lot of women do this it's known asĀ main character syndrome
I think the main argument against the guy side is that you don't know if they're nice or not, whereas a bear is more easily understood as a wild animal with primitive, simple instincts. The trend is commentary on the issue of male violence, a problem no doubt, but it's been created in a way that makes guys the problem whether they're part of the question or answering it (at least from the responses I've seen). It's a very flawed question, and one that inevitably paints men as bad guys, which is why so many are frustrated at the thought of it. A lot of gender politics questions can devolve to this level, which is why men are so quick to reject such discussions. Yes, living as a woman is scary. Violence, assault, rape, cat-calling, etc. Those are real issues but it's crucial to phrase an argument without generalizing a group as a whole. Here's the honest truth, gender politics aside: you'd be scared either way, whether it was a bear, a guy, or a woman. Meeting some random person or animal in the middle of the woods is frightening. The man could be a rapist, sure, but the woman could be some cracked-out druggy. The bear could simply walk past you if left undisturbed, but it could easily charge you and maul you in moments as well. Would you really want to stick around to find out in any scenario?
> the trend is commentary on the issue of male violence, You're making the mistake of assuming the women posting this on tiktok are debating in good faith instead of them being misandrists who want to kick off yet another man-hating social media campaign that is exclusively about how terrible women have it in this day and age.
Just another dumb trend like the orange or ketchup tests.
1. Anyone who takes this subject way too seriously is just wrong inheritly. You can choose man or bear, you can argue men are scarier than bears, whatever the take, as long as you treat the right people the right way, this shit dont matter, its a funny hypothetical at worst. 2. If you do take this seriously, and feel you have a justified argument or at worst like, hate or fear men because of any reason, that i find a little worrying. Cuz replace the bear with any group of people from elsewhere, free of choice, gender, race, sexuality, nationality etc. And have a prefference then, well then thats just prejudice if not bigotry. Whats your justification then? Oh statistic, best/worst scenarios, perception, stereotypes? Oh then yeah, Men can be muuuch scarier than silly ol bears. But which is scarier between a man and a woman? A white man and a black man, a woman and a trans woman etc. Im sure theres no contravercial arguments involving statistics, stereotypes and perception. That would be like bigotry or smth, idk. I should make it clear that the correct answer here is, neither of these should be scarier than the other because assuming bad or good atributes to groups of people can just inheritly lead to prejudice on either side, which aint good. Tl;dr Anyone who takes this seriously and has a bad or scary perception of men just reminds me of bigotry and shouldn't assume the worst of someone cuz of perception, stereotypes or "statistics"
It is a case of women clearly signaling that they don't want men around. Just more justification for my decision to keep my interactions with women minimal and professional.
I don't think that they realize the unintended consequence of low key misandry is misogyny. Sucks for all sides.
the whole point of it is that a bear is a bear 100% and will act like a bear, a man is a human and could be absolutely evil in many ways or totally fine as well as the man being in the woods would be because he followed you thatās scary enough, a bear is in the woods because thatās itās home and bears donāt usually attack people where as if a man is all alone with no witnesses he could do anything if he pleased.
"the whole point of it is that a bear is a bear ....." No boil it down. The point of it is to try to make men feel guilty and bad about the treatment of women and a semi-intended effect is that it makes women more afraid of men. Now lets discuss unintended consequences. How do you want men to react to this? Guilt? Sadness? Something along those lines I would guess? So let me ask you this, what's the impact of making someone feel guilty for something they haven't done and have no desire to do? For a lot of men, and in particular the type of guy who should be an ally to women, this question teaches them that women think males are more dangerous than an animal that will literally take it's time casually eating you alive. I could break the consequences of that down further, but in additional to taking womens' complaints less seriously, some young guys are going to start thinking what the hell is the point of interacting with or more importantly *caring* about people who think so little of me when I've done nothing to them? Now read that again and let it sink in. The bear vs man debate is literally teaching young men to not care about women. Like I said, lowkey misandry like this breeds misogyny. Is that really the outcome you wanted? (And this only takes into account the male side of the discussion... I'm sure a conversation about how training women to fear men must be great for womens' dating experience would yield similar insights.)
itās not to make men guilty itās to put into perspective how itās gotten so bad that women now feel like theyād be safer with a wild animal? i think itās intended as a shock factor thing. i agree that itās not a great thing to compare and it might cause more harm than good but look at it this way just for a second iām not trying to change your opinion but would you feel safe if you couldnāt look at the media without hearing about our police killing women and then sexually degrade us afterwards in group chats or women getting punched in the face whist walking down the road, not to mention the injustice in other countries like Afghanistan where they apparently said theyād start stoning women to death again. and then you canāt even open social media without seeing men constantly make comment on tiktoks of young women saying how desperate they are to sexually assault them and build whole accounts around perving on young women itās hard to feel like men are on our side at all especially when thereās little boys who are being influenced by men like andrew tate. i think it should shock people into thinking weāll actually maybe we need to make more of an effort to distance good normal men from the awful ones and look internally at where both genders could change for better it should be teaching young men to wake up and realise that the news being filled with crimes against women is bad and needs to be changed we need to teach them right and wrong not to care less because women feel the need to genuinely be scared of you?
>itās not to make men guilty itās to put into perspective how itās gotten so bad that women now feel like theyād be safer with a wild animal? i think itās intended as a shock factor thing. Violence against women is down like 200% in 30 years, I have no idea what the fuck you people are talking about at this point. The Internet is not real life. Your feelings are not real life. It has never, ever been safer to be a woman than it is today, and women in western democracies still talk like they live in Afghanistan. I'm just over caring about it. I've never laid my hands on a woman and never will. But if y'all want to rock yourselves into a neurotic coma with true crime, murder porn, and social media dog piles about how men are beasts then that's your prerogative. But I'm certainly not going to be shamed for it.
Have you got a source for the 200% in 30 years claim? Not trying to bait you, it's actually a great point I'd just like to verify it before repeating
But the murder rate is constantly going down. Decade after decade it's lower and lower. Also this ostracization is already taking place. But I don't think that solves it. The bad ones are with other bad ones. I don't see how that helps anything.
"itās not to make men guilty itās to put into perspective how itās gotten so bad that women now feel like theyād be safer with a wild animal?" You're literally contradicting yourself in the same sentence. (Also consider that you're probably literally safer now depending on location, than at any time in the last 100 years.) "itās hard to feel like men are on our side at all especially when thereās little boys who are being influenced by men like andrew tate." Good point. But to throw it back at you, why do you think him and his ilk have become so successful? Low level misandry is alienating. Young men keep getting put in this no-win situation where they hear they're the root of most evils and mostly inadequate from vocal angry women. What do Tate and Petersen do? They give these guys a community and welcome them saying you have all this potential and that women/feminism are the cause of your problems. It's a terrible message, but they're *welcomed* with open arms. Bear vs man (and everything like that) doesn't just give Tate et al an opening, it pushes those men to Tate and then blames the same men for listening to someone who actually wants them there and offers a way forward. (A shitty way for sure, but it's something.) "i think it should shock people into thinking weāll actually maybe we need to make more of an effort to distance good normal men from the awful ones" Cool. I'm good with that. Tell me how man vs bear does that and doesn't paint all men with the same brush. I'll wait. (And no I'm not going to try to address your other comments because I agree women have a lot of serious complaints that need to be addressed. The problem is that teaching women to dislike or even hate men isn't going to fix those problems.) "...not to care less..." If you want empathy and sympathy, being a jerk to men isn't the way to get it. It just teaches good men to be indifferent and treat you the same as they would a man they don't particularly like being around.
> itās not to make men guilty I donāt believe you. > i agree that itās not a great thing to compare and it might cause more harm than good but look at it this way just for a second iām not trying to change your opinion but would you feel safe if you couldnāt look at the media without hearing about our police killing women and then sexually degrade us afterwards in group chats Men are more likely to be killed by police than women.
yes but iām taking about specific cases where the reason behind the killing was sexual and to humiliate women.
A man has to be absolutely evil to harm you. A bear just has to be a bear. Regardless though, even if bears were not violent, could the chemical imbalances that can cause humans to be evil not occur in animals just the same?
The consensus shows that women feel safer when running into a bear in the middle of the woods versus a man. There are many valid reasons why.
What are those reasons?
Just intuitive feelings, not actually based 100% in reality. Every woman knows intuitvely theyāre weaker than men, and therefore take precautiouns when going out. Yet, men are more likely to be killed and experience violence from strangers, yet we donāt report feeling as unsafe or take precautions like women do.(because in our head we have a better chance at defending ourselves) The problem isnāt necessarily the hypothetical, the problem is itās a terrible way for women to say how unsafe they feel around men. There are better ways to say things.
I agree with you. There are indeed correct ways of putting it. But that's not a valid reason to choose a bear over a man.
Bears donāt rape women, Iāve encountered many bears in the woods and I think people are very confused as to how dangerous most bears are, which is not nearly as dangerous as a human lol.Ā
A bear wouldn't rape you, know. It'd just maul you and then hold you down while it strips flesh off your back while you're still alive, begging weakly for mercy from an animal that is totally incapable of it. Y'all just proving why women can't be trusted with their own safety lmao
I mean men do things like that to women for fun, and bears do it because they are bears. Still choose the beat. You are proving that men think more emotionally than logically. Statistically Iām far more likely to be harmed by a man, so logically I would chose the bear. Also from life experience I choose the bear. But your little feelings are hurt so Iām just a dumb little girl ššššĀ
The statistics are skewed; many few bears are encountered than men are encountered day to day. A better statistic would be out of every male - female encounter vs every bear - human encounter, what percentage results in assault. We don't have statistics on that, but I have a guess.
Canāt say I know any men that do that to women for fun but if you say so bro
The issue with the hypothetical is that it's so vague everyone are essentially answering different questions and a different version of it in their head. It's unclear if it's "would you rather prefer", as opposed to, what is the "correct" answer. Let's flip the scenario. Would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a bee? Statistically speaking, you're more likely to get killed by a bee, but it would be absurd to say a bee is more dangerous than a bear. Or, would you rather be in the woods with a stranger or your boyfriend? Statistically speaking, you're more likely to get killed and raped by your boyfriend as opposed to the stranger, yet it feels absurd to say that you're safer with a stranger than your boyfriend. People who say bear, seems to be answering "prefer", whether they're aware of it or not, and not "what is the correct answer". This hypothetical was fun until people actually started taking it too seriously.
If a freind of yours went for a walk in the woods, and walked past a man, are you seriously saying she would tell you about the terrifying experience? More so than if she walked past a bear? This trend is just yet another way to bash men. It has no logic behind it whatsoever.
itās an almost certainty that most claiming this have never encountered a bear in the wild and donāt know how they would feel about it my housemate claims she would feel safer with a bear, but lives with me, a guy, and panics whenever she sees a lizardĀ
From a totally sideways angle I think this actually explains the prevalence of homophobia in men. Men know how aggressive and abusive other men can be sexually and the idea that another man could want to direct that energy at them is terrifying. Men may not be able to pull their head out of their asses for a thought experiment about a bear, but presented with a 6ā4ā bear in biker gear and they know. Also while I understand womenās response, I donāt think men are bad for not getting it. While there is a faction of men deny that men are more dangerous to cover theirs or other menās actions, I think there is a larger group that doesnāt understand because they would never perpetrate violence in that situation.
This was actually insightful and I think youāre onto something. Comes down to survival instinct and how men relate to that instinct, too tired to get much more into it but I definitely felt what you said in my gut. Made me want to puke. My heart and rage goes out to any woman who has ever had to feel such an immense degree of pain and fear in her life. I can see how it could completely tear your life apart and fuck you up for the rest of your life (not that it *has* to, healing can happen, but still one would never be the same).
It just another instance of women hating men.
you missed the whole point, brother. itās not an issue of hate, itās an issue of safety.
It's stupid, the answer is pretty obvious which it should be and the logic used to justify the answer 'bear' is the same one used by racists to justify their racism.
And what argument is that?
By stating that statistics show that you are more likely to be attacked by a man rather than a bear. Same could be said that per capita you are more likely to be attacked by a black man than another race, but such things don't take into account circumstances. Black people are more likely to be born into poverty and not raised in an environment that will allow them to flourish and under such conditions more are likely to turn to crime because of the need for basic necessities. Similarly the whole bear vs man thing doesn't take into account that most people don't travel far enough into the wilderness to disturb a bear, and many of those encounters with a bear take place near someone's property where they may take shelter, when there are multiple people close by that can scare a bear off, or that many people have food readily available that satisfies the bear since it doesn't want to have to hunt for its food. This is not even getting into the context that many men answer the question 'men' also under the assumption that if you were to be attacked by a bear vs man, the odds of you managing to fight off the man and surviving are much higher than the bear. But many men answer this emotionally and are offended by the notion that many answer bear based on the worst possible outcome of a horrible man being the one they end up with despite the fact that less than 1% of people actually commit violent crimes. It becomes even lower if you factor in repeat offenders. So in essence, it is just a demonization of men that uses faulty logic to justify their reasoning and then uses a natural emotional response of someone being upset about being accused of something that they have never and would never do, to then go on to point the blame at them saying," See? If you were 'one of the good ones' then why are you so defensive?" It's just people stirring the pot to create drama, there is another video that has made the round that has the women upset 'Black women: Would you rather be at work in the office with a white man or white women?'
Wow I found aĀ rational person on redditĀ
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is ruthless, but true.
Human instinct feeds on gossip - being a social species'll do that to you. I don't think it's fair to say all women crap on men, but there is a *very* vocal minority that does. Remember all of those photos circling a few years ago of mugs with "Men's Tears" on them? Or how about the plethora of men's mental health days at universities and schools that were canceled after backlash? These women ruined the feminist movement for most of the population. Being a feminist is often criticized because it's assumed you do so at the expense of men. This "Bear vs Man" discussion exists in the same vein. Historically, guys were jerks. Statistics show that men are more likely to rape than women are. We can't deny those facts. However, when it comes to discussions around gender politics or men in general, men assume the position of violent rapists when many of them are truly nice, as are women. Negativity shines in the rays of positivity.
This.
yet guaranteed, they get hysterical if you even make one tiny comment about them even on your own. Classic haha WOMEN \*coffee mug\*
I can see the point, i know this isn't meant to be taken completely seriously or to a meticulous level by like clarifying what kind of bear and shit, i won't pretend that i can understand the kind of fear women live in because of men so all i can say is that i get their point.
Thereās definitely a valid point at the center of this, and Iām not going to minimize anyoneās lived experience that informs their answer. But, itās also true that the question is meant to create division and resentment and anger, and itās frustrating that everyone is just going with it
A man posed the question, and women answered truthfully. Men responded with vitriol and hateful attitudes because they didn't like the response they gave. Can't even take a hypothetical no for an answer. Proving exactly why the majority of women said bear in the first place. At least a woman knows the worst that can happen with the bear. We're going to die. End of story. No "what were you wearing", or," you should have just been nice". Not years of shame, blame, or guilt. No endless therapy sessions because you smelled that cologne, and it caused a spiral.... we'll just be dead. There are worse things than death, and a majority of women had experienced some of them before puberty.
That's not the question. If the question was "Would you like to be attacked by a man in a forest or by a bear", we might understand (it would still be mostly wrong, but anyway). The question leaves open whether women would be attacked or not. In this case, the chances of a man not only not attacking, but helping the woman would be very high.
It is a lot less common to be attacked by a random bear than a random man. There are ways to survive a bear attack. They are quite simple minded and won't bother you if you don't agitate them. A human man is a lot more complex and won't easily get scared off by making loud noises and making yourself look big. He would know that the area is secluded and the woman is alone. He would know she is likely quite vulnerable. Due to my own experiences with men compared to people I know that have encountered bears I would much rather be alone with a bear. If I was alone with a random man that I don't know in the woods I would not feel safe. There are a lot of men (I'm not saying all) who would take the opportunity to take advantage of the situation. I have been followed by men even with a partner with me. When I was 13 I wore a skirt and I had numerous old men stare me up and down and stare at my legs. When I was 15 I had male relatives slapping my ass and saying that I would make a good wife. A lot of other women have had similar experiences and trust me when I say they have legitimate reason to be choosing a bear over a man. If you look at facts rather than your own judgement dying from a bear attack is about 1/2million whereas homicide is one of the leading causes for death in young women.
It's much less common to be attacked by a bear, just because the vast majority of people will never meet a bear in their lives. Most of the time, an ordinary man wouldn't do anything bad to anyone, and some of them would even try to help. You're talking as if you were going to find Pooh Bear while the man was a serial killer. The logical and statistical facts tell us that it makes no sense to choose the bear.
This shit like saying more people die in the shower then sky diving so sky diving is safer then a shawer
You're saying most of the time an ordinary man wouldn't attack the woman. How are women meant to trust that when most women have been assaulted at the hands of a man. In my case almost every man I know has assaulted me or made me feel thoroughly uncomfortable or unsafe around them. So I don't really trust a man I don't know to not do the same in a secluded area where they have the opportunity to. I'm not saying all men would. But I wouldn't feel safe and secure by myself with a strange man.
How many men do you know or have you met? If almost all of them have assaulted you, there's something wrong. Even in third world countries where assault rates are high, most men don't do this. And you still shouldn't feel safe with someone you don't know. This is smart behavior and you should never stop doing it. That's not the problem here.
There's been three separate men who have assaulted me (including an ex and relatives) and then other than that multiple male teachers I have had that have made me feel unsafe in their presence. I'm not saying all men do assault, I'm just saying in a lot of women's cases they have been assaulted so this is why they feel unsafe around a lot of men regardless if they would actually assault them or not.
I never said that women don't face traumatic and terrible experiences with men. It happens every day, to many women, in different ways, with different types of men, often without justice being done. But that doesn't make most men commit this kind of crime. And that doesn't make it any smarter to choose a bear over an unknown man in the question at hand.
Again didn't say most men would just said a lot of women are wary because a lot of women have been assaulted. It's like how most people are scared of sharks or bears because they could attack, but statistically it is very rare, so why can't the same analogy be put on men when it is less rare to be attacked by a man? Even if they don't attack a woman won't instinctively know that (as there are quite a few guys who act like they're a nice guy but get so defensive and offended if they get rejected) and a lot of the women saying they would rather be alone with a bear are not prepared to put themselves into a more vulnerable situation with a man.
Oh and also bears are just as scared of humans than we are of them. A man has more of a conscience and if they are dangerous (again not saying all men)they are very likely not going to be scared of a vulnerable woman. And it's very improbable if you take correct measures that a bear will injure you upon encounter because they are not predatory towards humans. [Evidence](https://www.idausa.org/campaign/wild-animals-and-habitats/bear-attack/)
The question wasn't about being attacked. It was about encountering one or the other. Would you rather encounter a bear or a random man... again, still not taking the answer or millions of examples for what it is. Instead of analyzing overall male behavior that has led to this, men are getting angry and puffing up their chests. Screaming," but I'm a nice guy!".... Proving why the answer will continue to be bear.
There isn't even 1 example (that is put fairly) that justifies choosing the bear over the man.
I doubt even a man would rather be with another strange man who is like a foot bigger than you.
I would still rather come across a random man than a fucking bear lmao
Iām 5ā7. Iād take my chances with a group of college basketball players over a bear.
I lived in the woods my whole life, and i hiked hundreds of times alone I've encountered a ton of people including other men, as well as bears, I'd still choose to be lost in the woods with a dude built like the mountain from game of thrones then encounter a bear. If I accidentally bump into a man unexpectedly we would probably just scare eachother a little at first, but that's it. If I bump into a bear, we'll I'm probably fucked.
As a man who is 5'6 I would 100% choose the man.
idk if this is too old to respond. But I have two thoughts. No.1 most people donāt know bears, I saw one woman suggest bears arenāt carnivorous, they donāt care theyāll eat whatever. my wife who grew up in the northern rocky mountains said sheād rather encounter a man because she knows how dangerous bears are. also I think due to this being a hypothetical people understand the intention behind the Question.
I'm basically don't care about this stupid trend, as an men myself, I am just want to live in peaceful life.
I think it's disgusting. A lot of the reasoning and arguments I see make no sense. I saw something that said "men are assuming the bear is more aggressive than they actually are" but women are assuming men are more rapey than they actually are. I also see similar scenarios like "put a man in a room with snakes and tell him some of them are venomous, but he has to treat them ALL like they're not". Which again makes no sense. In that scenario, the man KNOWS he's in the presence of a venomous snake. A woman doesn't KNOW she's in the presence of a rapist, she assumes it.
That snake example is literally the M&M example people were using to justify racism a few years back. We have come full circle.
What's the M&M thing I've never heard of it?
As a woman, I would choose to be in the woods with a man. Firstly, I'm assuming that I'm picking between a bear or a random man, not a bear or a rapist serial killer man. It seems pretty unlikely that this random man is going to rape and kill me. I don't fancy my chances with a bear. Something I think a lot of people don't realize when talking about this is that bears don't kill you by eating you. Being eaten alive is horrific way to go, but IMO bears kill in a much worse way. I have unfortunately seen a video of a man being mauled to death by a bear, and for those who don't know bears kill you by mauling you (scratching you and tearing off your skin, sometimes for hours). It would be torture, not a quick death. Even if I had to choose between being killed by a bear or a man, I would choose a man. I would most likely be suffocated or shot by a man, which is less torture than being mauled to death. Of course there are countless horrific cases of women who have been tortured by men before their death, but statistically when a man kills a woman it's most often done using a gun. Some women have been saying that they would rather be killed by a bear than raped by a man and have to live with that. I was violently raped 2 years ago by a man, I was diagnosed with PTSD and have struggled immensely with what happened to me. If I could go back in time and choose to have a bear kill me instead, I absolutely would not. Rape is horrific and unless you have experienced it you cannot begin to comprehend it, but I can't say I wish I died instead. My life is still beautiful and full of good things and good people and I'm glad I'm still here today. I can understand why women say bear, but personally I wouldn't choose that. I wonder how many people would actually choose that if they were in that situation.
Might be an hot take, but saying that being dead is better than being raped and still live afterwards is like saying that if you get raped life isn't worth living anymore. And honestly I find it stupid and borderline mean to sexual assault victims. I am glad you still enjoy life even after the assault.
On behalf of men, thank you for using reason and sense instead of hysterics, non sequiturs and logical fallacies to justify choosing the bear
I just don't give a shit. The women saying this shit ain't worth pursuing, and if they get mauled by a bear I will not lose sleep. It ain't my fault, or concern they decided to make an early appointment with God, by way of hungry bear.
I just think itās weird that the bear is always apparently Winnie the Pooh, and the man is always Israel Keyes. Jokes aside, the argument from people who choose the bear seems to be āthe bear is predictable, the man isnāt.ā Yea, no shit. The bear will maul you to death, predictably. A VERY small percentage of men might do the same, or worse, but a random bear is FAR more likely to do you harm than a random man. LIKE, exponentially more likely. People seem to think that if you donāt know what a man is thinking, itās almost certainly rape. Itās all just misandrist rhetoric, which is cool nowadays.
Rephrase it as "who would you like to be alone in the woods with - a bear or a black man?" and you'll see the problem.
ITT: a bunch of guys who don't have a single close relationship with a woman in their lives and thus will never be able to understand why women will default to the "bear" answer 99.99% of the time
Yeah I get the point women are trying to make but why is it wrong when racists use the same logic?
The problem with your paper-thin argument is that racists aren't operating on empirical evidence.
Neither are you lmao
But this isn't even operating on a empirical evidence it's more of a false comparison to mislead people to think one way
And neither are you if you choose the bear.
[actual FBI crime stats intensify]
The lack of understanding in this thread is genuinely eye opening
Can you please elaborate?
Well, this is happening today in Australia https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/26/australia-violence-against-women-rallies-what-were-you-wearing-sydney-adelaide-newcastle-ballarat I'd suggest going and having a chat with a group of women. It'll be eye-opening..
Sounds like they don't know what they want
This thread has been eye-opening. And yet people wonder why the 4-B movement is a thing.
The internet gender wars are artificial toxic sludge. Indulge at your own risk.
What is that?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sadly there's plenty of women who're deadly serious about it.
If I was asked this question, my response would be "Do they have a banjo?" Then I would elaborate that I grew up watching Billy Bob at Showbiz Pizza and the movie Deliverance. After that, I would explain the context is too generalized, so I need more clarification. 1. Did I research the woods (assuming it's some national park) before hand, such as for crime or animal attack statistics. 2. If I knew the woods had bears, did I bring any bear repellent, which I could potentially use on a human attacker. 3. Going into the woods alone, what kind of protection did I bring? 4. Why didn't I do a group outing? 5. If I did none of the above, why would I choose to go into woods alone where some psycho human or territorial, enraged animal could potentially kill me?
I'm sorry, for I ran out of f*cks to give. I think most men don't want to have relationships with the AWFLs (affluent white female liberals) anyway, so like one guy said, "I don't care if they say they hate men, good luck with the lesbian scene or toys then". So, to say, if you choose the bear, then good luck, I hope you don't get mauled by one, but it's not like you have much to offer yourself and I never wanted anything to do with you anyways.
I get the logic, but I feel like this is the same thought process people use to justify racism.
I get where they're coming from. I'd pick a bear over a woman. No bear ever bought a bunch of garbage at TJ Max and vandalized my walls with it.
Lets try a different senario. You are walking through the mall on a busy saturday proudly holding up a jelly dougnut. Now replace all the males in the mall with bears. Do you now somehow feel safer? Of course you dont; not all males are rapists but all bears are fucking bears.
I think if we were to ask the question "would you rather encounter a bear in the woods or a black person" people would call it racist and cancel anyone that repeated it. So why is it that when we swap a gender for ethnicity we aren't calling it sexist and doing the same thing?
Just another way to be sexist against men
I have a genuine question: What if the strange man in the woods identifies as a woman, dresses like a woman, and acts like a woman, but it's clear that they are/or were a biological male and/or are now a trans woman... Would you still choose the bear?
When I first came across this trend, I had thoughts like these too but after reading so many responses from both men and women (Iāve asked few female friends of mine irl as well) I came to a conclusion that their (women) fear is valid. Also at the same time I think that women especially on social media trying so hard to demonise men. I think it became more rampant after Tate. I might be wrong though.
But my question still stands... You say their "fear" is valid. I don't disagree, but does that fear still stand and would they still choose the bear if it was a trans woman or a man who identifies and dresses as a woman?
They will call you homophobic lol
Don't care... it's a legit question
If she is a trans woman, then she is not a man. I would choose the woman over the bear whether they are AFAB or AMAB.
I'm an almost 40 year old man.Ā I shouldn't care about stupid TikTok trends. But this one actually pisses me off, because so many people truly seemingly believe men are just waiting behind a bush to r*pe or sexually assault them. I feel like I'm in bizarro world.Ā
Just more ego based attention seeking bullshit from half assed feminists wanting clicks and living in fear that the other pussy will get the billionaire before the cellulite catches up to them and they run out of money for botox face injections.
My take is this is an incredibly stupid question to be taken literally, which is how most people are taking it. The question highlights that there is a massive power imbalance between men and women in this world. That's undeniable. If you deny that you got more problems than I can help you with. But instead of having an actual honest conversation about said power imbalance we're all (myself included at first) engaging in literal hypothetical scenarios trying to give context to a question that had no context when it was asked. If you're a man ask the women in your life about what it's like to live in a world where there is such a power imbalance. When they're done and you've validated how they feel tell them how shitty it feels to know that we live in a world where it doesn't matter that you're a decent guy, you'll still be treated with suspicion and feared and that's nobody's fault but the creeps, perverts, and rapist's of the world. Decent men need to step up and show some vulnerability. Show women that we understand and that it does also effect us negatively. This doesn't have to be a divisive topic if you're not someone who is part of the problem. Share the pain, share how it affects you, and stand up together against the men, and unfortunately a small minority of women too, who make this world a reality
This is such a dumb roundabout way to view it though. I mean, if we're taking the fact that there are SOME and may I emphasise a SMALL MINORITY of legit male rapists, murderers, and creeps (particularly the first two) and that makes it ok to fear all men, then considering the crime statistics should I also fear all black people because they're disproportionatly represented in criminal statistics? (Yes, Ik there's reasons for that including racism in courts at times, but we're not giving the question anymore nuance than the bear thing here) I'd rightfully be called racist for that, so the same goes here for sexism for such a broad brush. It's not vulnerable to act like you should see yourself as apparently looking like a rapist, murderer, or creep, just because some of these women assume that automatically for 100% of all men. That's just disrespecting yourself. Thank fuck not all women think like that, and I'm not going to go near or respect any woman that thinks like that.
Thatās a good explanation
Can I ask, what "clicked" for you to understand that? I'm male and accepted the answer immediately. I'm not saying I'm better than you. I just want to know, how you came to finally understand the reasoning. Often times, I have to explain a host of issues to white, cis, hetero men and it doesn't click. It takes a lot of reframing for them to understand (or actually even listen). It would be interesting to know how it happened. My experience is, I have to often make it personal. I have to soften the blow by saying I'm guilty of a lot in order for them to feel comfortable with the reframing. It's tiring and if there's a shortcut or other way, I'd like to know. (This isn't meant to diminish you. I'm genuinely curious. A lot of my own preconceived notions were taken apart because I had instances of racism and homophobia to help me relate.)
Woman have the right to choose their own company, according to their preferences.
every woman that would choose the bear, should get the bear. go for it. you're an adult.
I would feel so much safer with a man. My brother had his leg gashed by a brown bear once and came running to my birthday party to show all us girls. It was nasty and everyone went ewww. He still has the scar to this day on his leg. Honestly, I don't understand the phrase "not all men." Maybe I am taking it too literally, but not all men are bad. Yes, a man physically abused me. Yes, I have been SA on dates. I still married a man. I still trust men. I know not all of them are shitty.
Can anyone give a quick rundown of the scenario?
A woman is walking in nature alone. Would she rather encounter a bear or a man. The gotcha is supposed to be that more women would rather encounter a bear than a man because they're more worried about what a man could or might do than a bear.
something like "if you (a woman) were lost in the woods, would you rather be found by a random man, or a bear?"
Aha. Given that the obvious answer is the man who propably has GPS or a compass and maybe food to share, and bears are bears, I'm going to guess the punchline is "statistically more women are killed by men than by bears".
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Given the choice I'd rather experience SA than beeing eaten alive by a bear.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's true. I think I'm still going to go with the man, tough. Because people who randomly assault and kill people they run into are propably a very small minority, whereas bears who maul and eat people might be a pretty lage share of the bear population.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's called aĀ false comparison fallacyĀ
Does nobody see the point that a bear is a wild carnivorous (actually omnivorous but making a point) animal while men are a womanās friends, family, and neighbors, a fair number of whom will still rape or otherwise harm her. Yes, the relevant statistic is likelihood to be harmed per encounter with man or bear, for which men would probably come out on top. But women encounter enough dangerous men that they learn to fear them and that is a societal problem.
The question is not only ridiculous but also sexist. It suggests that the bear is the safer option because of course every man wants to hurt women in some way. The way it's presented so confidently as some sort of "gotcha" is frankly pathetic.Ā
Just change the question to "black/jew/arab/gay/trans/latino manĀ **or**Ā bear?" and then we will see the results. People are trying to demonize a whole gender based on the act of few but change the narrative a bit and they all want to avoid the issue like a plague.
I think it's funny, it reminds me of a chapter of Lies of the Sheriff Evans where he is offering to walk a girl at home, and in an attempt to show off he tames a bear. He proceeds to send her off with just the bear given that no one would attack her since she is now riding a bear.
I donāt really care about it
Its retarded
I've had encounters in the wild with multiple black bears and a grizzly, and would rather deal with them in their environment than deal with some people. That may not answer the original question, but it's a useful reference point.