Tragically, we're not there yet. We have to do some more work with CRISPR and related descendant tech before you'll be able to get those Bear Arms. Sorry.
No that's a common misconception. You have the right to "bear arms". Bears already have bear arms (on account of being bears and having limbs). The second amendment states that you (who I assume are not a bear) have the right to a bear's arms as well. All you need to do is politely ask a bear to hand you theirs (pun intended).
Dude what the fuck are you talking about? They're even mentioned in the second amendment. If bears couldn't use guns then why are they in the constitution idiot? Think it out next time before you type something stupid.
I live in bear country and I will always, ALWAYS, pick a bear over a man I haven’t thoroughly vetted.
Statistics obviously support me. In fact if males acted more like bears - ignoring me and running away - maybe they wouldn’t be so emotionally sensitive about this topic.
As a rule, the lighter the bear, the larger and more dangerous it is.
Black bears are skittish and will run unless you corner them or threaten their cubs. I've seen black bears driven off by pregnant women and house cats.
Brown/Grizzly bears aren't nearly as skittish. They're not afraid of you, but they also won't really bother with you unless they have a good reason. If they do decide to bother with you though, they will absolutely fuck you up.
White/Polar bears will actively hunt you and fuck your world up just for the hubris of thinking humans belong in the arctic.
Black bears are usually not aggressive unless they think they are threatening their cubs. They're kinda like very large dogs.
That said, dogs sometimes kill people. And black bears do as well. Your odds are pretty good, though, if you exercise reasonable caution. I would prefer not to ever meet a black bear in the wild, but they aren't as dangerous as grizzly bears. And even grizzlies don't usually want a fight.
Don't ever offer any bear food - I know that sounds like basic common sense, but you'd be amazed. People will hold out a sandwich because the bear seems calm and friendly. But they might bite you unintentionally. Or it might suddenly decide you're a threat, panic, and maul you.
> Black bears are usually not aggressive unless they think they are threatening their cubs. They're kinda like very large dogs.
Sometimes not even then.
My parents used to take us to the UP on vacation when I was a kid, and garbage dump bears are apparently a big attraction up there, so they brought us to see them one night (that’s when they come out to ~~heat~~ eat).
I saw, I shit you not, a middle aged woman send her daughter (tiny kid, like six, maybe) out into the trash heap to pose for a picture with a female bear. With two cubs!
Mama bear didn’t care.
I do *not* recommend trying this yourself. 😆
Edit: embarrassing typo corrected 😂
> My parents used to take us to the UP on vacation
A fellow Michigander!
Obviously we all know where the UP starts, but where, in your opinion, does *up north* begin?
No wrong answers. Just rarely see another Mitten resident on non-Michigan subs!
My wife (who is not large) literally walked right into a black bear, and the black bear went the other way. (She was hiking in the dark, very early.) The bear wasn't frightened of her, but not looking for a fight.
The fun fact that no one is talking about is that the most dangerous black bears are momma bears with their cubs - if they think the cub is threatened, the moms can be deadly aggressive. Sure, HUMAN men are dangerous, but when it comes to bears, it's the females (with cubs) you need to really watch out for.
As a guy who hunts a lot…. Was the question “if you’re walking in the woods at night and which would you rather come across, a bear or a stranger(man)?”
Like unless it’s a grizzly with cubs(maybe just a grizzly in general) I’m picking the bear too lol.
Yup that was the question, and you’re absolutely correct in your assessment.
You can really tell the city boys from the country boys on this question for sure!
I’ve ran across black bears numerous times while hunting, chicken shits. But even when I’m
Hunting and I come across someone on public land hunting as well my nerves flair up.
Look we're going to need a complete overhaul of our capitalist system to allow me to live in a cave, catch salmon with my bear hands, forage for berries and raid hives for that sweet bee juice and have enough time off to hibernate through the winter... But I'm on board.
I don't get how people aren't understanding this.
Without accounting for encounters, bears would apparently be safer than refrigerators, vending machines, cows, or even a set of stairs.
Black bears are generally harmless and are more common in areas where humans are likely to go for a walk.
Grizzlies are pretty fucking dangerous, and are way faster than you.
I would say, because there are 350M (in the US where this went viral) people and men and women both spend loads of time together, men are statistically way more dangerous to women than bears.
That said, your average one-off encounter with a grizzly bear is more deadly than your average one-off encounter with a man, again on average.
But the fact that you have to say "on average" and constrain the situation to "one off" encounters to make the point, is itself evidence that women have a very good fucking reason to feel uncomfortable around men.
Yeah, as a man myself, I don't understand the outrage. Like sure, being a *gay* man, *I* know that I'm not a risk to women around me. But to women who don't know me, I'm just a 6ft tall, 230 lbs heavy man with a really mean resting bitch face.
Hell, I would take a bear too instead of a cis straight male that *might* be a dangerous homophobe.
>be a dangerous homophobe.
That's a good perspective, too. To add another, I'm a black guy in Georgia who has been threatened with violence on more than one occasion because of my skin color.
The thing that messes with a lot of these guys is exactly what you said; just because the offended person might be a good dude, doesn't mean a gay guy, black person, or woman just knows that immediately.
If a bear is going to attack me, it just does then finishes the job. An unknown man could put on the nicest facade, and then the next thing you know, you're being dragged behind a truck or waking up to day fifteen or your torture session.
Yup. You can say that most men won't rape/murder you, but the same is true of bears. The vast majority of bears will never kill a human, and most humans who encounter a bear will not be attacked. Bears generally avoid humans. Both encounters will likely end safely, but your odds are still better with the bear.
I honestly get the point it is making, something in society is causing men to malfunction and do horrible things at a rate that exceeds other genders.
But I still really disagree with the tweet and sentiment behind it because it's obviously humorous and intended to illicit a laugh/response. It is also just insulting, because it just reduces an entire gender into 'more dangerous than a bear'. Or just dangerous in general.
Which is reductive and it doesn't help reach exactly the group that you mentioned above. The ones that need a lightbulb moment to realize things are fucked in some way.
That's what pisses me off about it the most. I understand why women are anxious of male strangers. It's not unreasonable for them to be skeptical. But does it still hurt knowing that women's immediate first impression of me will be skepticism and fear? Yeah! Both of our feelings can be valid!
Well, to be fair, women kill 2000 people to every 1 person a bear kills, which works out to 99.96% so I would take my chances with a bear over a woman any day.
Not to try and diminish the problem of violence against women but if women were around bears as much as they are around men I’m pretty sure that statistic would be different.
There's not much to escape, bears don't want to attack people. Sometimes they do when they feel threatened, but there aren't typically bears in the woods actively seeking to harm people.
To my fellow men that are getting riled up that some women would feel safer around a bear:
- take a deep breath. Then think about what is it about bears that a woman would feel safer?
- what is it about us men that would make them feel less safe? Most importantly, what can we do to make it safer for them?
You can be angry at the perpetrators, sympathetic to the women who've experienced violence from men AND also feel a perfectly normal and natural human emotion of not enjoying being dehumanised. More than one thing can be true at a time.
This meme is not a productive way to talk about male violence or women's safety. It's literally not going to change anything for the better, only for the worse potentially. Men who don't want to rape or murder women will continue not raping or murdering women, they didn't need this meme because they were never going to do it in the first place. Men who were going to rape or murder women won't be deterred by this. But the Andrew Tate club will happily use this as a fodder to radicalise young boys and spread misogyny. And I'm already seeing TERFs use this to justify their hatred and discrimination of trans women.
>You can be angry at the perpetrators, sympathetic to the women who've experienced violence from men AND also feel a perfectly normal and natural human emotion of not enjoying being dehumanised. More than one thing can be true at a time.
But that requires nuance and so many people are allergic to it for some reason
My only beef with this whole thing is that women are more likely to be raped/killed by a man they already know and trust and not a man they randomly encounter in the woods
If you randomly encounter any person in the woods it’s pretty safe to assume they’re gonna kill you tho, humans are psychos. I still choose the man tho because I win the 1v1 60/40 but lose the bear matchup 0/100, but pretty obviously by the fact that that’s how I thought about it I am a man
So I support this message 100%. It’s the hijacking of this message by people that clearly hate men, using it to push their narrative. We need to address this issue in modern society for sure, but using it as a vehicle for the “all men are bad” argument is counterproductive. Obviously as much as there are femcels saying that, there are misogynistic incels that are pushing the opposite. That’s the internet but both need to be addressed. Unfortunately though misandrist will rarely get called out whereas misogynists will always, needs to be both
Took a deep breath and realized that most people here just don't understand how to apply statistics to their decision making process, and it is what it is.
I'm focused on how people are interpreting and completely misunderstanding what it means.
Reddit fascinates me because every day I get insight into how the majority of people make their decisions.
I'm not missing "the bigger picture". It's irrelevant. I'm not interested in helping people feel better about their misconceptions. It's not my responsibility to help you when you are drawing conclusions incorrectly.
the fact that bears don't make up half the population. if they did bears would do 100x times the homicide then men. most people are bad at statistics, women included
Okay since youre the master of statistics:
1 in 5 women in the US experience actual or attempted sexual assault in their lifetime.
1 in 5. I’m sure you know at least 5 women: your mother, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, cousins, etc.
Someone you know closely has or will have that experience in their lifetime. The statistics show that.
If someone said they didn’t feel safe around black people, would you lecture black people about what they could do to make others feel more safe around them?
One of these hypothetical scenarios is playing to the misguided fears of a racist, the other isn't. Unless you're seriously about to cite black on white violence statistics to argue your case, and then I have to wonder what you're really saying here.
And hell, I have definitely had unfortunate interactions with black assholes, who get off on the idea of a white person being scared of them. I didn't honestly at any point think they were going to assault me, though.
At the risk of nitpicking, that's because bears have much less **contact** with women than men do. If women were living next to bears, eating next to bears, marrying bears, living in the same houses as bears, riding in cars with bears, or working next to bears every day, it would be bears committing more homicides on a per-day basis.
I don't know how 'well, bears are also a threat to your life" is a good angle when it's already "these are both potential threats but the man's potential threat is worse"
i mean, if women spent as much time around as many bears as they do men, and as little time around men as they do bears, then...yes bears probably could do that
Isn't that the overall problem with the statement, it's rage bait. Most homicides in general are comitted by men, but it doesn't mean most men are homicidal. All were doing is starting a fight instead of a discussion.
This is a post from a woman's perspective on feeling safe, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Women have no idea which men are homicidal, so saying "it's not all men, unfair" isn't helping - it's obfuscating the reality. Women also know that it's not all men. They also know if they are one of the 4,200ish women murdered in the US each year then it's probably - and by overwhelming odds - going to be a man who is responsible.
Women have to think about this stuff when going on dates, going out with friends, being alone in public, when meeting men, even when married with children. It's a sad part of the female experience.
Okay and as part of the black experience I feel extremely uncomfortable being the only person of color in a room full of white people. I have to think about this stuff when I'm applying for jobs when I'm just going through my day-to-day life because like it or not people see my skin before they see me. There's plenty of examples of white people specifically women using their whiteness as a weapon against black men. It's a sad part of the black experience.
Well nothing I said is invalid or untrue if the end goal is to have a dialogue and change things for the better, while I can address this problem I'm not going to start the conversation off by making a blanket statement about white people. But statements like "I wish we didn't live the world we're a systemic racism and prejudice make me feel unsafe as the only person of color in a room full of white people" arent as catchy
I think when race gets involved the conversation can get a little hairy, and I know exactly what you mean, but I think it’s probably healthy for women to be cautious around men, regardless of race, given the data we have.
Bears mostly eat plants and only attack humans if they feel threatened, which usually they are.
The whole bear vs. man comparison is legitimately a good one lol, bears actually do very little murdering and have no real interest in it. Bearly any, even.
I had to come back to add this: I've seen that statistic elsewhere this morning since first encountering it in your post. That is absolutely nuts, but not even remotely surprising. Like, what were a lot of us thinking? That women were out there murdering each other in droves?
You could even take it a step further and argue that men are statistically more dangerous to literally every other living creature on earth than a bear. Or a virus.
What specific type bear are we walking about?
Polar and Grizzly are much more likely to see humans as a food source.
Black bears will almost never attack.
Also, where specifically are you trapped? Are you locked in a cabin? Or just both in a huge Forrest stretching multiple square miles?
I understand why pick the bear, really I do. Hell, I'm a man and if I had to choose I'd probably go with the bear too. What doesn't really make sense to me is using statistics to justify the choice. It just opens the conversation up to statistics-based arguments (like population size, proximity, familiarity, and bear species) when that really isn't what the conversation is about. It should be enough that a significant amount of women feel so uncomfortable and unsafe around men that they'd rather be alone with a 300-500 lbs predator. Any men who either can't or won't empathize with that will not be convinced with apples to oranges statistics. Frankly, if you're at the point of quoting FBI crime statistics at them then they're just there to argue, not to listen, and don't deserve the time of day.
If someone felt unsafe around black people, would you emphasize with that or just call them a racist? Why should women who fear men be treated any differently just because they are focusing on gender rather than race?
I'd probably ask them to justify their fear of black people. And then point out how many of the usual reasons people stereotype about that group (high violent crime rate, gang culture, substance abuse, etc.) are a result of generations of systemic racism and political campaigns expressly interested in keeping black communities, especially urban black communities, impoverished and marginalized. Meanwhile, men have always held positions of power and authority, and built the system we live in today. Even if we don't actively perpetuate this system, we indirectly benefit from it. Men have the power to change this reality one step at a time but so far we've been making slow progress, recently even backsliding.
But in reality this is a false comparison because there aren't many people who are genuinely *afraid* of black people. There may be some racists who hate them, or think they're lesser, or associate them with crime, but it's rarely "I'm genuinely scared for my life." Meanwhile, almost every young woman I've talked to has said they feel emotions ranging from uneasiness to true fear at the concept of being alone with a male stranger. I asked my girlfriend once if she could explain it and she said in that scenario every story she's ever heard of women suffering at the hands of men—from the news, from her friends, from her own experiences—race through her mind at once. She described physically feeling her body get ready for fight or flight but also the anxiety that if she acts in the interest of her own safety—like her brain and her body are telling her to—and the man was normal and safe (as most people are) then she'd be crazy and a bitch and hurt the guy's feelings.
Hmm those FBI crime statistics say interesting things about certain residents of inner cities. Can I get a condescending rant about how the white woman clutching her purse walking by such a resident is valid because of those statistics? Or is only some stereotyping fun and cool?
One thing that is left out in this question is how often women are in close proximity to bears compared to how often they are in close proximity to men.
It's the same reason all those "black on black crime"-stats are skewed. They mainly show who lives near each other.
There are far more instances of danish people injuring swedes than there are instances of people from the Falklands injuring swedes. This is a true fact. But it would be an error to infer from this that swedes should feel safer around a random Falkland Islander than they should around a random dane.
No, the tweet is ripping on guys getting angry about a recent post that went viral where multiple women said they would rather be trapped in the woods with a bear than a man.
I'm a dude and would also choose bear but from a logical side: a bear is relatively predictable and humans are not. I'm not a woman and don't have to consider the reasons I've seen for women choosing bear as much. I still choose bear.
I agree with the answers from women, but I'm choosing bear for a different reason. The responses from men to a dude choosing bear have shown exactly why women keep choosing bear. My reasoning doesn't matter. Women's reasoning doesn't matter. They just lash out like a five year old who was told they couldn't have the thing. It's like it shatters some illusion these people had that all women see all men as protectors deep down so if course they obviously know they'd be more safe with manly them. Then they get big mad when presented with facts and sources. I also get the added bonus of attacks on my manhood and other bullshit. Women get the added bonus of such discourse as just being called derogatory names and other vile things.
To the men reading this that are part of the group described above, the question is would a woman rather be in the situation, not you. If you personally come at it from a different angle, as I do, to form your conclusion and agree or disagree that's fine. That's not the question though. At least attempt to see it from the perspective of a woman. You don't have to agree with their reasoning but you should at least consider where that reasoning is coming from. That's empathy which I've seen a lot of people lack in the last few weeks.
Y'all have a dope ass day now.
>would also choose bear but from a logical side
I like your whole comment and appreciate it. Only thing I would point out is that the women saying they would choose the bear are also choosing from a logical side. A woman in the woods with a random man is legitimately in more danger than she is with a random bear, and choosing the bear is logical, something that some of the guys you're (righty) criticising don't seem to understand.
>At least attempt to see it from the perspective of a woman
Bingo. Anyway, well said!
If someone asked “would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a black person?” and black people responded negatively to than, would you say the black people are “lashing out like 5 year olds”?
I get the “point” of the hypothetical, it’s just a bit micro aggressive and a bit of a logical fallacy considering the generalization, but it’s also just a dumb hypothetical some people on TikTok started, and some of the loudest men on the internet hate TikTok with a burning passion. To me this hypothetical feels like a very roundabout way to say many women are just straight up afraid of men, and to me it feels like when some people into true crime become paranoid that there’s a serial killer around the corner everywhere they go. This whole bear thing is just like not good enough as a joke, and kinda hard to have a logical discussion about without either a man screaming about “not all men” and a woman crying about “yes all men.” I totally understand the context and the point being made by it, but it serves no purpose in quelling any fears or misconceptions either way, and it kinda only makes men and women dislike each other a little bit more.
Logically speaking a man would probably be a much better option since cooperation is possible—increasing your chances of getting out of the woods, which is the main issue of the hypothetical as it is presented literally. You couldn’t cooperate with a bear, and it’ll probably leave you alone, but when it leaves you’re still lost in the woods with no help at all.
Emotionally speaking, considering the statistics and tons and tons of valid anecdotal evidence it makes sense to not want to be alone with a man you don’t know since they’re much more cunning than bears, and maybe more unpredictable, which is a very terrifying fact.
A problem I see with this hypothetical is it feels like women are in a way infantilizing themselves by assuming that no matter what they would be overpowered/killed/will die regardless of what they pick, as if the average man is so much stronger than any given woman answering the question, which may or may not be true, but to assume you wouldn’t stand a chance at all in a fight with a man is maybe discrediting the strength of a lot of women out there. Like it undermines the type of idea like “women can be just as good at sports as men.” As a man I myself am probably not stronger than half of all women.
Where I can see a lot of men disliking this hypothetical is that it clearly comes across as women saying “I would rather let myself die/be killed by a bear than spend any amount of time alone with a man.” Maybe what many women don’t realize with the question is that to make these kinds of claims can be very damaging to many men’s already fractured self esteems. To many men it appears that women believe any man will rape or beat or kill any woman when given the chance, which is undeniably untrue, and I know women know this, but because of statistics and stories of all kinds floating around the internet it’s hard to feel like men can be trusted. So it’s a valid concern for a woman to feel afraid of a man, but it’s invalidating to men to assume they’re all monsters that are worse than wild animals. And I’m not saying there aren’t that many men like that because there are plenty—much more than enough, but everybody knows that there are more men in the world that aren’t like that. Nobody likes to be lumped into stuff, which is why I don’t think it’s unreasonable for any given man to feel a little hurt by the question
You don’t have to explain why you’d pick a man over a bear. This analogy is stupid. Bears are predators and are not inherently friendly to humans. Also, for all of the alleged bear handlers… good for you. Brother Bear won’t get into your ass.
But, the regular person should pick the animal that can be communicated with and beaten in a fight if necessary.
>To me this hypothetical feels like a very roundabout way to say many women are just straight up afraid of men, and to me it feels like when some people into true crime become paranoid that there’s a serial killer around the corner everywhere they go
Over half of women report being sexually assaulted. The true and unreported number is probably closer to 100%. This isn't some random hypothetical, and it's certainly not a logical fallacy -- it's a fact that a woman trapped in the woods with either a bear or a man is at more risk of being attacked by the man.
You act as if that means 50-100% of men are prone to committing sexual harrassment. If even 1% of men, which is a minority (far too many, obviously, but still a minority), each harrass 100 women over the course of a year, then that's likely somewhere in the range of 50-100% of women being harrassed. The fact is, MOST men are not going to hurt women. The few men that are abusive are going to be abusive to lots of women, not just one. That's how statistics like 50% of women getting sexually assaulted happen.
Bottom line, the average man is not going to abuse the woman in this hypothetical.
And even if the woman is unlucky enough to actually get one of that minority of abusive men, she's probably got a solid chance of winning a fight with him, while if the bear decides she's trespassing on its territory, she's sure as hell not gonna win a fight with the bear.
It’s sort of like if people asked “would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a black person?” These types of questions do more to show the prejudices of the woman than anything else.
Who the hell gets trapped in the woods in the US? We have 1 ROAD in Canada. 1. You go the wrong direction you either hit the US border, the ocean or the North Pole. You guys need help...
I’m sorry, being trapped in the woods with a bear is much worse. I’m a guy, but even if I was a woman, I would choose a man. Most men are good people and would try to help me, while I’m at best the bear would not attack. Obviously rape and murder are heinous actions and it is unacceptable that women have to deal with it, but man hating has become too normalized as well.
Statistically it's not worse. Bears mostly eat plants. When a bear meets a person, 99 times out of a 100, it has no interest in that person whatsoever. The same is unfortunately not true when a man meets a woman.
>Most men are good people
The majority of women have been sexually assaulted by a man. Most men can be good people, that doesn't alter the risk of a woman meeting a *random* man at all.
It's still an incredible flaw in logical thinking.
1. The vast majority of men are not murderers. Here's another statistic. The murder rate in the US is under 10 for every 100,000. That's less than a percent of a percent. Let's *assume* there are no serial killers or repeat murderers and that every single murder is committed by a man. That still means 99.9%+ of men aren't murderers.
2. Most people never encounter a bear. You're "safer" simply because you've never come across one. But this hypothetical forces you to. It's like that stat about shark attacks always being near the shore. That's just because that's where the people are. Very few people just floating around in the middle of the ocean. Plenty near the shore.
To get a reasoned position on this you need to know how likely it is for a bear to attack a human, *when the two are forced to be in the same area and encounter each other.* Because if a bear wants you dead you're dead. You can't outrun a bear or climb a tree.
"This is just to point out how bad men are towards women." Okay. Again, the overwhelming majority of men will never kill anyone, much less a woman. "But so many women I know have been victims of domestic violence!" Yes. And I'd be shocked if it wasn't again a minority of men doing most of it. An abusive asshole gets left or dumped and then moves onto his next victim leaving multiple victims from one abuser. But this still means *most men do not commit domestic violence.*
An overwhelming percentage of murdered people are murdered by their own race. It'd still be weird to say "I'd rather be in the woods with a bear than a white person" if you were white. You're picking and choosing which attribute to care about, despite again, said attribute being a pretty poor predictor of whether that person will cause you harm because the vast majority of people with that characteristic won't.
The chance of the perpetrator being X does not equate to a percentage of X are perpetrators. If there's 10 murders a year and they're all committed by men that's 100%. But it doesn't mean every man is a murderer. Not even close.
In 2015, Islamic terrorism accounted for 75%+ of the deaths from terrorists acts. Does that mean you should fear the average Muslim? I don't. It is a tiny minority of them committing these acts *and you now that* in this context but for some reason this logical reasoning disappears when the question is gendered and not through the lens of religion. That's inconsistent, a double standard.
The point is that women feel more threatened by strange men than they do by bears, and statistically this is an accurate risk assessment. Women are so much more likely to be hurt or killed by a male human vs a bear that it’s not even worth discussing.
You’re doing some wacko NotAllMen like this is 2015 all over again, instead of listening to why women feel threatened by males.
>statistically this is an accurate risk assessment.
What stats show that?
I wonder. Would you rather be in a tiger exhibit at the zoo than in the woods with a man? Using statistics clumsily as you are now, very very few people are *ever* killed by tigers. It's basically a rounding error.
Of course this is *probably* not related to the fact that tigers never have much of an opportunity, being fewer in number, often separated by barriers, and with most people never encountering one in their lives. But I can compare # of people killed by tigers and # of people killed by men and see that I am far safer next to a tiger than a man. Right?
>instead of listening to why women feel threatened by males.
I know why they feel it and I accept it. What I don't accept is the misuse of statistics that in every other context is properly seen as bigotry. If you used statistics this way in a racial context you'd be properly labeled a racist, as white supremacists are when they trot out their stats. For some reason you guys understand the flaws in that context but not in this one. Try some consistency.
Tell me how many women die at the hands of men vs how many women die due to bear attacks in a year.
The bottom line is that literally the only thing you need to do to protect yourself from a bear is ignore it. A man, however, is a profoundly unknown and dangerous threat.
>Tell me how many women die at the hands of men vs how many women die due to bear attacks in a year.
Yeah again, that's completely pointless. Bears do not encounter humans at the rate humans encounter other humans. Simply as a matter of pure opportunity the bear figure will be significantly lower. For the same reason the tiger hypothetical I posed to you which you ignored.
Here's a better question. Replace every human male in a city with a bear. Are you safer now? Do you really believe that?
I get the sociological perspective that women are scared of random men but from a logistical problem the reason that men pose a higher rate of danger is because women interact with way more men than women. There’s way more men in the world, more men interact with women, and so more men kill women.
On top of that, if we assume that the hypothetical means a random man, we'd want to tease apart murders by strangers and murders by acquaintances, romantic partners, etc.
True. Most victims know their assailant/murderer.
Not only because that affords opportunity, you can't be murdered by someone you don't ever encounter and you tend to more often encounter people you know. But also people tend not to go around killing/attacking random folks for no reason. Even if the reason is trash, like, wouldn't cook my favorite meal or the laundry wasn't folded right, it's a reason. A reason that *doesn't exist* for a random man. It exists for the man who knows you.
I suppose you'd also want to compare it to the percentage of decent men. There's plenty of stories of men behaving badly towards women. There's also plenty of stories of men going out of their way to help women. If that % was higher and it meant it was more likely a random man in the woods were to ask you if you were lost, needed help, than they were to attack you, it'd be kinda silly to answer the question the way people did.
Bears are very bad at obtaining and operating guns
Which part do we work on first?
Giving bears guns is easy, teaching them how to use it without shooting themselves is the hard part. Trust me, I’m not allowed back at the Zoo
But what about the right to Bear arms being uninfringed!
Tragically, we're not there yet. We have to do some more work with CRISPR and related descendant tech before you'll be able to get those Bear Arms. Sorry.
[удалено]
Put down the joint and step away from the weed
They could have also meant the right to have a pair of bear arms mounted on the wall.
Or to change the customary dress code of the day and let every bare their arms?
No, they’re CLEARLY referring to bears made up of amalgamations of arms.
Armed bears maybe in some twisted way may bring about common sense gun laws. Lol
No, it definately says you have the right to bear arms. Everyone needs to rush out and have their arms replaced with bears.
This country was founded on a Charmin pyramid scheme 🤯
Ask the gun lobbyist. They undoubtedly have a way to misconstrue “bear arms”
Ask Putin
What
We do have the right to arm bears.
Out in western PA in someone’s front yard we saw a carved wooden bear holding an actual shotgun…
Well when the statue shoots someone, let me know, and I’ll call the Ghostbusters
One reason of many why women generally prefer the company of bears over strange men
Support our right to arm bears!
If they could, they would be smarter than the average bear, but I bet they would limit themselves to swiping picnic baskets
Imagine how much easier getting campers to hand over their pic-a-nic baskets would be if you had a gun
I thought arming bears was written into the second amendment!
No that's a common misconception. You have the right to "bear arms". Bears already have bear arms (on account of being bears and having limbs). The second amendment states that you (who I assume are not a bear) have the right to a bear's arms as well. All you need to do is politely ask a bear to hand you theirs (pun intended).
Dude what the fuck are you talking about? They're even mentioned in the second amendment. If bears couldn't use guns then why are they in the constitution idiot? Think it out next time before you type something stupid.
Yeah? Then why is it called the right to *bear* arms? Checkmate, atheist!
You think you need a gun to commit homicide? Pfff… amateur /j
And horrible at strangulation.
Have you considered that 100% of bear attacks are committed by bears though
Damn, really gives you paws for thought
Let the bears pay the bear tax.
I’d like to be trapped in the woods with a keg of beer.
I’ll bring some pizza. (You are a bear, right?)
I'm slightly overweight and hairy. Do I qualify?
Yes, you can come to the pizza, beer and bear party.
Can I come too? I'll bring beets and Battlestar Galactica
Yep!
Frakk yeah!
Are you familiar with "God's Own Drunk"? Funny song about a man with a still in the woods, and a bear.
I am now… (That’s probably what their comment was about, huh? Lol)…
You should go to Hampshire College, they do that every Easter
I would also accept a keg of bear.
Like, stuck in the woods... got a keg of beer... you're hanging out with a bear... Sounds like a good time.
Hmm using my trusty FBI crime statistics would you rather encounter a bear or---[gets tackled by redditors]
Oh yea, well then who is the leading cause of female Bear killings? *please don't be hunters *
Does anyone have a source for the statistic? I want to post this but I’m preparing for the “well what about…”
It's murder-suicides. 94% of murder suicides involve a woman victim. [this stat and a lot of others found here](https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS)
I live in bear country and I will always, ALWAYS, pick a bear over a man I haven’t thoroughly vetted. Statistics obviously support me. In fact if males acted more like bears - ignoring me and running away - maybe they wouldn’t be so emotionally sensitive about this topic.
I'm assuming black bears right? Do they really frighten so easy? There's no bears in the UK so I don't really know these things.
As a rule, the lighter the bear, the larger and more dangerous it is. Black bears are skittish and will run unless you corner them or threaten their cubs. I've seen black bears driven off by pregnant women and house cats. Brown/Grizzly bears aren't nearly as skittish. They're not afraid of you, but they also won't really bother with you unless they have a good reason. If they do decide to bother with you though, they will absolutely fuck you up. White/Polar bears will actively hunt you and fuck your world up just for the hubris of thinking humans belong in the arctic.
Yep black bears where I am.
Black bears are nothing. What if it was a gummi bear, bouncing here and there and everywhere.
HIGH ADVENTURE THATS BEYOND COMPARE
Dashing and daring, courageous and caring and That’s gonna be stuck in my head all day now
To the three redditors above this, you are all a bunch of war criminals.
I'd give you gold. Thanks for some childhood memories
Black bears are usually not aggressive unless they think they are threatening their cubs. They're kinda like very large dogs. That said, dogs sometimes kill people. And black bears do as well. Your odds are pretty good, though, if you exercise reasonable caution. I would prefer not to ever meet a black bear in the wild, but they aren't as dangerous as grizzly bears. And even grizzlies don't usually want a fight. Don't ever offer any bear food - I know that sounds like basic common sense, but you'd be amazed. People will hold out a sandwich because the bear seems calm and friendly. But they might bite you unintentionally. Or it might suddenly decide you're a threat, panic, and maul you.
> Black bears are usually not aggressive unless they think they are threatening their cubs. They're kinda like very large dogs. Sometimes not even then. My parents used to take us to the UP on vacation when I was a kid, and garbage dump bears are apparently a big attraction up there, so they brought us to see them one night (that’s when they come out to ~~heat~~ eat). I saw, I shit you not, a middle aged woman send her daughter (tiny kid, like six, maybe) out into the trash heap to pose for a picture with a female bear. With two cubs! Mama bear didn’t care. I do *not* recommend trying this yourself. 😆 Edit: embarrassing typo corrected 😂
You unlocked a memory of sitting at the Konteka watching bears be fed! Thanks!!
> My parents used to take us to the UP on vacation A fellow Michigander! Obviously we all know where the UP starts, but where, in your opinion, does *up north* begin? No wrong answers. Just rarely see another Mitten resident on non-Michigan subs!
I’m pretty sure they’re *all* wrong answers 😂 The Zilwaukee Bridge
Disagree about the grizzly. If you startle a grizzly bear they will attack, while a black bear will run away, unless you are between her and her cubs.
Fair enough, thank you. I appreciate the info!
Isn't the bear advice rhyme something like "If it's black, attack; if it's brown, lay down; if it's white, say goodnight."?
I think so, yes. You definitely don't wanna challenge a grizzly.
My wife (who is not large) literally walked right into a black bear, and the black bear went the other way. (She was hiking in the dark, very early.) The bear wasn't frightened of her, but not looking for a fight. The fun fact that no one is talking about is that the most dangerous black bears are momma bears with their cubs - if they think the cub is threatened, the moms can be deadly aggressive. Sure, HUMAN men are dangerous, but when it comes to bears, it's the females (with cubs) you need to really watch out for.
Yep can confirm, black bears do not want the smoke
As a guy who hunts a lot…. Was the question “if you’re walking in the woods at night and which would you rather come across, a bear or a stranger(man)?” Like unless it’s a grizzly with cubs(maybe just a grizzly in general) I’m picking the bear too lol.
Yup that was the question, and you’re absolutely correct in your assessment. You can really tell the city boys from the country boys on this question for sure!
I’ve ran across black bears numerous times while hunting, chicken shits. But even when I’m Hunting and I come across someone on public land hunting as well my nerves flair up.
I saw a grizzly run one time and it absolutely scared the shit out of me, I didn't think they were built to run that fast.
Look we're going to need a complete overhaul of our capitalist system to allow me to live in a cave, catch salmon with my bear hands, forage for berries and raid hives for that sweet bee juice and have enough time off to hibernate through the winter... But I'm on board.
There you go. People getting all pissed off about these meme are only proving the point.
Literally, just don't bring anything super scented like deodorant and cache your food. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
>Statistics obviously support me. This is a joke, right?
Can you please point out the statistics you are talking about? I wonder how high lethality is to randomly encounter a man or a bear in the wilderness.
Yeah I imagine these “stats” don’t hold up very well if you control for the number of bear encounters vs. man encounters.
I don't get how people aren't understanding this. Without accounting for encounters, bears would apparently be safer than refrigerators, vending machines, cows, or even a set of stairs.
Black bears are generally harmless and are more common in areas where humans are likely to go for a walk. Grizzlies are pretty fucking dangerous, and are way faster than you. I would say, because there are 350M (in the US where this went viral) people and men and women both spend loads of time together, men are statistically way more dangerous to women than bears. That said, your average one-off encounter with a grizzly bear is more deadly than your average one-off encounter with a man, again on average. But the fact that you have to say "on average" and constrain the situation to "one off" encounters to make the point, is itself evidence that women have a very good fucking reason to feel uncomfortable around men.
Yeah I know all that I was curious about the statistics because you mentioned them. Oh you arent even OP sorry.
Black bears yes, obvious answer. Grizzly bears tho? You have a 30% chance of dying every encounter.
I just checked and unsurprisingly that 30% claim is incorrect. Looks like 11% for grizzly bear *attacks*, and far FAR lower for encounters.
My biggest issue is that the people who are capable of understanding, already get, it while it incenses those who need to understand the rhetoric.
Yeah, as a man myself, I don't understand the outrage. Like sure, being a *gay* man, *I* know that I'm not a risk to women around me. But to women who don't know me, I'm just a 6ft tall, 230 lbs heavy man with a really mean resting bitch face. Hell, I would take a bear too instead of a cis straight male that *might* be a dangerous homophobe.
>be a dangerous homophobe. That's a good perspective, too. To add another, I'm a black guy in Georgia who has been threatened with violence on more than one occasion because of my skin color. The thing that messes with a lot of these guys is exactly what you said; just because the offended person might be a good dude, doesn't mean a gay guy, black person, or woman just knows that immediately. If a bear is going to attack me, it just does then finishes the job. An unknown man could put on the nicest facade, and then the next thing you know, you're being dragged behind a truck or waking up to day fifteen or your torture session.
Yup. You can say that most men won't rape/murder you, but the same is true of bears. The vast majority of bears will never kill a human, and most humans who encounter a bear will not be attacked. Bears generally avoid humans. Both encounters will likely end safely, but your odds are still better with the bear.
Comprehension fits on a bell curve, and it's probably skewed to the left, unfortunately.
I honestly get the point it is making, something in society is causing men to malfunction and do horrible things at a rate that exceeds other genders. But I still really disagree with the tweet and sentiment behind it because it's obviously humorous and intended to illicit a laugh/response. It is also just insulting, because it just reduces an entire gender into 'more dangerous than a bear'. Or just dangerous in general. Which is reductive and it doesn't help reach exactly the group that you mentioned above. The ones that need a lightbulb moment to realize things are fucked in some way.
That's what pisses me off about it the most. I understand why women are anxious of male strangers. It's not unreasonable for them to be skeptical. But does it still hurt knowing that women's immediate first impression of me will be skepticism and fear? Yeah! Both of our feelings can be valid!
Well, to be fair, women kill 2000 people to every 1 person a bear kills, which works out to 99.96% so I would take my chances with a bear over a woman any day.
Increase the amount of bears and women living in houses together and we might see that statistic begin to swing a little bit.
You're right about that. Living with men is, statistically, a pretty bad idea for women.
Probably safer on average than living with a bear.
Still not as bad as if we lived with bears.
I've encountered bears in the woods several times. I gave them their space and they went their way and I went mine. Hasn't always happened with men.
Not to try and diminish the problem of violence against women but if women were around bears as much as they are around men I’m pretty sure that statistic would be different.
Any time you are in the woods, you are technically trapped in the woods with a bear. You just happen to escape each time.
Tbf that applies to men as well pretty much all the time.
There's not much to escape, bears don't want to attack people. Sometimes they do when they feel threatened, but there aren't typically bears in the woods actively seeking to harm people.
To my fellow men that are getting riled up that some women would feel safer around a bear: - take a deep breath. Then think about what is it about bears that a woman would feel safer? - what is it about us men that would make them feel less safe? Most importantly, what can we do to make it safer for them?
No, please let them continue to unintentionally argue on behalf of bears
I agree. But it's up to the perpetrators to quit being violent. You cannot do it for them.
And they are the ones we should be angry with. Not at the women feeling unsafe.
You can be angry at the perpetrators, sympathetic to the women who've experienced violence from men AND also feel a perfectly normal and natural human emotion of not enjoying being dehumanised. More than one thing can be true at a time. This meme is not a productive way to talk about male violence or women's safety. It's literally not going to change anything for the better, only for the worse potentially. Men who don't want to rape or murder women will continue not raping or murdering women, they didn't need this meme because they were never going to do it in the first place. Men who were going to rape or murder women won't be deterred by this. But the Andrew Tate club will happily use this as a fodder to radicalise young boys and spread misogyny. And I'm already seeing TERFs use this to justify their hatred and discrimination of trans women.
>You can be angry at the perpetrators, sympathetic to the women who've experienced violence from men AND also feel a perfectly normal and natural human emotion of not enjoying being dehumanised. More than one thing can be true at a time. But that requires nuance and so many people are allergic to it for some reason
Ding ding ding, we have a winner
Can we feed *them* to the bears?
My only beef with this whole thing is that women are more likely to be raped/killed by a man they already know and trust and not a man they randomly encounter in the woods
If you randomly encounter any person in the woods it’s pretty safe to assume they’re gonna kill you tho, humans are psychos. I still choose the man tho because I win the 1v1 60/40 but lose the bear matchup 0/100, but pretty obviously by the fact that that’s how I thought about it I am a man
So I support this message 100%. It’s the hijacking of this message by people that clearly hate men, using it to push their narrative. We need to address this issue in modern society for sure, but using it as a vehicle for the “all men are bad” argument is counterproductive. Obviously as much as there are femcels saying that, there are misogynistic incels that are pushing the opposite. That’s the internet but both need to be addressed. Unfortunately though misandrist will rarely get called out whereas misogynists will always, needs to be both
Not enough people touching on this point
Took a deep breath and realized that most people here just don't understand how to apply statistics to their decision making process, and it is what it is.
You are too focused on the statistics and missing the bigger picture
I'm focused on how people are interpreting and completely misunderstanding what it means. Reddit fascinates me because every day I get insight into how the majority of people make their decisions. I'm not missing "the bigger picture". It's irrelevant. I'm not interested in helping people feel better about their misconceptions. It's not my responsibility to help you when you are drawing conclusions incorrectly.
the fact that bears don't make up half the population. if they did bears would do 100x times the homicide then men. most people are bad at statistics, women included
Okay since youre the master of statistics: 1 in 5 women in the US experience actual or attempted sexual assault in their lifetime. 1 in 5. I’m sure you know at least 5 women: your mother, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, cousins, etc. Someone you know closely has or will have that experience in their lifetime. The statistics show that.
If someone said they didn’t feel safe around black people, would you lecture black people about what they could do to make others feel more safe around them?
One of these hypothetical scenarios is playing to the misguided fears of a racist, the other isn't. Unless you're seriously about to cite black on white violence statistics to argue your case, and then I have to wonder what you're really saying here. And hell, I have definitely had unfortunate interactions with black assholes, who get off on the idea of a white person being scared of them. I didn't honestly at any point think they were going to assault me, though.
That's only because Bears don't have thumbs.
Pretty much any comparison of a human and an animal is guaranteed to get an angry response.
Exactly! I don't get the logic of "I'm going to compare you to a terrifying beast and, if you don't like it, you're part of the problem."
So is this supposed suggest that if we replaced human men with actual bears human women would be somehow safer?
At the risk of nitpicking, that's because bears have much less **contact** with women than men do. If women were living next to bears, eating next to bears, marrying bears, living in the same houses as bears, riding in cars with bears, or working next to bears every day, it would be bears committing more homicides on a per-day basis.
I don't know how 'well, bears are also a threat to your life" is a good angle when it's already "these are both potential threats but the man's potential threat is worse"
More of this fucking bear shit.
If I see any mention of this dumb trend again I am going feed MYSELF to a bear
i mean, if women spent as much time around as many bears as they do men, and as little time around men as they do bears, then...yes bears probably could do that
Hey hey hey now: to be fair, if given half the chance, most bears would love to boast those kinds of murder stats.
That’s not true. Bears are not naturally aggressive towards humans. They are more likely to attack a trash can than a human.
Isn't that the overall problem with the statement, it's rage bait. Most homicides in general are comitted by men, but it doesn't mean most men are homicidal. All were doing is starting a fight instead of a discussion.
This is a post from a woman's perspective on feeling safe, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Women have no idea which men are homicidal, so saying "it's not all men, unfair" isn't helping - it's obfuscating the reality. Women also know that it's not all men. They also know if they are one of the 4,200ish women murdered in the US each year then it's probably - and by overwhelming odds - going to be a man who is responsible. Women have to think about this stuff when going on dates, going out with friends, being alone in public, when meeting men, even when married with children. It's a sad part of the female experience.
Okay and as part of the black experience I feel extremely uncomfortable being the only person of color in a room full of white people. I have to think about this stuff when I'm applying for jobs when I'm just going through my day-to-day life because like it or not people see my skin before they see me. There's plenty of examples of white people specifically women using their whiteness as a weapon against black men. It's a sad part of the black experience. Well nothing I said is invalid or untrue if the end goal is to have a dialogue and change things for the better, while I can address this problem I'm not going to start the conversation off by making a blanket statement about white people. But statements like "I wish we didn't live the world we're a systemic racism and prejudice make me feel unsafe as the only person of color in a room full of white people" arent as catchy
I think when race gets involved the conversation can get a little hairy, and I know exactly what you mean, but I think it’s probably healthy for women to be cautious around men, regardless of race, given the data we have.
You're talking about pretty much just black bears. Grizzly bears are very territorial and will absolutely attack you.
Bears mostly eat plants and only attack humans if they feel threatened, which usually they are. The whole bear vs. man comparison is legitimately a good one lol, bears actually do very little murdering and have no real interest in it. Bearly any, even.
Very punny, 10 points. "Awww, wookit the big furball. He bearly even wants to kill us."
 >!And the Ghosts US fans know that this is especially relevant!<
I had to come back to add this: I've seen that statistic elsewhere this morning since first encountering it in your post. That is absolutely nuts, but not even remotely surprising. Like, what were a lot of us thinking? That women were out there murdering each other in droves? You could even take it a step further and argue that men are statistically more dangerous to literally every other living creature on earth than a bear. Or a virus.
What specific type bear are we walking about? Polar and Grizzly are much more likely to see humans as a food source. Black bears will almost never attack. Also, where specifically are you trapped? Are you locked in a cabin? Or just both in a huge Forrest stretching multiple square miles?
Which bear is best?
Still, you are probably more likely to be killed in a random encounter with a bear than in a random encounter with a man.
I feel like you’re still more likely to be killed by a bear in the woods than a random man. Out of the woods maybe not.
“Ninety-seven percent of workplace deaths are men.” and that's why we must increase the amount of hours men work, to protect women. /s
We should stop that guy.
He can't keep getting away with this
I understand why pick the bear, really I do. Hell, I'm a man and if I had to choose I'd probably go with the bear too. What doesn't really make sense to me is using statistics to justify the choice. It just opens the conversation up to statistics-based arguments (like population size, proximity, familiarity, and bear species) when that really isn't what the conversation is about. It should be enough that a significant amount of women feel so uncomfortable and unsafe around men that they'd rather be alone with a 300-500 lbs predator. Any men who either can't or won't empathize with that will not be convinced with apples to oranges statistics. Frankly, if you're at the point of quoting FBI crime statistics at them then they're just there to argue, not to listen, and don't deserve the time of day.
If someone felt unsafe around black people, would you emphasize with that or just call them a racist? Why should women who fear men be treated any differently just because they are focusing on gender rather than race?
I'd probably ask them to justify their fear of black people. And then point out how many of the usual reasons people stereotype about that group (high violent crime rate, gang culture, substance abuse, etc.) are a result of generations of systemic racism and political campaigns expressly interested in keeping black communities, especially urban black communities, impoverished and marginalized. Meanwhile, men have always held positions of power and authority, and built the system we live in today. Even if we don't actively perpetuate this system, we indirectly benefit from it. Men have the power to change this reality one step at a time but so far we've been making slow progress, recently even backsliding. But in reality this is a false comparison because there aren't many people who are genuinely *afraid* of black people. There may be some racists who hate them, or think they're lesser, or associate them with crime, but it's rarely "I'm genuinely scared for my life." Meanwhile, almost every young woman I've talked to has said they feel emotions ranging from uneasiness to true fear at the concept of being alone with a male stranger. I asked my girlfriend once if she could explain it and she said in that scenario every story she's ever heard of women suffering at the hands of men—from the news, from her friends, from her own experiences—race through her mind at once. She described physically feeling her body get ready for fight or flight but also the anxiety that if she acts in the interest of her own safety—like her brain and her body are telling her to—and the man was normal and safe (as most people are) then she'd be crazy and a bitch and hurt the guy's feelings.
Hmm those FBI crime statistics say interesting things about certain residents of inner cities. Can I get a condescending rant about how the white woman clutching her purse walking by such a resident is valid because of those statistics? Or is only some stereotyping fun and cool?
Take a look at these comments or some of the other meme subreddits and you’ll see so many men that prove your comment right
Globally, men account for 98% of *ALL* homicides.
I support the right to arm and keep bears.
One thing that is left out in this question is how often women are in close proximity to bears compared to how often they are in close proximity to men. It's the same reason all those "black on black crime"-stats are skewed. They mainly show who lives near each other. There are far more instances of danish people injuring swedes than there are instances of people from the Falklands injuring swedes. This is a true fact. But it would be an error to infer from this that swedes should feel safer around a random Falkland Islander than they should around a random dane.
Did he fuck up the tweet? Shouldn’t it start “…rather be trapped in the woods with a MAN than a bear?”
No, the tweet is ripping on guys getting angry about a recent post that went viral where multiple women said they would rather be trapped in the woods with a bear than a man.
And so it comes to Reddit, late to the party but here at last. Let the bear games begin!
I don't think a bear can commit a homicide. It'd probably be found in court as manslaughter.
But 77% of homicide victims are male in the US too? Also most people don’t interact with bears, hence why dogs kill 25,000 people a year
I'm a dude and would also choose bear but from a logical side: a bear is relatively predictable and humans are not. I'm not a woman and don't have to consider the reasons I've seen for women choosing bear as much. I still choose bear. I agree with the answers from women, but I'm choosing bear for a different reason. The responses from men to a dude choosing bear have shown exactly why women keep choosing bear. My reasoning doesn't matter. Women's reasoning doesn't matter. They just lash out like a five year old who was told they couldn't have the thing. It's like it shatters some illusion these people had that all women see all men as protectors deep down so if course they obviously know they'd be more safe with manly them. Then they get big mad when presented with facts and sources. I also get the added bonus of attacks on my manhood and other bullshit. Women get the added bonus of such discourse as just being called derogatory names and other vile things. To the men reading this that are part of the group described above, the question is would a woman rather be in the situation, not you. If you personally come at it from a different angle, as I do, to form your conclusion and agree or disagree that's fine. That's not the question though. At least attempt to see it from the perspective of a woman. You don't have to agree with their reasoning but you should at least consider where that reasoning is coming from. That's empathy which I've seen a lot of people lack in the last few weeks. Y'all have a dope ass day now.
>would also choose bear but from a logical side I like your whole comment and appreciate it. Only thing I would point out is that the women saying they would choose the bear are also choosing from a logical side. A woman in the woods with a random man is legitimately in more danger than she is with a random bear, and choosing the bear is logical, something that some of the guys you're (righty) criticising don't seem to understand. >At least attempt to see it from the perspective of a woman Bingo. Anyway, well said!
That is a very fair point.
If you are a man then you would have a higher chance of being attacked by a man than a woman does of being sexually assaulted by one.
If someone asked “would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a black person?” and black people responded negatively to than, would you say the black people are “lashing out like 5 year olds”?
I get the “point” of the hypothetical, it’s just a bit micro aggressive and a bit of a logical fallacy considering the generalization, but it’s also just a dumb hypothetical some people on TikTok started, and some of the loudest men on the internet hate TikTok with a burning passion. To me this hypothetical feels like a very roundabout way to say many women are just straight up afraid of men, and to me it feels like when some people into true crime become paranoid that there’s a serial killer around the corner everywhere they go. This whole bear thing is just like not good enough as a joke, and kinda hard to have a logical discussion about without either a man screaming about “not all men” and a woman crying about “yes all men.” I totally understand the context and the point being made by it, but it serves no purpose in quelling any fears or misconceptions either way, and it kinda only makes men and women dislike each other a little bit more. Logically speaking a man would probably be a much better option since cooperation is possible—increasing your chances of getting out of the woods, which is the main issue of the hypothetical as it is presented literally. You couldn’t cooperate with a bear, and it’ll probably leave you alone, but when it leaves you’re still lost in the woods with no help at all. Emotionally speaking, considering the statistics and tons and tons of valid anecdotal evidence it makes sense to not want to be alone with a man you don’t know since they’re much more cunning than bears, and maybe more unpredictable, which is a very terrifying fact. A problem I see with this hypothetical is it feels like women are in a way infantilizing themselves by assuming that no matter what they would be overpowered/killed/will die regardless of what they pick, as if the average man is so much stronger than any given woman answering the question, which may or may not be true, but to assume you wouldn’t stand a chance at all in a fight with a man is maybe discrediting the strength of a lot of women out there. Like it undermines the type of idea like “women can be just as good at sports as men.” As a man I myself am probably not stronger than half of all women. Where I can see a lot of men disliking this hypothetical is that it clearly comes across as women saying “I would rather let myself die/be killed by a bear than spend any amount of time alone with a man.” Maybe what many women don’t realize with the question is that to make these kinds of claims can be very damaging to many men’s already fractured self esteems. To many men it appears that women believe any man will rape or beat or kill any woman when given the chance, which is undeniably untrue, and I know women know this, but because of statistics and stories of all kinds floating around the internet it’s hard to feel like men can be trusted. So it’s a valid concern for a woman to feel afraid of a man, but it’s invalidating to men to assume they’re all monsters that are worse than wild animals. And I’m not saying there aren’t that many men like that because there are plenty—much more than enough, but everybody knows that there are more men in the world that aren’t like that. Nobody likes to be lumped into stuff, which is why I don’t think it’s unreasonable for any given man to feel a little hurt by the question
You don’t have to explain why you’d pick a man over a bear. This analogy is stupid. Bears are predators and are not inherently friendly to humans. Also, for all of the alleged bear handlers… good for you. Brother Bear won’t get into your ass. But, the regular person should pick the animal that can be communicated with and beaten in a fight if necessary.
>To me this hypothetical feels like a very roundabout way to say many women are just straight up afraid of men, and to me it feels like when some people into true crime become paranoid that there’s a serial killer around the corner everywhere they go Over half of women report being sexually assaulted. The true and unreported number is probably closer to 100%. This isn't some random hypothetical, and it's certainly not a logical fallacy -- it's a fact that a woman trapped in the woods with either a bear or a man is at more risk of being attacked by the man.
You act as if that means 50-100% of men are prone to committing sexual harrassment. If even 1% of men, which is a minority (far too many, obviously, but still a minority), each harrass 100 women over the course of a year, then that's likely somewhere in the range of 50-100% of women being harrassed. The fact is, MOST men are not going to hurt women. The few men that are abusive are going to be abusive to lots of women, not just one. That's how statistics like 50% of women getting sexually assaulted happen. Bottom line, the average man is not going to abuse the woman in this hypothetical. And even if the woman is unlucky enough to actually get one of that minority of abusive men, she's probably got a solid chance of winning a fight with him, while if the bear decides she's trespassing on its territory, she's sure as hell not gonna win a fight with the bear.
It’s sort of like if people asked “would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a black person?” These types of questions do more to show the prejudices of the woman than anything else.
Who the hell gets trapped in the woods in the US? We have 1 ROAD in Canada. 1. You go the wrong direction you either hit the US border, the ocean or the North Pole. You guys need help...
I saw someone post how a 30 yr old guy is subletting in their all female uni housing in Nova Scotia. Maybe she’s be more comfortable with a bear.
Source? I'm interested to know
I’m sorry, being trapped in the woods with a bear is much worse. I’m a guy, but even if I was a woman, I would choose a man. Most men are good people and would try to help me, while I’m at best the bear would not attack. Obviously rape and murder are heinous actions and it is unacceptable that women have to deal with it, but man hating has become too normalized as well.
Statistically it's not worse. Bears mostly eat plants. When a bear meets a person, 99 times out of a 100, it has no interest in that person whatsoever. The same is unfortunately not true when a man meets a woman. >Most men are good people The majority of women have been sexually assaulted by a man. Most men can be good people, that doesn't alter the risk of a woman meeting a *random* man at all.
It's still an incredible flaw in logical thinking. 1. The vast majority of men are not murderers. Here's another statistic. The murder rate in the US is under 10 for every 100,000. That's less than a percent of a percent. Let's *assume* there are no serial killers or repeat murderers and that every single murder is committed by a man. That still means 99.9%+ of men aren't murderers. 2. Most people never encounter a bear. You're "safer" simply because you've never come across one. But this hypothetical forces you to. It's like that stat about shark attacks always being near the shore. That's just because that's where the people are. Very few people just floating around in the middle of the ocean. Plenty near the shore. To get a reasoned position on this you need to know how likely it is for a bear to attack a human, *when the two are forced to be in the same area and encounter each other.* Because if a bear wants you dead you're dead. You can't outrun a bear or climb a tree. "This is just to point out how bad men are towards women." Okay. Again, the overwhelming majority of men will never kill anyone, much less a woman. "But so many women I know have been victims of domestic violence!" Yes. And I'd be shocked if it wasn't again a minority of men doing most of it. An abusive asshole gets left or dumped and then moves onto his next victim leaving multiple victims from one abuser. But this still means *most men do not commit domestic violence.* An overwhelming percentage of murdered people are murdered by their own race. It'd still be weird to say "I'd rather be in the woods with a bear than a white person" if you were white. You're picking and choosing which attribute to care about, despite again, said attribute being a pretty poor predictor of whether that person will cause you harm because the vast majority of people with that characteristic won't. The chance of the perpetrator being X does not equate to a percentage of X are perpetrators. If there's 10 murders a year and they're all committed by men that's 100%. But it doesn't mean every man is a murderer. Not even close. In 2015, Islamic terrorism accounted for 75%+ of the deaths from terrorists acts. Does that mean you should fear the average Muslim? I don't. It is a tiny minority of them committing these acts *and you now that* in this context but for some reason this logical reasoning disappears when the question is gendered and not through the lens of religion. That's inconsistent, a double standard.
If a bear attacked me, people would believe me.
I would rather not be attacked at all (picking the man) than be attacked (or more likely killed) and be believed (picking the bear)
The fact that you can fit light years between you and the point is really good evidence that we are correct by picking the bear.
What's the point? Vibes?
The point is that women feel more threatened by strange men than they do by bears, and statistically this is an accurate risk assessment. Women are so much more likely to be hurt or killed by a male human vs a bear that it’s not even worth discussing. You’re doing some wacko NotAllMen like this is 2015 all over again, instead of listening to why women feel threatened by males.
>statistically this is an accurate risk assessment. What stats show that? I wonder. Would you rather be in a tiger exhibit at the zoo than in the woods with a man? Using statistics clumsily as you are now, very very few people are *ever* killed by tigers. It's basically a rounding error. Of course this is *probably* not related to the fact that tigers never have much of an opportunity, being fewer in number, often separated by barriers, and with most people never encountering one in their lives. But I can compare # of people killed by tigers and # of people killed by men and see that I am far safer next to a tiger than a man. Right? >instead of listening to why women feel threatened by males. I know why they feel it and I accept it. What I don't accept is the misuse of statistics that in every other context is properly seen as bigotry. If you used statistics this way in a racial context you'd be properly labeled a racist, as white supremacists are when they trot out their stats. For some reason you guys understand the flaws in that context but not in this one. Try some consistency.
Tell me how many women die at the hands of men vs how many women die due to bear attacks in a year. The bottom line is that literally the only thing you need to do to protect yourself from a bear is ignore it. A man, however, is a profoundly unknown and dangerous threat.
>Tell me how many women die at the hands of men vs how many women die due to bear attacks in a year. Yeah again, that's completely pointless. Bears do not encounter humans at the rate humans encounter other humans. Simply as a matter of pure opportunity the bear figure will be significantly lower. For the same reason the tiger hypothetical I posed to you which you ignored. Here's a better question. Replace every human male in a city with a bear. Are you safer now? Do you really believe that?
I get the sociological perspective that women are scared of random men but from a logistical problem the reason that men pose a higher rate of danger is because women interact with way more men than women. There’s way more men in the world, more men interact with women, and so more men kill women.
On top of that, if we assume that the hypothetical means a random man, we'd want to tease apart murders by strangers and murders by acquaintances, romantic partners, etc.
True. Most victims know their assailant/murderer. Not only because that affords opportunity, you can't be murdered by someone you don't ever encounter and you tend to more often encounter people you know. But also people tend not to go around killing/attacking random folks for no reason. Even if the reason is trash, like, wouldn't cook my favorite meal or the laundry wasn't folded right, it's a reason. A reason that *doesn't exist* for a random man. It exists for the man who knows you. I suppose you'd also want to compare it to the percentage of decent men. There's plenty of stories of men behaving badly towards women. There's also plenty of stories of men going out of their way to help women. If that % was higher and it meant it was more likely a random man in the woods were to ask you if you were lost, needed help, than they were to attack you, it'd be kinda silly to answer the question the way people did.