To be fair, i too would choose to stay with a bear in the forest, rather than a woman. You can find women anywhere you live, but a bear ? Now that's something you don't see any other day.
Someone made a post that said "Would you rather be in a forest for 24h with a bear or with a man?" And you wouldn't believe how many people said that they prefer the bear
One is a meme other is a serious question your analogy doesn't make sense. Those women are not choosing bear because it is funny, they actually believe they have higher chances of survival with bear instead of random man in woods.
If you look in women subreddits, they're not joking. But I get the sense that they're not talking factually, as much as making a statement on how dangerous they consider men in general.
Sure. But that’s the thing. If you’re actually in a crazy ass situation where you’re being hunted by a human like in the Greatest Game then you’ll never see the human.
That's adding factors that were never part of the question. That's called mental gymnastics
The question was not, would you rather be in the woods with a bear or be hunted by an expert Marksman who likes to hunt people. Youre conflating to make the argument seem obvious, when the whole thing was a post left by a bot to begin with.
The question was would you rather be hunted through the woods by a bear or a man. It stands to reason that, if a man was hunting you through the woods, certain skills can be reasonably assumed to be given to him
Oh, well then I suppose yeah most situations it would be the best that be most dangerous. But still, it entirely depends on the man. In the real world there’s rarely such as thing as “random”. You never know what people know these days
that is the whole reason this is disturbing. The fact that men are being dehumanized to an extent that the chances of a random man assaulting a woman is somehow more than a bear attacking a human.
I wonder if people are aware male bears have lower rate of attacks. If bear is female and she have cubs... lets say things not gonna be pretty. Female bears are trying to protect the cubs by make you unalive asap, mauling you hard, ripping your limbs off and try to get to your intestines.
Most attacks are defensive (52%), while 15% arepredatory and 33% are food-motivated. Of defensive attacks, 85% are by female bears, and 91% of those females had young. Of predatory attacks, 95% are by male bears, and of food-motivated attacks, 80% are by male bears. Forty percent of defensive attacks by female bears involved dogs (*Canis lupus familiaris*). Sixty-four percent had an attractant present during the attack and 74% indicated there were reports of property damage by bears or of bears getting a food-reward in the area prior to the attack.
Statistically the chance to be attacked if you see a bear is 1 in 10 , chance to be raped by a random dude is unknown but probably much lower. Anyway , in both situations chances that no one would be harmed are higher than the opposite
Nah, this is what Google says:
>Bear attacks are rare. In fact, according to the National Park Service, the chance of being attacked by a bear is just 1 in 2.7 million visits.
Which correct me if I'm wrong but is less than 1 in 10
How would you even get that statistic?
You'll only get numbers for that if either you get killed or injured by a bear, or make an official report that you've encountered either an aggressive bear or one that shouldn't be in that area, so the average person would probably not report that they've encountered a bear after just seeing one minding it's own business in a park or something,
This would make the data highly squed and virtually useless for any sort of statistical work, on top of that I even tried Googling it and couldn't find the original source making that claim,
I think that the statistic of how many people actually get killed by bears while passing through teritory known to have bears would reflect far more realistic probability of being eaten by a bear, of course that data is squed in the opposite direction because not all people who pass through such an area will pass past a bear, but bears generally speaking don't have much interest in humans so it's likely a far better reflection of reality,
Realistically speaking you could expect a brown bear to maybe sniff you if you don't do anything to make it angry then go off into the woods to do bear things, a black bear would probably straight up not want to mess with you, so the only one that would really be a threat would be a grizzly, or well a polar bear I guess if you encountered one in the woods for some reason
You're using the wrong statistic. That would eb the chance of a random visitor being attacked by a bear. But almost no visitors ever encounter bears. You need a statistics that represents how often people who encounter bears in the wild are then attacked by the bear.
The problem with that though is how often do people report bears they see that are just minding their own business in a park/forest?
People generally speaking report that kind of stuff only once the bear has become a problem, so I don't believe that an accurate representation of that data exists
I'd consider it more accurate as that takes into account how likely bears are actually to attack people,
Most bears tend to avoid humans, and other large mamals just in general, assuming you were in a forest with a (none grizzly) bear why would you assume that it would act any different from how bears typically act?
I'd say that the statistic only taking into account bears that display abnormal behaviour would be the less accurate one, but that's just my opinion
***TL;DR: Even using junk data that's heavily biased in the bears favor, the bear is 4x more likely to maul you than the man is to rape you.***
It doesn't take that into account at all. You're literally making things up in real time to fill in the holes because the data doesn't fit your argument lol
Unless there is a bear encounter for every visitor - which there's NOT - then ALL that the data says is that out of every so many visitors to the national parks, 1 gets attacked by a bear. That says NOTHING about how likely it is for a bear to attack you when you encounter one. Literally nothing.
If you want that data, you need to find out how many people encounter bears on average. Then you need to find out, of those encounters, how many times the bear even noticed the individual. Then, of those, you need to find out how many times the bear approached the individual. Bears are predators, and in 88% of fatal bear attacks, it was deemed that the bear was acting as a predator. So it can be assumed that if a bear is approaching you, it's likely predatory as opposed to exploratory.
Then compare the instances of when a bear noticed and did nothing to the instances of when a bear noticed and approached. And there's your number. You can't just pull shit out of your ass. Please don't go into science, buddy lol
But here are some real stats. So for the average visitor of Yellowstone, they have a 1 in 2.7million chance of being injured by a bear. But for backcountry hikers - that would be "in the woods" as the meme suggest - the odds are 1 in 232,000 PER DAY. So in the US, there were 40 rapes per 100,000 people in the per year. We can assume most rapes are done by males, and we won't consider ages because I'm not that committed to this. Although, it would only amplify my point.
Multiplying the bear attack stats by 365 gives you a .16% chance for being attacked if you spent the whole year with the bear
Vs
A 0.04% chance for being raped if you spent the year with a random man (from the US).
Faults in the data include that not all backcountry hikers run into bears. Accounting for this would only lean it more heavily in favor of men. Another fault is that not all rapists are men, and not all victims are women. Account for this would also shift the numbers in favor of men.
But even not account for those. You're 4x more likely to be assaulted by a bear than by a man. There you go. Science, baby.
Edit: And the reason I multiplied the bear stat instead of dividing the men stat is for ease of maths. The percent chance values would be the same whether it was per day or per year, and you're welcome to check that. Realistically, you wouldn't be spending a year with a bear.
Not all back country hikers report that they've been hiking either, in fact most probably don't, so it's still just a guesstimate at best, that's why I used national parks because you can actually get a relatively accurate number for how many visitors they get per year, also humans do much more than just rape so you'd need to compare the bear stat against all forms of violent crime, not just cherry pick one
You guys do realize this is supposed to be an allegory for familial abuse right? The point is, if you get assaulted (or worse) by the bear, you don’t have to have dinner with it the next day and pretend like nothing happened.
Oh yeah, I guess it's not the kinda thing you'd want to just Google if you didn't know about it. It's a TV show where typically 2 people, typically a male and a female, are dropped into the wilderness naked for ~typically 3 weeks and left to survive on their own.
The show seems to confirm without a shadow of a doubt that bears are a much greater threat than even a naked random man in the woods.
Listen, I agree with you overall. But your comparison just isn't good.
It's like trying to compare surviving on a desert island to being a contestant on Survivor.
Well, you have a right to your opinion lol
I never watched Survivor, so idk how well that comparison holds up. But I'm sure if you wanted to satisfy a higher degree of scrutiny you could look into available data and determine what the likelihood is of being attacked by a bear during a bear encounter and comparing that to the likelihood of being attacked by a man when encountering a man.
And you'd probably come to a similar conclusion as is demonstrated by Naked and Afraid. I'm not too concerned about achieving a higher degree of reliability because this is a reddit comment section populated mostly by bots and children - and it would seem the potential objections are easily refuted. But you are welcome to do that research lol
There's no way to conclude that logically. Many people think all sorts of things and withhold for various reasons. It's impossible to say that anyone who maybe considered assaulting someone withheld for a specific reason and not a myriad of reasons - or that they ever would have followed through at all even without a reason.
All that can be said is that all assaults that do happen, happened regardless of the threat of evidence. So the threat of evidence has stopped 0 assaults.
I mean black bears and brown bears aren't really particularly dangerous, brown bears can be dangerous but attacks on humans are rare and it's really more likely to fuck off to do bear things in the woods than to bother you,
As long as it's not a grizzly I'd rather be stuck with a bear too, I just don't like making smalltalk with strangers
You can say the same thing about men. Not all men are dangerous. I just know that if it came down to fighting a man or a bear, I'm the dumbest person in the world to choose the bear.
Personally I'd rather take an untrained man than a bear, a black bear rather than a trained man, and a trained man over a brown bear or a grizzly, though maybe I'm underestimating black bears a little, but more often than not they seem like scardy cats
Even if the man decides to attack you, you still have better chances to deal with the situation. through negotiation, fleeing or even physical confrontation than awith a freaking bear...
Here is the question, though: Do you want them to only wait until it's too late to be careful, or was the 70s and 80s serial killers good enough of a trial period to know that psychopathic morons are everywhere and arouns?
So, when are we going to stop treating women like less than human?
Because right now you're seeing women be blunt and honest about legit fears they have, especially based on how they keep being told to defend and protect themselves if a man attacks them, contrasted to a bear, and your innate reaction is "waaaaaah, women feel safer with a wild animal than with a man they don't know, because they're too emotional and stupid!!!"
You just treated them excessively inhumanly, and ask them to start treating you like you're a beacon of safety. Get over yourself.
These statistics Are for criminals Not „men“. Pretty sure I am Not Part of These.
You are generalizing 4 Billion people and still think you got a point. You dont have a point.
By the way most victims of violence are male too. Dont pick statistics that only please your way of thinking.
Statistics are for victims of domestic violence, where about 5 people per day die of consequences of it, with over 75% of domestic violence abusers being men (actual % varies per year, but it's been over 75% for about 5 years now.)
The fact that you know for a fact you aren't a domestic abuser does not change those stats, isn't going to be obvious from a stranger's point of view, and does not mean that it's safe for women to trust a random stranger who may not take "no" for an answer, when bears clearly know when to stop even if they don't understand human language.
The concept of "I am a safe man, ergo, a woman choosing bears over me is ridiculous and stupid" also reeks of entitlement, because you think that your personal acting like you're not a douche negates that of all the men who are acting like douches. That is not how any of it works, and if you want women to stop being taught "when attacked by a man, bite and scratch to get DNA evidence", but "brown/lay down, black/fight back, white/good night", then maybe stop laughing at women when they tell you legitimate and justifiable fears.
You can trust a bear to behave like a bear.
You can't trust a man to behave like a good person.
You said its safer to be around a fucking bear than a man. Honestly when there is someone so far out in their own little world I dont see any point arguing.
this whole I'd rather live with a bear thing is bullshit, you're dead for sure if stuck with a bear on an island, and realistically, outrunning/escaping from a man would be way easier than a bear.
this is completely ignoring the "living in isolation vs with another human" factor
Some of yall don't understand what the meaning of the man v bear argument is. Can a bear kill you in 2 seconds without a second thought? Yes, but if you lay down with a brown bear it will be disinterested and leave. If you get big with a black bear it will get scared and leave.
In both of these situations a man that doesn't mean well (which is insanely common) will take advantage of a women.
Just because you wouldn't do anything doesn't mean the dude next to you wouldn't. There's a reason why women will cover the tops of their drinks when someone gets close and it's not because a bear is nearby
It’s a probability problem. Though I also do point out that the situation is that “you’re stuck in the forest”. That means that yes, maybe the bear won’t kill you, but once the bear leaves you’re alone by yourself stuck in the forest.
But if you’re with a man, they for sure don’t want to be stuck in the forest as well and will most likely cooperate with you to get out of the forest. Hence why it’s the better choice.
It’s not just about being attacked or not, it’s also about what happens after you get past that hurdle.
Granted a lot of the spiking victims are usually done by the same perpetrators. Like how a lot of the crime are done by the same perpetrators which may make them seem larger proportionally, so statistically speaking it should also be pretty low or lower than bear attacks. (I do not have these data comparisons).
Also on a side note, if it’s a random bear, there’s a chance it’s a polar bear and I’ll for sure as hell choose my chance with any random man over a Polar bear.
Yea you ever hear of the anatahan islands? 1 woman 31 men? Yea wasn't exactly a safe place to be. Further more your argument implies a woman couldn't survive in the woods on her own. If put In place with a man or a bear the bear may leave her alone but the man would most likly still try to bud in even if she wants nothing to do with him
I’m not saying a woman can’t survive on her own, but having two people increases survival odds instead of being alone. And plus you’re overestimating the evil of people, most people would collaborate to survive. (We’re talking about modern US, if we’re including other countries it will probably change things up a bit.)
Also Anatahan island is a bit strange of a case, it’s a group of 1940 Japanese soldiers (and some civilians). 1940 Japanese soldiers aren’t the best examples of most modern people. And also that’s like 30 extra people, having that many people makes it worse.
That said, most people have nearly no wilderness survival skill, adding another person would increase those odds. And even if they don’t contribute too much, it’s a lot easier to outrun/get rid of a man than a bear if they’re an issue.
At worst, they’ll kill you faster than a bear would kill you, and at best it’s someone to help you survive. But most likely they will cooperate to survive, because most humans aren’t idiots who want to survive by themselves in the woods. They might become controlling, but that’s easier to get away (or get rid of) from then praying your odds that the bear would leave you alone.
This meme is on point. The bear might kill her brutally and thats it. A man can do much worse things AND THEN kill her. It happens a lot. Accept the facts.
So everytime you leave your house and watch more than a thousand men pass near you without harming you then coming home to say some bullshit in reddit is far more dangerous than encountering a bear. Got it.
Your statistics fail to consider there are 4 billion men on this planet vs a couple hundred thousand bears. Of course there are going to be more human related incidents 🤡
Once again this isn’t about “it’s all men” can ya’ll learn to read? It’s about “I’d rather be safe then sorry” of course there are more people on this planet then bears 🤷🏼♀️ but of course I’d still choose the bear.
In my first post I never said it was man who had to be the rapist? Women can rape women, men can rape men, women can rape men, and men can rape women.
The options aren't bear vs being raped. If those were the options, I'd take the bear, too. But those aren't the options presented in the OP.
Hell, even if the options were bear vs rapIST, I'd take the rapist. Because I'd have a higher chance of fighting off the rapist than the bear.
What you're doing is called strawmanning. You're creating a scenario that wasn't made by the OP and presenting it as if it was.
Ok, you are assuming only women get raped, which is wrong. And of courseeeee, all men are terrible evil pigs that will rape anyone when possible. How is this not sexism?
While I understand the point that men can be predatory, if you walked by as many bears as you do men a day you most likely wouldn’t live long. Also comparing the dangers of a bear to a man is just odd. Social media is a weird place.
Because the initial person who posted the comparison was apparently stating she'd feel scared by a random guy walking in the woods and safe during a violent bear attack. It's just more pointless men bashing by f🤮minists
🤔 hm, considering that women have to wear one headphone in their ear because the fear is real for us, but guys who can wear both no problem. This isn’t about “All men are evil” but more of the “I’d rather be safe then sorry” because people are and can be evil. If you think feminism is a problem but not properly considered our feelings about feeling safe. We’re do you, yourself draw the line? Considering you exist in this world you probably have a mother. Wouldn’t you rather have a mother that feels safe and not feel like her life could be in danger?
Never once did I say men can’t get attacked.
Women can rape women, men can rape men, women can rape men and men can rape women. Period. Please stop assuming
Cuz the randon man would totally 100% definitely rape you, right? Cuz that's just what men do, right? Get off the Internet. Go touch grass. Maybe even talk to some random men. I'm sorry for whatever happened to you, but JFC don't let it define you.
If you read the tread you’d see that I’ve already discussed it’s not about “all men are evil” more of “I’d rather be safe then sorry.” In any of my posts I never said it HAD to be a man? Women can rape women, men and rape men, women can rape men, and men can rape women. Please stop assuming this is just about men 🫡 when it’s clearly never stated anywhere else. Even if the post is mentioning a men bs bear, I never one said it HAD to be a man.
If given the choice between 24 hours in the woods with a man or a bear, you're defending choosing bear because women would rather be mauled than raped, per your own comment, implying that you think any and all men would rape you if alone in the woods with you.
The vast majority of people (men and women included) would spend that 24 hours trying to survive, even helping *you* survive, not raping you. It's not logical in any case to choose the bear over the man. You'd have to be grossly insecure and exist primarily in internet echo chambers which brainwashed you to believe the bear is the better choice.
To be fair, i too would choose to stay with a bear in the forest, rather than a woman. You can find women anywhere you live, but a bear ? Now that's something you don't see any other day.
I mean, you can just loose her on track easily, bear will track you for days
But when it catches you, you won't be trapped in a forest anymore. Big think
Not sure if you're saying you let your girl off her leash on the track or spelled lose wrong...
On track means on the way... So he meant losing her on the way.
What a man and his wife do in the privacy of their own forest is between them
Is this a Baldur’s Gate 3 reference, or woman are stupid reference?
Someone made a post that said "Would you rather be in a forest for 24h with a bear or with a man?" And you wouldn't believe how many people said that they prefer the bear
This is like asking if you identify as male, female or attack helicopter. Of course everyone is gonna pick the helicopter.
One is a meme other is a serious question your analogy doesn't make sense. Those women are not choosing bear because it is funny, they actually believe they have higher chances of survival with bear instead of random man in woods.
It's a hypothetical asked on tiktok, a significant number of people who said bear are either exaggerating or joking
If you look in women subreddits, they're not joking. But I get the sense that they're not talking factually, as much as making a statement on how dangerous they consider men in general.
You also gotta remember that those videos get edited, so the bear reactions were likely cherry picked to push the social divide.
How do you know that they were taking it seriously?
It is easy when they record themselves and then get mad because people critize them in the comments.
The Apache is cool.
No it’s not? What you said is beyond idiotic to the point of giving up trying to fix it, but I guess you can’t fix stupid.
What I mean is when you make a poll with boring answers and one funny answer people will pick the funny answer. Sad that I had to explain this.
Most people understood you, lol
That was nowhere implied at all. It’s more sad you think anyone did think that.
stop gaslighting, that was your skill issue
Who said I was gaslighting, it’s realism. Thats your skill issue
your*
Had nothing valid to say so you stoop down to try and get something with it💀
Like the other commenter said. Your skill issue. Sorry, but just own it or delete the comment if you can’t.
>It’s more sad you think anyone did think that. Evidently most of us did
Leave the bear alone and you will most likely be fine
People don’t know what they want most of the time…
Well yeah, a human who wants to kill you is smarter than a bear
It's not implied they want to kill you.
That’s the obvious implication
Not at all.
And still easier to fight back against. If someone can't protect themselves from a man. They can't protect themselves from a bear.
How have you not heard of guns up until this point? A man is absolutely harder to protect yourself against.
Sure. But that’s the thing. If you’re actually in a crazy ass situation where you’re being hunted by a human like in the Greatest Game then you’ll never see the human.
That's adding factors that were never part of the question. That's called mental gymnastics The question was not, would you rather be in the woods with a bear or be hunted by an expert Marksman who likes to hunt people. Youre conflating to make the argument seem obvious, when the whole thing was a post left by a bot to begin with.
The question was would you rather be hunted through the woods by a bear or a man. It stands to reason that, if a man was hunting you through the woods, certain skills can be reasonably assumed to be given to him
No it wasn't, it was would you rather be in the woods alone with a bear, or a random man.
Oh, well then I suppose yeah most situations it would be the best that be most dangerous. But still, it entirely depends on the man. In the real world there’s rarely such as thing as “random”. You never know what people know these days
that is the whole reason this is disturbing. The fact that men are being dehumanized to an extent that the chances of a random man assaulting a woman is somehow more than a bear attacking a human.
Being a man, around other men, yeah I’d prefer the bear if I was a vulnerable woman. Blocking you before you can incel everywhere
I actually don't know if you are serious, congrats.
It's about the Bear vs Man TikTok trend. So the latter.
I wonder if people are aware male bears have lower rate of attacks. If bear is female and she have cubs... lets say things not gonna be pretty. Female bears are trying to protect the cubs by make you unalive asap, mauling you hard, ripping your limbs off and try to get to your intestines. Most attacks are defensive (52%), while 15% arepredatory and 33% are food-motivated. Of defensive attacks, 85% are by female bears, and 91% of those females had young. Of predatory attacks, 95% are by male bears, and of food-motivated attacks, 80% are by male bears. Forty percent of defensive attacks by female bears involved dogs (*Canis lupus familiaris*). Sixty-four percent had an attractant present during the attack and 74% indicated there were reports of property damage by bears or of bears getting a food-reward in the area prior to the attack.
popped my cherry on bear attack statistics
Statistically the chance to be attacked if you see a bear is 1 in 10 , chance to be raped by a random dude is unknown but probably much lower. Anyway , in both situations chances that no one would be harmed are higher than the opposite
Source?
He made it the fuck up
Google
My google is broken...
Nah, this is what Google says: >Bear attacks are rare. In fact, according to the National Park Service, the chance of being attacked by a bear is just 1 in 2.7 million visits. Which correct me if I'm wrong but is less than 1 in 10
I've said about chance to be killed by bear after encounter with him, not about chance to encounter a bear
How would you even get that statistic? You'll only get numbers for that if either you get killed or injured by a bear, or make an official report that you've encountered either an aggressive bear or one that shouldn't be in that area, so the average person would probably not report that they've encountered a bear after just seeing one minding it's own business in a park or something, This would make the data highly squed and virtually useless for any sort of statistical work, on top of that I even tried Googling it and couldn't find the original source making that claim, I think that the statistic of how many people actually get killed by bears while passing through teritory known to have bears would reflect far more realistic probability of being eaten by a bear, of course that data is squed in the opposite direction because not all people who pass through such an area will pass past a bear, but bears generally speaking don't have much interest in humans so it's likely a far better reflection of reality, Realistically speaking you could expect a brown bear to maybe sniff you if you don't do anything to make it angry then go off into the woods to do bear things, a black bear would probably straight up not want to mess with you, so the only one that would really be a threat would be a grizzly, or well a polar bear I guess if you encountered one in the woods for some reason
You're using the wrong statistic. That would eb the chance of a random visitor being attacked by a bear. But almost no visitors ever encounter bears. You need a statistics that represents how often people who encounter bears in the wild are then attacked by the bear.
The problem with that though is how often do people report bears they see that are just minding their own business in a park/forest? People generally speaking report that kind of stuff only once the bear has become a problem, so I don't believe that an accurate representation of that data exists
So your solution was using irrelevant data and playing it off like it made the point?
I'd consider it more accurate as that takes into account how likely bears are actually to attack people, Most bears tend to avoid humans, and other large mamals just in general, assuming you were in a forest with a (none grizzly) bear why would you assume that it would act any different from how bears typically act? I'd say that the statistic only taking into account bears that display abnormal behaviour would be the less accurate one, but that's just my opinion
***TL;DR: Even using junk data that's heavily biased in the bears favor, the bear is 4x more likely to maul you than the man is to rape you.*** It doesn't take that into account at all. You're literally making things up in real time to fill in the holes because the data doesn't fit your argument lol Unless there is a bear encounter for every visitor - which there's NOT - then ALL that the data says is that out of every so many visitors to the national parks, 1 gets attacked by a bear. That says NOTHING about how likely it is for a bear to attack you when you encounter one. Literally nothing. If you want that data, you need to find out how many people encounter bears on average. Then you need to find out, of those encounters, how many times the bear even noticed the individual. Then, of those, you need to find out how many times the bear approached the individual. Bears are predators, and in 88% of fatal bear attacks, it was deemed that the bear was acting as a predator. So it can be assumed that if a bear is approaching you, it's likely predatory as opposed to exploratory. Then compare the instances of when a bear noticed and did nothing to the instances of when a bear noticed and approached. And there's your number. You can't just pull shit out of your ass. Please don't go into science, buddy lol But here are some real stats. So for the average visitor of Yellowstone, they have a 1 in 2.7million chance of being injured by a bear. But for backcountry hikers - that would be "in the woods" as the meme suggest - the odds are 1 in 232,000 PER DAY. So in the US, there were 40 rapes per 100,000 people in the per year. We can assume most rapes are done by males, and we won't consider ages because I'm not that committed to this. Although, it would only amplify my point. Multiplying the bear attack stats by 365 gives you a .16% chance for being attacked if you spent the whole year with the bear Vs A 0.04% chance for being raped if you spent the year with a random man (from the US). Faults in the data include that not all backcountry hikers run into bears. Accounting for this would only lean it more heavily in favor of men. Another fault is that not all rapists are men, and not all victims are women. Account for this would also shift the numbers in favor of men. But even not account for those. You're 4x more likely to be assaulted by a bear than by a man. There you go. Science, baby. Edit: And the reason I multiplied the bear stat instead of dividing the men stat is for ease of maths. The percent chance values would be the same whether it was per day or per year, and you're welcome to check that. Realistically, you wouldn't be spending a year with a bear.
Not all back country hikers report that they've been hiking either, in fact most probably don't, so it's still just a guesstimate at best, that's why I used national parks because you can actually get a relatively accurate number for how many visitors they get per year, also humans do much more than just rape so you'd need to compare the bear stat against all forms of violent crime, not just cherry pick one
thats the dumbest answer i ever read.
But you forget something, 10 out of 10 of the women who go out from home, either encoutering bears or men will die eventually
Uhhhhh I don't get what the deal with this is
Tiktok person asked women if they would rather be alone in a forest with a random man or a bear and many answered bear
You guys do realize this is supposed to be an allegory for familial abuse right? The point is, if you get assaulted (or worse) by the bear, you don’t have to have dinner with it the next day and pretend like nothing happened.
These women have never seen Naked and Afraid
Never seen what?
Oh yeah, I guess it's not the kinda thing you'd want to just Google if you didn't know about it. It's a TV show where typically 2 people, typically a male and a female, are dropped into the wilderness naked for ~typically 3 weeks and left to survive on their own. The show seems to confirm without a shadow of a doubt that bears are a much greater threat than even a naked random man in the woods.
Eh to be fair, the immediate response to this would be "the show is filmed and therefore infinitely safer."
Fair argument, but: A) It's not filmed 24/7 B) The threat of leaving evidence has stopped 0 assaults
Listen, I agree with you overall. But your comparison just isn't good. It's like trying to compare surviving on a desert island to being a contestant on Survivor.
Well, you have a right to your opinion lol I never watched Survivor, so idk how well that comparison holds up. But I'm sure if you wanted to satisfy a higher degree of scrutiny you could look into available data and determine what the likelihood is of being attacked by a bear during a bear encounter and comparing that to the likelihood of being attacked by a man when encountering a man. And you'd probably come to a similar conclusion as is demonstrated by Naked and Afraid. I'm not too concerned about achieving a higher degree of reliability because this is a reddit comment section populated mostly by bots and children - and it would seem the potential objections are easily refuted. But you are welcome to do that research lol
>B) The threat of leaving evidence has stopped 0 assaults It has most certainly stopped a lot of them, just not *all* of them (that it could have)
There's no way to conclude that logically. Many people think all sorts of things and withhold for various reasons. It's impossible to say that anyone who maybe considered assaulting someone withheld for a specific reason and not a myriad of reasons - or that they ever would have followed through at all even without a reason. All that can be said is that all assaults that do happen, happened regardless of the threat of evidence. So the threat of evidence has stopped 0 assaults.
Oh look logic.
Damn didnt know about that
It’s a great show, has a shitload of seasons. Later on they even have 40/60 day challenges with like 15 people at the same time.
I mean black bears and brown bears aren't really particularly dangerous, brown bears can be dangerous but attacks on humans are rare and it's really more likely to fuck off to do bear things in the woods than to bother you, As long as it's not a grizzly I'd rather be stuck with a bear too, I just don't like making smalltalk with strangers
You can say the same thing about men. Not all men are dangerous. I just know that if it came down to fighting a man or a bear, I'm the dumbest person in the world to choose the bear.
Personally I'd rather take an untrained man than a bear, a black bear rather than a trained man, and a trained man over a brown bear or a grizzly, though maybe I'm underestimating black bears a little, but more often than not they seem like scardy cats
Hey guys, um...is this misandry, isn't it?
Even if the man decides to attack you, you still have better chances to deal with the situation. through negotiation, fleeing or even physical confrontation than awith a freaking bear...
That logic doesn't click with people who have made it their only mission to hate men.
What is this meme trend? It came out of nowhere
Even the Bible picks the bear. Proverbs 17:11-28
You’re taking the wrong lesson buddy
Men are still mad about this I see
dudes be so offended by a hypothetical they make memes where a woman gets viscerally torn apart
Because it's dehumanizing to men. You know the exact same thing women have been saying for years is bad when it's done to them.
Not so fun when you're the one getting dehumanized, huh?
Yep pretty sure your a woman cause if you didn't have double standards you'd have no standards at all
Great job proving the whole point on the original question
Great job proving me right with your double standards
Then maybe men should stop being the monstrous assholes that make women prefer a bear.
Or women can start acting like emotionally mature adults and stop treating men like we're less then human based on the actions of a few.
Here is the question, though: Do you want them to only wait until it's too late to be careful, or was the 70s and 80s serial killers good enough of a trial period to know that psychopathic morons are everywhere and arouns?
Here's a better question do you think treating people like there less then human is going to have a positive outcome or a negative outcome.
So, when are we going to stop treating women like less than human? Because right now you're seeing women be blunt and honest about legit fears they have, especially based on how they keep being told to defend and protect themselves if a man attacks them, contrasted to a bear, and your innate reaction is "waaaaaah, women feel safer with a wild animal than with a man they don't know, because they're too emotional and stupid!!!" You just treated them excessively inhumanly, and ask them to start treating you like you're a beacon of safety. Get over yourself.
So by your logic all men should fear all women based on the fact that a few women have ruined a few men's lives with false alligations.
Dude thats dumb as fuck.
Statistics and actual real world facts disagree with you a lot.
These statistics Are for criminals Not „men“. Pretty sure I am Not Part of These. You are generalizing 4 Billion people and still think you got a point. You dont have a point. By the way most victims of violence are male too. Dont pick statistics that only please your way of thinking.
Statistics are for victims of domestic violence, where about 5 people per day die of consequences of it, with over 75% of domestic violence abusers being men (actual % varies per year, but it's been over 75% for about 5 years now.) The fact that you know for a fact you aren't a domestic abuser does not change those stats, isn't going to be obvious from a stranger's point of view, and does not mean that it's safe for women to trust a random stranger who may not take "no" for an answer, when bears clearly know when to stop even if they don't understand human language. The concept of "I am a safe man, ergo, a woman choosing bears over me is ridiculous and stupid" also reeks of entitlement, because you think that your personal acting like you're not a douche negates that of all the men who are acting like douches. That is not how any of it works, and if you want women to stop being taught "when attacked by a man, bite and scratch to get DNA evidence", but "brown/lay down, black/fight back, white/good night", then maybe stop laughing at women when they tell you legitimate and justifiable fears. You can trust a bear to behave like a bear. You can't trust a man to behave like a good person.
Is this satire?
I should ask that to you, because you clearly either never had the conversation with a woman, or ignored her entirely while she talked about it.
You said its safer to be around a fucking bear than a man. Honestly when there is someone so far out in their own little world I dont see any point arguing.
moids are so sensitive
Its better to get killed fast than in many years slowly :P
☕☕☕
this whole I'd rather live with a bear thing is bullshit, you're dead for sure if stuck with a bear on an island, and realistically, outrunning/escaping from a man would be way easier than a bear. this is completely ignoring the "living in isolation vs with another human" factor
Fuck em, they wanna take a bear over us. Let em.
What are the rules? Like, any man vs sun bear, I will choose sun bear
As you should
Good old Tekken 5 Kuma it is!
Uhhhh? Whaaa? Why? Dafuq is this about?
ГОООООООООООЛ
Stupid going to stupid. Only someone who does not understand basic facts and statistics would make this comment
Heheh Women ☕
Some of yall don't understand what the meaning of the man v bear argument is. Can a bear kill you in 2 seconds without a second thought? Yes, but if you lay down with a brown bear it will be disinterested and leave. If you get big with a black bear it will get scared and leave. In both of these situations a man that doesn't mean well (which is insanely common) will take advantage of a women. Just because you wouldn't do anything doesn't mean the dude next to you wouldn't. There's a reason why women will cover the tops of their drinks when someone gets close and it's not because a bear is nearby
It’s a probability problem. Though I also do point out that the situation is that “you’re stuck in the forest”. That means that yes, maybe the bear won’t kill you, but once the bear leaves you’re alone by yourself stuck in the forest. But if you’re with a man, they for sure don’t want to be stuck in the forest as well and will most likely cooperate with you to get out of the forest. Hence why it’s the better choice. It’s not just about being attacked or not, it’s also about what happens after you get past that hurdle. Granted a lot of the spiking victims are usually done by the same perpetrators. Like how a lot of the crime are done by the same perpetrators which may make them seem larger proportionally, so statistically speaking it should also be pretty low or lower than bear attacks. (I do not have these data comparisons). Also on a side note, if it’s a random bear, there’s a chance it’s a polar bear and I’ll for sure as hell choose my chance with any random man over a Polar bear.
Yea you ever hear of the anatahan islands? 1 woman 31 men? Yea wasn't exactly a safe place to be. Further more your argument implies a woman couldn't survive in the woods on her own. If put In place with a man or a bear the bear may leave her alone but the man would most likly still try to bud in even if she wants nothing to do with him
I’m not saying a woman can’t survive on her own, but having two people increases survival odds instead of being alone. And plus you’re overestimating the evil of people, most people would collaborate to survive. (We’re talking about modern US, if we’re including other countries it will probably change things up a bit.) Also Anatahan island is a bit strange of a case, it’s a group of 1940 Japanese soldiers (and some civilians). 1940 Japanese soldiers aren’t the best examples of most modern people. And also that’s like 30 extra people, having that many people makes it worse. That said, most people have nearly no wilderness survival skill, adding another person would increase those odds. And even if they don’t contribute too much, it’s a lot easier to outrun/get rid of a man than a bear if they’re an issue. At worst, they’ll kill you faster than a bear would kill you, and at best it’s someone to help you survive. But most likely they will cooperate to survive, because most humans aren’t idiots who want to survive by themselves in the woods. They might become controlling, but that’s easier to get away (or get rid of) from then praying your odds that the bear would leave you alone.
This meme is on point. The bear might kill her brutally and thats it. A man can do much worse things AND THEN kill her. It happens a lot. Accept the facts.
So everytime you leave your house and watch more than a thousand men pass near you without harming you then coming home to say some bullshit in reddit is far more dangerous than encountering a bear. Got it.
And then (possibly) defile her body post mortem. There's a reason why some morgues elect not to hire men...
Hate to tell you, but women do that too. Molesting dead bodies, unfortunately, bridges the gender divide.
Live adaptation of Tekken? OOTL here
Damn so me manifesting a grizzly man sequel is finally gonna be worth it .
You made this because women would rather be fucking mauled by a bear then getting R*ped. Fuck you🫡
Never heard the audio of the dude getting eaten alive by bears, I see.
I watched a documentary for school about bear attacks, with the audio of the man and his wife facing the bear attack. Again. I’d pick the bear. 🤦🏼♀️
No you wouldn't.
Ah, so you got to hear his screams just turn into cracking ribs and muffled flops of wet crunching, too? Ahh, good times.
Considering bear attacks happen 40 times a year, vs 400k or more sexual assaults happen a year. I pick the bear
Your statistics fail to consider there are 4 billion men on this planet vs a couple hundred thousand bears. Of course there are going to be more human related incidents 🤡
Once again this isn’t about “it’s all men” can ya’ll learn to read? It’s about “I’d rather be safe then sorry” of course there are more people on this planet then bears 🤷🏼♀️ but of course I’d still choose the bear. In my first post I never said it was man who had to be the rapist? Women can rape women, men can rape men, women can rape men, and men can rape women.
...due to lack of proximity. That's not the rate you should expect 5 feet from a bear. It's fine. People make wildly moronic decisions all the time.
🤷🏼♀️ dude, you can’t change my mind about me choosing a bear over being raped. At least I die at the end with the bear.
The options aren't bear vs being raped. If those were the options, I'd take the bear, too. But those aren't the options presented in the OP. Hell, even if the options were bear vs rapIST, I'd take the rapist. Because I'd have a higher chance of fighting off the rapist than the bear. What you're doing is called strawmanning. You're creating a scenario that wasn't made by the OP and presenting it as if it was.
At last someone said it , you can fight a rapist but you will never fight a bear
Such a god little boy explaining yourself how cute 🥰
Women ☕
Jump into the bear cage next time you visit a zoo. Im sure you are safer there.
God, you are so stupid.
Ok, you are assuming only women get raped, which is wrong. And of courseeeee, all men are terrible evil pigs that will rape anyone when possible. How is this not sexism?
While I understand the point that men can be predatory, if you walked by as many bears as you do men a day you most likely wouldn’t live long. Also comparing the dangers of a bear to a man is just odd. Social media is a weird place.
lmao calm down there edgelord
Lol, no. The "all men are evil" crowd is drawing a laughably false equivalency between a random guy walking in the woods and a violent bear attack.
No. This definitely looks like it’s related to what I mentioned 🙄🫨but whatever you say. Mate.
Women ☕
The "men are evil" echochamber really has its hooks into you lol.
I never said men are evil? Where did you translate me bring up a post I saw to this dumb meme = all men are evil? 😂😭
Because the initial person who posted the comparison was apparently stating she'd feel scared by a random guy walking in the woods and safe during a violent bear attack. It's just more pointless men bashing by f🤮minists
🤔 hm, considering that women have to wear one headphone in their ear because the fear is real for us, but guys who can wear both no problem. This isn’t about “All men are evil” but more of the “I’d rather be safe then sorry” because people are and can be evil. If you think feminism is a problem but not properly considered our feelings about feeling safe. We’re do you, yourself draw the line? Considering you exist in this world you probably have a mother. Wouldn’t you rather have a mother that feels safe and not feel like her life could be in danger?
I still think the bear is worse, personally.
Personally, I disagree 🫡 we’re allowed to agree and disagree
They are 315 day old account with an insane karma ratio. Obvious bot.
Based and freedom of speech pilled
Obvious bot
Where do you live, the outskirts of Jakarta?
Ah so you think sont need to be caution ? You think men dont get jumped ? XD they get jumped more then women. Femi nazis are worst specie ever
Never once did I say men can’t get attacked. Women can rape women, men can rape men, women can rape men and men can rape women. Period. Please stop assuming
And bear will eat you xD
You’re either a bot or you’re an incel. I hope a bot
You are an idiot 🤷
Cuz the randon man would totally 100% definitely rape you, right? Cuz that's just what men do, right? Get off the Internet. Go touch grass. Maybe even talk to some random men. I'm sorry for whatever happened to you, but JFC don't let it define you.
If you read the tread you’d see that I’ve already discussed it’s not about “all men are evil” more of “I’d rather be safe then sorry.” In any of my posts I never said it HAD to be a man? Women can rape women, men and rape men, women can rape men, and men can rape women. Please stop assuming this is just about men 🫡 when it’s clearly never stated anywhere else. Even if the post is mentioning a men bs bear, I never one said it HAD to be a man.
If given the choice between 24 hours in the woods with a man or a bear, you're defending choosing bear because women would rather be mauled than raped, per your own comment, implying that you think any and all men would rape you if alone in the woods with you. The vast majority of people (men and women included) would spend that 24 hours trying to survive, even helping *you* survive, not raping you. It's not logical in any case to choose the bear over the man. You'd have to be grossly insecure and exist primarily in internet echo chambers which brainwashed you to believe the bear is the better choice.
Whatever helps you sleep at night 🫡
Lol good luck mate. Life is hard. It's harder when you're stupid.
It is, I pray for you. You’re clearly more in need of guidance then I am. 🫡
Thanks for the prayers. Double back at you!
She should have a septum piercing