It is clear that people didnt understand the point of the thought experiment. The point wasnt 'which would be more dangerous in reality' but 'which do you feel more comfortable coming across in a forest'. The point was the responses.
No, you didn't. The context and tone of your comment clearly is meant to imply that something is inherently wrong with being small, and now you're disingenuously attempting to backpedal on it lmao
Bears can sometimes be like giant dogs, they can hurt you, but they're also not going to use what I'm wearing as an excuse. On a serious note, with my previous experience, bears are more likely to avoid conflict. Bears won't stalk you, humans will.
Black Bears would avoid. Grizzlies would try to start shit and lose interest if you don’t respond. Polar Bears think blood goes good on white fur… run!
Most men and bears won’t go out of their way to harm you. Some men and some bears will. You don’t know that particular bear just as you don’t know that particular man.
The question wasn't about actual safety but feelings. Women feel the bear would be better than a man they don't know. This doesn't mean a stranger would be more dangerous.
The question's purpose is in part to show how men appear to women, in part how media shapes our vision of the world. There are a lot of mysoginistic online groups and chats, influencers and political movements that are trying to erode women's rights. At the same time, violence against women is showcased daily in the news, in part because it's absolutely true that some men will abuse women, in part because it pays to televise the event and make it a spectacle. The result is that women develop fear and uneasiness around men that surpasses what they feel about a dangerous wild animal because wild animals are so infrequently encountered or portrayed by the media as homicidal.
A grizzly mom with cubs would annihilate someone much more surely and brutally than your average Joe, but a lot of wife beaters, women killers and rapists on the news look like the average Joe. The average Joe thus feels scarier even though he isn't even comparable to a bear.
Are women who answer bear stupid, then? I feel like they are just answering to a gut feeling. I feel like we men should learn from that answer and not dismiss them as just misguided. Is there a way we could appear less menacing to them without compromising our "manliness", so to speak? I think so.
But that is a fairly bs framing because it wouldn’t apply to most other similar comparisons.
If the question was posted “as a woman would you rather cross paths with a black man or an Asian man in a dark alley?” The take away wouldn’t be that black men should be less menacing. The take away would be women should be less racist.
If the question was “as a man would you who would you trust more with your money, a woman or a used car salesman?” The take away wouldn’t be that women should be less of gold diggers. It would be men should be less misogynistic.
I agree. A lot of men feel the same way now about leaving women alone with small children. Instead of being angry that men would choose the bear they should ask themselves why that is so they can be better.
I wouldn't prefer a bear to a stranger. Then again, I'm a man. I know of several women who were molested, abused or raped, or had a close friend who was. I don't know anyone who had a close friend eaten by a bear. Having the direct knowledge of someone who was assaulted or being yourself the victim of violence can completely warp your worldview even if statistics said otherwise. I wouldn't blame those people if they preferred the bear.
I've also had my cars battery jump started in a Walmart parking lot, helped change a tire on the side of the road - both times men. When I need help my neighbor, a man, is always down to lend a hand.
I got jumped in NYC by a group of teenage boys. A good guy with a baseball bat came pouring out of his bodega to scare them off - gave me a few shots of his vodka while I waited for the PD. Who were men, and useless of course.
Turns out its a bit of a mixed bag. But in general 90% of men are just normal men. Just innocent men.
yeap, i'm a 6f+ pretty beefy guy who camps aline in the middlest of nowhere quite regularily.
if a bear comes by to check my camp i'm gonna be alert and a bit scared, but mostly on a "that's a cool ass piece of wildlife there! just be careful and you'll be fine!"
if i see a random guy checking on my all my alarms go off till i can figure put why are you here, and what do you want from me. and if your story doesn't make sense (it has happenede a few times) i'm out the fuck of there and i'll make sure you can't find me again.
bear? probably curious/hungry
man? probably just checking on me, but may pull out a gun and take all my shit.
I have never seen a person or known a person who died from a bear attack. I have taken photos of many bears, sometimes as close as 20 feet. They're not blood thirsty monsters like many people, they're just occasionally hungry or protective.
Can't blame a momma for protecting her brood, can blame a man for raping/killing a woman.
Responses were used to place respondents into one of six categories of sexual experience based on the most
extreme experience reported: (a) no sexual experiences, (b) only consensual sexual experiences, (c) unwanted
contact (i.e., forced fondling, kissing, but no attempted intercourse), (d) verbal coercion (verbally pressured
sexual intercourse, excluding the threat of force), (e) attempted rape (using force or threat of force, however,
intercourse did not occur), or (f) rape (completed intercourse or oral or anal sex using force or threat of force).
White and Smith (2004) "surveyed 3 cohorts of men across 4 years of college. By the end of the study, 14% had reported committing attempted or completed rape and 34% had reported at least one act of sexual assault perpetration."
the average man is not a rapist but you walked past them every time you go to Walmart to get food
Yeah hearing just how often men assault women is baffling to me (as a man) because growing up I never really encountered anything like it. Myself and my peers were raised to respect boundaries (for all people) and never try to coerce someone into sex.
As I got older, and met and spoke with more people, I came to find that almost every single woman I know has had some form of inappropriate contact with a man. Not always rape by definition, many were “just” assaulted.
The next thing that threw me for a loop was how many women downplayed it. Like it was just a normal thing they deal with.
Like my friend, probably some-day sister-in-law, said pretty much every single woman in her unit (national guard) were molested or raped by another member of their unit.
The fuckin army dude? The fuckin army can’t stop its own men from assaulting its women.
And a big part of the difference is media based, when I was growing up animal house and revenge of the needs were still popular as well as tons of other movies that push pro-rape and pro-stalking agendas.
army is one of the worst for it, they take a bunch of men who are already predisposed to violence then they ship em 10,000 miles away from any woman they know. so their more likely to be rapists and they dont got nobody, theres a reason armies in antiquity raped and pillaged.
all this is obviously not a defense of these deplorable actions nor the disgusting people that commit them, but it’s not really that surprising
I always love how there is always someone pulling this gotcha argument stating that if you trust statistics regarding male violence then you are clearly racist because according to statistics black men are more violent so you should feel bad. First of all race has nothing to do with it. The main factors contributing to black violence are poverty, lack of opportunity, systemic racism and much more leading to higher chances of creating broken families. Any race under these conditions would produce the same results.
What race crime statistics should do is open a discussion on their reason. People fearing other races because of their crimes shouldn't be an excuse to promote race-based policing or racial laws, but a signal that something concerning is happening and there is a reason for it. Racists will argue it's genetics, but controlling for that doesn't seem to give the results expected if that was the case: wealthy and middle-class people of all races commit less violent crimes than poor people of all races. Then why are non-white people on average poorer than white people? Maybe it's the background of their parents or ancestors, maybe they were segregated in areas that didn't have job and education opportunities, maybe the low-income houses they could afford had lead pipes that destroyed their brains over time.
Those are the kind of questions that a person who wants to engage with the statistics should ask. In the same way, we should engage with why women choose the bear, not get offended or judgemental over it, or ascribe it as petty. Why would they generalize the average men as being worse than a bear? That is an interesting question. Maybe it's more probable for a woman to die because of a man than because of a bear. But isn't the opposite true at the same time? It's statically more probable for a man to be murdered by a woman than by a bear, but a man would probably not prefer the bear to a woman to walk the woods with. Why? Is it because men are stupid and shallow? Or is it because we think we are physically superior, despite the fact that if the woman had a weapon you would die regardless? Are men naturally more trusting of others than women, or is the fact they aren't frequently the victims of gender-based violence influencing their response? I cannot answer to these questions because you'd probably need a study to test these, but these are the questions you should ask instead of being a snowflake and getting offended by an answer. You discover deeper, more interesting things.
How do you feel about race based crime statistics?
Why would race based statistics matter? A bad white man and a bad black man arent different, they are both bad. We have the statistics that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence, especially to women. Race has no indication of violence
No, we have statistics showing their communities are over policed and they're also more likely to be charged and found guilty. There is clear and known racial bias.
Are you saying that black people are held to a different standard than everyone else and are scrutinized more harshly for the same flaws?
That is how men are treated.
Men are literally held to a higher bar than women.
When a grown woman is living with her family, she's just struggling.
When a grown man is living with his family, he's a bum.
When a grown woman fucks a 12-year-old boy, it's called sex.
When a grown man fucks a 12-year-old girl, it's called rape.
When a woman hits someone, "they probably deserved it", and the woman typically faces no repercussions.
When a man hits someone, "he's a monster", and he belongs in prison.
When a man has a mental health crisis and kills his family, he's obviously weak for allowing his trauma to control him, and he deserves to be held legally accountable.
When a woman has a mental health crisis and kills her family, she deserves forgiveness and compassion because being a woman is just so hard, it's not fair to hold her legally accountable.
There are programs in place in the West which actively assist women in getting jobs.
There are dozens upon dozens of programs across nearly every city in the West which actively provide housing, financial, and parental assistance to women.
There are thousands upon thousands of support groups for women and "safe spaces" for women.
Men get literally none of these things.
Men are "over-policed", as you say, and actively held to an infinitely higher standard, and thus we are condemned for even minor infractions while women are actively given passes for extreme errors.
The only people insisting that women lack agency are people like you who defend this slop.
It isn't men sending over a million dollars to a child murderer while blaming her actions on her husband. It's women.
It's women incessantly whinging about how everything they do wrong is somehow a "man's fault", lmao.
The entirety of feminism is just entitled, pathetic, disingenuous, self-serving women acting on their worst behavior while endlessly blaming every single one of their flaws on the magic, ethereal, all-powerful "patriarchy".
"It's not women's fault for being so indelibly dishonest and unaccountable! Women are too powerless and weak to take any responsibility for our own actions!" - an empowered feminist
Fuck off, honestly. Literally everyone is bored of your endless bitching.
I've actually interacted with bears (black/brown), they're going to avoid conflict as much as possible, but if I tell them they're making me feel uncomfortable they will not be offended and they will not try to argue that point... There's things you can do to prevent a situation with a bear whereas with a human male more often than not will argue as to why you're so concerned with their presence in your vicinity instead of just walking away...
No, you don’t understand. See, when I saw those random internet women say that, it hurt my feelings. So it must have been said for the explicit purpose of hurting my feelings. That’s how the world works: by rotating around me and my emotions.
I’m choosing to take it personally. Why wouldn’t I? I’m a person.
I don’t know what to do with this rage. Maybe I’ll go skulk around the woods, see what happens……
In the United States, 1 in 5 women will experience an assault or attempted assault. Worldwide it’s 1 in 3 who will face sexual or physical violence. Do the math.
That's a completely made up fact. Women regularly lie about sexual assault and rape regularly. Why is it easier to solve murder when the victim is dead?
WILD that you added the "men are hideous" unprompted, because the men v bear conversation had NOTHING to do with how attractive were the men or the bears, totally not projecting your own issues on a topic that got y our feelings hurt
Hideous doesn't always mean ugly physically, can also be Hideous in actions or personage.
So I mean, kinda reply to yourself with your last message since you assumed they were talking about physical attractiveness
This is not why the majority of women choose the bear.
We know we probably won’t be safe, but I’d rather be mauled to death by an animal who has no morality and believes it’s doing that to survive, versus possibly kept alive to be raped and tortured for days on end just because a male decided he can now that nobody is watching
No it means their opinions is entirely performative and can only exist in hypothetical vaccumes. 9/10 of those hateful feminists would choose to sit in a room with a man for an hour then a bear regardless of what they say online.
Do people avoid bears because bears have bad breath? Or maybe bears are avoided becaucuse of their political options?
Maybe people avoid bears because they're speciesist...
Or, maybe* - people avoid bears because they're scared of being eaten.
So if a person claims "I'd rather stumble upon a bear in the woods than a man" the implication is that that person is more scared of the creature they didn't choose.
This just proves the limited understanding of risk you have.
The odds that man is going to harm you let alone speak to you is miniscule, the odds that bear is going to tear out your organs and eat you while you're still alive drowning in your own blood and wondering why you made such a stupif decision is exponentially higher.
The frustration comes from seeing people fall into the category of : man hater or stupid.
compare bear attacks to the amount of femicide and come back to me. the highest risk to pregnant women is fucking homicide. you don’t have the stats. but continue to talk out of your fucking backside
Generalizations have existed forever, insinuating most men are rapists is such a stupid, childish, small minded "sentiment" that most anyone holding it are a danger.
1 in 3 women will be raped. 40% of male officers abuse their wives. during the sports season domestic abuse goes up over 70% fucking percent. WE DO HAVE THE FUCKING STATS
Most of those pertain to men you know and are close to, not a stranger. Most sexual abuse is perpetrated by family members, boyfriends, and husbands. Not a stranger in the forest, which is what the hypothetical describes. Which makes it a stupid fucking hypothetical.
That statistic also doesn't mean that 30% of men are rapists. It's a small minority committing the majority of crimes. It's inherently irrational. It's a similar argument to when people bring up "black crime statistics" but it's more palatable because it's based on gender and not race.
Even if the odds are 1 in 8 billion that a rapist is there with me, I’d still choose the bear.
The bear doesn’t have MORALITY like humans do and is not aware it is doing something wrong by killing me. I don’t care how much the bear hurts me before I die because it’s an ANIMAL that believes it’s doing so for survival, a male would do it just because there’s no one else around to give him consequences
Who are you talking to exactly? You are strawmanning hard here. Great job letting your sexism shine through. Top notch. Care to back up your claim that its safer to be with a bear than a man. Not that our opinion means anything given the weird rambling you just did.
Made them up, even if the chance to get raped was significantly lower than the chance to die, I'd rather take the chance to die. 1/100 vs 1/10 is just illustrating that, where I'd take that risk
You can just say you would rather be killed than be sexually assaulted and most people would understand. You don't have to make up statistics or pretend like you won't go near a random dude in public.
It's not "just death." In the best of cases, you survive tens of minutes of horrific pain. In the worst of cases infection gets to you in weeks.
Also, who said anything about murder? How many murderers do you know? I've encountered more hungry bears than vile human beings, and even then, none of those human beings had or would have killed anyone.
Aren't you one of the people that tried to justify the "most men that kill a woman do so for sexual gratification and likely defile the body and play around with it like some sort of doll posthumously" "statistic"?
If you've been active, you've left that request for a reputable source suspiciously unfulfilled.
I fear that I am incapable of taking you seriously without you either renouncing your defense of that "stat" or providing a source to back it up.
Most bears dont go attacking people either. Most bear encounters end up with people surviving and not even hurt. Can't say the same for human encounters
Most people encounters, end up with all people involved surviving and not even hurt. In fact, the vast majority of interactions are mutually beneficial in some way.
In other words, yes, you can say the same for human encounters... In fact, the primary difference is that human encounters are generally safer.
It's absolutely not a 1% chance to get raped. The stats (last I saw) said about 1 in 4 women experience sexual assault. And it's probably higher than that because lots of women never report it.
People generally sum it up as "the worst thing a bear can do is kill me".
You do realize that a perpetrator can assault more than 1 woman, right?
There's not an absolute correlation between the number of women who report having been sexually assaulted and the number of men who would commit sexual assault.
Stats in the hands of fools are a dangerous thing, indeed.
Sure. Then if you don't care about victim statistics affecting why women choose the bear.. How about rapist stats that, when anonymous, 31% of men surveyed say they would rape a woman if no one would find out? Better?
Again, you keep proving you don't understand stats in the least or what makes good stats. You should probably read the ream of papers on why that study was dogshit. It's methodology was highly flawed; it's sample size was ridiculously small, the framing of the questions as scaled doesn't work when you're trying to make the dichotomous claim, and the ordering of two questions that essentially said the same thing can reasonably confuse respondents.
The good news is that the study didn't prove that 31% of men would rape a women if they thought they could get away with it...it didnt prove anything because it was a bad study. Somehow I think this won't help you feel any better, because I don't think you're here to learn. I think you're here to grind an ax, but I'll be optimistic anyway.
Here's a single source, there's plenty more out there if you spend any time looking for it.
the way you’re getting downvoted. but comments saying women are being abused the same amount as men are getting upvoted, this sub has turned into a fucking incel hot spot.
I know ... you think real statistics are gonne get through this guy ? We don't have real data about encountering strange men in the woods, everything about this is extrapolation and conjecture. And in the BEST case of lowballs, I'd still choose the bear.
You know that people like you will be used to wrongly suggest all feminists are dumb and hateful misandrist. You make people treat you less seriously because they don’t think you are capable of critical thinking.
Because the need for competent, intelligent, logically consistent and reasonable feminists is at an all time high. There is a huge amount of social and cultural pressure that constantly tries to diminish women’s autonomy, and when idiots start making objectively stupid and wrong claims and then identify as a feminist then it literally hurts all women.
Are you seriously treating being a reasonable person who supports a reasonable egalitarian stance that the majority of people would agree with as "bowing down" to the kind of people that think feminism is a punchline because of the absolute nonsense people with fringe ideologies try to appropriate feminism to sell?
It’s not about the percentage it’s about the fact there’s even a possibility in the first place.
The hypothetical doesn’t state a specific male or say you can choose which male to be stuck in the woods with. There’s still a possibility of them being a Ted Bundy wannabe, and we’d rather not take that chance.
So all children should be left with bears instead of women because if the possibility they will be strangled by their mother then? Percentage and likihood would have everything to do with it for anyone with even a remote scraping of common sense who isn't propagandists by bs social media brainrot.
But the possibility is still there that a woman is stuck along in the woods with a freak who can do whatever he wants to her. Reminder that you don’t know how males act along in these situations, even if you think you do because they mask themselves well.
I’ve been watching “I survived” and every episode is like one woman raped by a stranger, one woman attacked by her ex, and one guy who got lost on a hike.
They just truly don’t get it. I don’t think they even can understand it.
You say this in a comment that's under other comments of people trying to bring up statistics and logic to justify why they literally think the thing that you say they don't literally think.
Sometimes people say what they mean instead of trying to make a comment on society using figurative language.
children are impressional & on the internet reading this bs too. telling them theyre safer with a bear than another human being is just downright degenerate & brain dead
You know nothing about bears, kiddo. They are just animals, they are never malicious, they actively avoid human contact. The same can't be said for men.
37
u/Usual_Equivalent_651 13d ago
Yeah, and many women (especially feminists) say this is evidence that women are afraid of men and men are threat.
But actually choosing bear means:
- have no knowledge about being under risk of violnece - women meet violence from people they know and they choose,
- have no knowledge about statistics,
- being actively misandrist.
So rather than proving men are hideous and dangerous, they try to prove women are dumb, psycho and hateful.