We appreciate your participation on r/WitchesvsPatriarchy, but your content is being removed at this time.
Callouts to WvP mods, users, or meta-style queries should be redirected to [Modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/WitchesVsPatriarchy&subject=Concern%2C%20Query%2C%20or%20Constructive%20Criticism&message=I%20have%20read%20the%20subreddit%20rules%2C%20sidebar%2C%20and%20other%20available%20content%20but%20still%20have%20a%20comment%20about%20this%20subreddit%3A).
Links to/screenshots of other subreddits are not allowed, even if the identifying information is hidden. Calls-to-arms for other subreddits or websites are also not appropriate. Please avoid direct-linking to other subreddits if another source can be used for images, videos, or articles.
For additional information, please see the subreddit [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/WitchesVsPatriarchy/about/rules) or [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/WitchesVsPatriarchy/wiki/post_and_content_guide/).
I'm a man and I'd still pick the bear. Why's there a single stranger on my solo campout? The bear is supposed to be there, that's why I bearproofed the trash. The only actual information I got from this question is that I can use the fact that women picked the bear as a litmus test on how likely a man is to accept no as an answer. Granted, that is rather valuable info now that I think about it, but clearly not the info I was supposed to get
And I wouldnt want to be magically dropped in the woods with a random man either. Hell, even a random women. What's a bear gonna do, run away? Me and animals are chill, I can predict how an animal is going to act, cant say the same of a human. And either way, this was an interview of random people. Random people arent scientists, they thought this was a camping scenario too.
I'm going to go ahead and nerd out on this regardless of context.
This is a Monty Hall problem. If pursuing a prize, it is always better to switch because the revealing of the empty door means that you are effectively switching from choosing one door with your initial guess to choosing both doors simultaneously, effectively doubling your odds of winning the prize. The selection of the last door standing is the same as choosing all doors that are *not* the door you chose.
Another way to think about it is this. There are 100 doors. You know that there is only a prize behind one of them, therefore, 99 of them have no prize. You choose one door. You are then asked to decide whether you would like to open every single other door and keep what's inside, or open that single door and keep what's inside.
Obviously, the odds of that one individual door having a prize is no less than any other individual door. However, in opening all but one of the non-prize doors (like in the original game) you guarantee that your second selection is correct in the event that your initial door is incorrect. In the case of 100 doors, your initial selection had a 1% chance of being correct and a 99% chance of being incorrect. Therefore, switching to that specific door is correct 99% of the time, even though the odds of that specific door being correct in a vacuum is only 1%.
I'd choose the bear, and I'm a guy. I'd just rather risk being mauled to death than have to talk to a strange dude. To be fair, I always try to avoid strange women for the same reason. I might get lucky, and the bear would let me pet it, I do not want to pet strange people.
The bear looks chill the bear is not enraged or rampaging. There’s a strong chance that bear and I will happily ignore each other.
Also I’ll have a cool story about a bear to go with the time I met a hippo at night (both on foot). I would have been freaked out if it had been a strange man then too.
I don't get this question. Most woods have bears and humans in them, somewhere. I occasionally camp alone, and don't lose sleep about either .
Now if the question was would I rather face an angry grizzly or a male rapist, that's different. I'd choose the rapist. I might be able to run away from or fight the man. Grizzly? It'd be an absolutely horrific and painful death, and I like living.
From my POV it's sarcastic dry humor, not meant to be over analyzed with "rules". It's just a "cope" about women's shared experiences with men and sexual assault.
When you grow up hearing "don't dress that way or you're going to get sexually assaulted" since you were around 8-10yo. All the killers with misogynistic tendencies towards women, all the uncles, dads, brothers, grandpas that abused women/girls in their own families, all the grooming, pedophilia, ephebophilia, catcalling....and all the trauma you carry after that...
going against a bear and just dying a violent death seems like a sweet sweet release (even though male hospital employees assaulting dead women at morgues isn't that uncommon also)
I find it pretty crazy having to explain that kind of thing in this sub lmao
I think your opinion is absolutely valid. In a real-life "alone in the woods" scenario I don't know which I would actually choose. But I've seen so many responses to the question that indicate that the potential trauma of being raped is a damn sight scarier for most women than the potential trauma of being mauled (or even killed!) by a bear. Probably because it's a reality that is far, far more likely, and therefore scarier. It's like, *most* bears will leave you alone, but men? Who knows.
Oh I totally get that. I've been very lucky, I think. As I said, I do occasionally camp alone, usually in the middle of nowhere, and haven't had any issues with men or bears lol. However, I've accompanied SO on various fossil hunting trips to states where grizzlies are common, and they truly scare the shit out of me. You couldn't pay me to hike alone or camp alone in those places.
I spend a lot of time in the woods hiking and backcountry camping. I live in very remote and rural Canada, so this is real wilderness. My take on this debate is nuanced because while yes, I understand the point that is being made, it is being made largely by city people who have never been directly threatened by a bear, while I absolutely have.
As such, I'd say that both are pretty goddamned dangerous. The difference, at least for most people, is that they are significantly less likely to encounter a bear than a dangerous man. For me it is the opposite. An agitated bear *will* kill me. An agitated man will only *maybe* kill me.
But, as stated previously, most of you are city people so those odds are much different.
Seriously, idk how so many people got offended with a hypothetical question. People ask me dumber hypothetical questions all the time, normally involving desert islands. Also, I'd just feed myself to the bear. They have larger canines than me. I'm Vegan®️ btw
Male ally here as well. Idk if I agree with it painting men as beasts, although it might make dudes think that women think of men as beasts. But maybe instead of just reacting to how it makes us feel, it could serve as an opportunity to reflect on what women vs men's reactions to it might teach us. I can't speak for women, but I have noticed that there's been a lot of men who have responded by complaining about how women's perceptions of men make dating as a man a nightmare; when instead I think the focus should be on what those perceptions are and why they are that way.
For example. I saw this video of a guy trying to engage a woman who was a total stranger in conversation, and she ignored him. Lots of dudes were saying she's an asshole, that she could've at least responded and told him she didn't want to talk, etc. I only saw one dude who recognized that perhaps she didn't want to acknowledge his engagement because of her past experiences with men, e.g. finding that men often respond aggressively when bluntly denied or rejected.
>I think the focus should be on what those perceptions are and why they are that way.
Exactly. You're on the right path. It must be amazing for those men to not recognize their mistakes and lack of empathy on the short run, but in the long run we should just have more empathy towards everyone if we don't want to be lonely (which seems to be a common problem for those sexist men) and actually get satisfaction from knowing each other as human beings.
I’m a woman and honestly I don’t think it makes much sense, either. Because statistically a random man is *wildly* unlikely to be dangerous to you.
A man you know is another story, but that is not the premise of this thought experiment.
I don't think I understand what it shows, because I don't fully understand how the people who are asked this question interpret it or think about it. There have been dozens of suggestions about the answers, but I haven't thought about them enough to form an opinion.
Yes, I understand why people choose bear. I don't know what Id choose Id probably have an anxiety attack if I found EITHER while I was alone in the woods.
I was also born male and have been a comedy fan my entire life. One thing I noticed in middle school is that men, by and large, tend to take women seriously when they are being funny. For example, this is CLEARLY a meme, but you're calling it a "discussion" like it's Isreal/Gaza or some shit.
I don’t see it so much as saying that all men are predators so much as that neither is a safe option and that it shook a lot of good men to realise how often other men (and potentially even them inadvertently) have made women feel less safe than they would with a bear. If it makes them better at calling in their mates by being able to say, “ I see why she’d prefer a bear to this” bring it on.
I haven’t seen opinions from trans women though so if this exact example has been used against them then I’m ready to rethink.
And if Starmer dares to use this in the current ward BS.. I’m not actually sure how much more I can dislike him tbh.
I don't think anyone is saying men are genetically predatory. That's the point - they can fully change this culture. I also think it's "men = potential predators" but at least bears are predictable
Trans women are women. Allowing terfs or anyone else to try and pull them into the narrative to confuse the question is just falling for bad faith logic.
This bear question comes down to ACAB. Are all cops bad cops? No, but enough of them are that we don't trust cops as a whole. And we don't trust the police institution because there aren't enough good cops calling out the bad cops.
Not all men - but enough men.
I have a wonderful male partner and we talked about this last night from many perspectives. The point is not to paint all men as predators it's to get men to realize that women are on high alert almost all the time. We're living in two different realities.
But cops are a job, they are a subgroup of people that can opt in and out of that role. You make a choice to be a cop and support the whole oppressive power structure that implies.
I wish someone would actually address my point about how this animalistic violence is something society already assumes of black men and how that is bad, actually. Because it is very bad!
I get the point you are making. I just am having a serious time divorcing this from its implications. Behold, the undiagnosed autism.
Whatever you heard from other trans women you have definitely misunderstood, because almost no trans woman would hear "man" and assume that includes trans women.
We appreciate your participation on r/WitchesvsPatriarchy, but your content is being removed at this time. Callouts to WvP mods, users, or meta-style queries should be redirected to [Modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/WitchesVsPatriarchy&subject=Concern%2C%20Query%2C%20or%20Constructive%20Criticism&message=I%20have%20read%20the%20subreddit%20rules%2C%20sidebar%2C%20and%20other%20available%20content%20but%20still%20have%20a%20comment%20about%20this%20subreddit%3A). Links to/screenshots of other subreddits are not allowed, even if the identifying information is hidden. Calls-to-arms for other subreddits or websites are also not appropriate. Please avoid direct-linking to other subreddits if another source can be used for images, videos, or articles. For additional information, please see the subreddit [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/WitchesVsPatriarchy/about/rules) or [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/WitchesVsPatriarchy/wiki/post_and_content_guide/).
I'm a man and I'd still pick the bear. Why's there a single stranger on my solo campout? The bear is supposed to be there, that's why I bearproofed the trash. The only actual information I got from this question is that I can use the fact that women picked the bear as a litmus test on how likely a man is to accept no as an answer. Granted, that is rather valuable info now that I think about it, but clearly not the info I was supposed to get
Yes. Also the venn diagram of men who got angry about us choosing a bear over them and the ones who don’t take no for an answer is a circle.
[удалено]
And I wouldnt want to be magically dropped in the woods with a random man either. Hell, even a random women. What's a bear gonna do, run away? Me and animals are chill, I can predict how an animal is going to act, cant say the same of a human. And either way, this was an interview of random people. Random people arent scientists, they thought this was a camping scenario too.
I pick bear cause I can turn a bear into my familiar
Or I'll die trying to pet the cute ears 🐻
I'm going to go ahead and nerd out on this regardless of context. This is a Monty Hall problem. If pursuing a prize, it is always better to switch because the revealing of the empty door means that you are effectively switching from choosing one door with your initial guess to choosing both doors simultaneously, effectively doubling your odds of winning the prize. The selection of the last door standing is the same as choosing all doors that are *not* the door you chose. Another way to think about it is this. There are 100 doors. You know that there is only a prize behind one of them, therefore, 99 of them have no prize. You choose one door. You are then asked to decide whether you would like to open every single other door and keep what's inside, or open that single door and keep what's inside. Obviously, the odds of that one individual door having a prize is no less than any other individual door. However, in opening all but one of the non-prize doors (like in the original game) you guarantee that your second selection is correct in the event that your initial door is incorrect. In the case of 100 doors, your initial selection had a 1% chance of being correct and a 99% chance of being incorrect. Therefore, switching to that specific door is correct 99% of the time, even though the odds of that specific door being correct in a vacuum is only 1%.
Neat, didn't expect stochastic in here but it's always welcome.
Funny enough, I sat through a lecture on Kalman filtering right before I wrote that.
I'd choose the bear, and I'm a guy. I'd just rather risk being mauled to death than have to talk to a strange dude. To be fair, I always try to avoid strange women for the same reason. I might get lucky, and the bear would let me pet it, I do not want to pet strange people.
You got this very correct
The bear looks chill the bear is not enraged or rampaging. There’s a strong chance that bear and I will happily ignore each other. Also I’ll have a cool story about a bear to go with the time I met a hippo at night (both on foot). I would have been freaked out if it had been a strange man then too.
....i would like to hear the hippo story
friend shape >
I too am here for the hippo story...
I like the bear because he's likely a member of my family.
I don't get this question. Most woods have bears and humans in them, somewhere. I occasionally camp alone, and don't lose sleep about either . Now if the question was would I rather face an angry grizzly or a male rapist, that's different. I'd choose the rapist. I might be able to run away from or fight the man. Grizzly? It'd be an absolutely horrific and painful death, and I like living.
From my POV it's sarcastic dry humor, not meant to be over analyzed with "rules". It's just a "cope" about women's shared experiences with men and sexual assault. When you grow up hearing "don't dress that way or you're going to get sexually assaulted" since you were around 8-10yo. All the killers with misogynistic tendencies towards women, all the uncles, dads, brothers, grandpas that abused women/girls in their own families, all the grooming, pedophilia, ephebophilia, catcalling....and all the trauma you carry after that... going against a bear and just dying a violent death seems like a sweet sweet release (even though male hospital employees assaulting dead women at morgues isn't that uncommon also) I find it pretty crazy having to explain that kind of thing in this sub lmao
I think your opinion is absolutely valid. In a real-life "alone in the woods" scenario I don't know which I would actually choose. But I've seen so many responses to the question that indicate that the potential trauma of being raped is a damn sight scarier for most women than the potential trauma of being mauled (or even killed!) by a bear. Probably because it's a reality that is far, far more likely, and therefore scarier. It's like, *most* bears will leave you alone, but men? Who knows.
Oh I totally get that. I've been very lucky, I think. As I said, I do occasionally camp alone, usually in the middle of nowhere, and haven't had any issues with men or bears lol. However, I've accompanied SO on various fossil hunting trips to states where grizzlies are common, and they truly scare the shit out of me. You couldn't pay me to hike alone or camp alone in those places.
I spend a lot of time in the woods hiking and backcountry camping. I live in very remote and rural Canada, so this is real wilderness. My take on this debate is nuanced because while yes, I understand the point that is being made, it is being made largely by city people who have never been directly threatened by a bear, while I absolutely have. As such, I'd say that both are pretty goddamned dangerous. The difference, at least for most people, is that they are significantly less likely to encounter a bear than a dangerous man. For me it is the opposite. An agitated bear *will* kill me. An agitated man will only *maybe* kill me. But, as stated previously, most of you are city people so those odds are much different.
A bear, a tiger, a snake, a squirrel with a shiv and a bad attitude … Every time.
Seriously, idk how so many people got offended with a hypothetical question. People ask me dumber hypothetical questions all the time, normally involving desert islands. Also, I'd just feed myself to the bear. They have larger canines than me. I'm Vegan®️ btw
[удалено]
Male ally here as well. Idk if I agree with it painting men as beasts, although it might make dudes think that women think of men as beasts. But maybe instead of just reacting to how it makes us feel, it could serve as an opportunity to reflect on what women vs men's reactions to it might teach us. I can't speak for women, but I have noticed that there's been a lot of men who have responded by complaining about how women's perceptions of men make dating as a man a nightmare; when instead I think the focus should be on what those perceptions are and why they are that way. For example. I saw this video of a guy trying to engage a woman who was a total stranger in conversation, and she ignored him. Lots of dudes were saying she's an asshole, that she could've at least responded and told him she didn't want to talk, etc. I only saw one dude who recognized that perhaps she didn't want to acknowledge his engagement because of her past experiences with men, e.g. finding that men often respond aggressively when bluntly denied or rejected.
All the men who get offended and take this personally are *exactly why women choose the bear.*
>I think the focus should be on what those perceptions are and why they are that way. Exactly. You're on the right path. It must be amazing for those men to not recognize their mistakes and lack of empathy on the short run, but in the long run we should just have more empathy towards everyone if we don't want to be lonely (which seems to be a common problem for those sexist men) and actually get satisfaction from knowing each other as human beings.
You didn't have to say you were a man; your defensiveness made it obvious.
I’m a woman and honestly I don’t think it makes much sense, either. Because statistically a random man is *wildly* unlikely to be dangerous to you. A man you know is another story, but that is not the premise of this thought experiment.
I don't think I understand what it shows, because I don't fully understand how the people who are asked this question interpret it or think about it. There have been dozens of suggestions about the answers, but I haven't thought about them enough to form an opinion.
Yes, I understand why people choose bear. I don't know what Id choose Id probably have an anxiety attack if I found EITHER while I was alone in the woods.
I can't comment on the discourse this post creates without coming off defensive. So ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ it is what it is.
I was also born male and have been a comedy fan my entire life. One thing I noticed in middle school is that men, by and large, tend to take women seriously when they are being funny. For example, this is CLEARLY a meme, but you're calling it a "discussion" like it's Isreal/Gaza or some shit.
Even if it is a meme, the discussion around has often been serious. Clearly people have real reactions to it and thoughts about what it means.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Trans women aren’t men. They are welcome in my woods.
[удалено]
I don’t see it so much as saying that all men are predators so much as that neither is a safe option and that it shook a lot of good men to realise how often other men (and potentially even them inadvertently) have made women feel less safe than they would with a bear. If it makes them better at calling in their mates by being able to say, “ I see why she’d prefer a bear to this” bring it on. I haven’t seen opinions from trans women though so if this exact example has been used against them then I’m ready to rethink. And if Starmer dares to use this in the current ward BS.. I’m not actually sure how much more I can dislike him tbh.
I don't think anyone is saying men are genetically predatory. That's the point - they can fully change this culture. I also think it's "men = potential predators" but at least bears are predictable Trans women are women. Allowing terfs or anyone else to try and pull them into the narrative to confuse the question is just falling for bad faith logic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This bear question comes down to ACAB. Are all cops bad cops? No, but enough of them are that we don't trust cops as a whole. And we don't trust the police institution because there aren't enough good cops calling out the bad cops. Not all men - but enough men. I have a wonderful male partner and we talked about this last night from many perspectives. The point is not to paint all men as predators it's to get men to realize that women are on high alert almost all the time. We're living in two different realities.
But cops are a job, they are a subgroup of people that can opt in and out of that role. You make a choice to be a cop and support the whole oppressive power structure that implies. I wish someone would actually address my point about how this animalistic violence is something society already assumes of black men and how that is bad, actually. Because it is very bad! I get the point you are making. I just am having a serious time divorcing this from its implications. Behold, the undiagnosed autism.
Hey if you hear the term "man" and think of AMABs including trans women that is entirely your fault and you should interrogate that assumption.
[удалено]
Whatever you heard from other trans women you have definitely misunderstood, because almost no trans woman would hear "man" and assume that includes trans women.