The number of people either too dense or too willfully misogynistic to understand what this is about is depressing.
If you’re arguing bear statistics or saying “not all men” or decrying misandry, then you’ve totally missed the point. If you are doing it intentionally, you’re the type of men women would choose the bear over.
The fact that anyone would choose a dangerous animal over a random man is an indictment against the culture surrounding male privilege and should spark introspection and change. Arguments against this is just ignoring women and solidifies the decision that the bear is better.
Honestly, no matter what side of the debate you are on its still dystopian to think that women would actually think to go to a bear over a random man when faced with the choice.
I am being introspective about this though. We created a culture of fear. A lot of it is through the consequences of rape culture and I think a large part is through an unhealthy about of true crime that’s being made. Constantly blasting worse case scenarios into people’s heads. I dunno, I just despise how we all just accepted not to trust one another and it seems like we’ve all just accepted that this to way to be about it. I just see it as a example of the alienation being pushed by capitalism.
It’s makes me a little mad tbh. Being perfectly honest it should make everyone mad. Like tbh I still think going with a random guy is the correct answer to this but we all should come together, look at this whole situation and realise the dystopian implications of this.
Yes! Thank you!
Does it hurt that women feel that way? Of course it does, so let’s work to be better so that random people can trust each other!
Angrily lashing out at the women who are pondering the benefits of a bear isn’t gonna help.
Be someone a woman would feel safe to be around. Call it out when those around you fail that test.
Create that safer environment. It isn’t impossible.
I totally understand why women would pick bear, as bear society doesn’t bend over backwards to victimize women.
Most power structures cater to the people who abuse power. Police, church, courts, military, etc all tend to go crazy easy on men who abuse women.
Republicans want to take away women’s rights/independence, limit/eliminate divorce, force birth for rape/incest. Police who assault women are protected and don’t face consequences, and most religions literally view women as a subspecies that serve men.
Maybe the average man is totally normal and helpful, but the history of violence between men and women is like 98% men killing women with heaps of Rape, confinement, physical/mental abuse etc.
The worst any Bear could do is kill someone in 1-2 minutes, maybe longer.
It’s also an incredibly loaded situation in that being alone in the woods with a bear is “natural” and being alone in the woods with a strange man already sounds like a horror movie plot/murder news story.
There’s also the constant “stranger danger” fear women will pretty much always experience because men can consistently and easily overpower most women. All women I have met seem to know at least one or more women who have been sexually assaulted, had their drink spiked etc, so it’s not some obsession with crime shows or scary movies driving this fear. It’s actual rapists prevalent in society and emboldened enough by lack of consequences to act.
Even in cases where it seems obvious Rape happened, it’s a brutal gauntlet of gas lighting, victim blaming, “can’t ruin their life for a mistake”, etc that stop a huge amount of reporting and convictions.
Going back to the question itself, answer ratios would probably change depending on the area, would women be less inclined to pick bear if they were in a library instead of the woods because it’s unnatural for a bear to be in that environment?
People need to relax, and focus on the real story. Women have an incredibly long and valid list of reasons to be afraid of men and society needs to do better to make women feel safe
Ultimately, bear is the less complicated decision, not entirely because it is without danger, but because it is not subject to gaslighting. Most people understand that a bear attack is bad and won’t raise concerns about how you led the bear on or that what you were wearing was to blame.
Yeah I’m probably more comfortable with strange men in a library than strange bears. The woods are where strange bears go. The library is where strange people go.
Now if I have them making advances towards me, bear in a library 100%. My local bears are black bears and they can be scared off easier than some men.
I agree totally with the first sentiment but I don’t think the recent prevalence of True Crime media really plays into it at all. This is not a new thing. Women have been making these risk assessment decisions for generations in the modern age. Girls are taught this kind of thing with how to protect themselves at a young age.
This is primarily a cultural issue and it won’t change unless the majority of people propagating (intentionally or not) realize what’s happening and work to change.
I dunno, the media and its relationship to crime is well documented. Many people accept that old people that panic about inner city crime despite it being at a record low since the 1970s are victims of this phenomenon. Why is it difficult to believe that young women who consume a lot of true crime content aren’t also effected by this phenomenon in some way. I have studied psychology and I did do a journalism course which, admittedly, I dropped out of. I just don’t like how fear based society has become. People are just too quick to assume the absolute worst and I kinda view this bear question as a reflection on that.
no, true crime definitely plays into this, because the question is not asking “what is safer”, but “what feels safer”, and while it’s not inherently wrong for anyone to mistrust random people, especially women in decently large parts of society, this is a feeling question, and like it or not, but Society does consist of the stories we tell ourselves and others, and while we still have a long way to go, you can not argue that women are less safe now than during the 50s - 60s - 70s - 80s, yet the perception of many people is that it has scarcely ever been more dangerous, and that also has a reason.
Are people arguing statistics about it? Like how many women are killed by bears every year compared to men? Lmao, they’re not even close.
I’ve seen one video on the subject that my wife showed me, then I had a conversation with my wife about it.
When you’re looking at statistics, women attacked by bears per year vs women attacked by men per year, it’s not taking into account the fact that 99% of women don’t get into situations where they are near bears. Most women (and men) don’t go hiking in bear populated woods frequently. Like how the overall odds of getting struck by lightning is low, but some people are struck 8 times are survive.
The better statistic for this argument is that a man is more likely going to kill you in an encounter, should it escalate. I didn’t fact check this, but I’ll take this video at it’s word.
Part of the reason many people never see a bear is because they actively stay away from humans. Everything being equal, (the bear is healthy, it’s not near hibernation, and there’s no cubs nearby) you could quite easily do the animal version of hanging out with them. (Animals are fine paralleling each other by something like 50 meters)
Same thing with wolves. They’re so naturally adverse to human contact that handlers at wolf rescue operations just literally walk into the enclosure, drop their food and walk away. For vet stuff they come in with cushioned sticks and just gently pin them to the ground.
Now I don’t suggest trying any of this (bear or wolf) without some training and backup but it illustrates just how much normal animals don’t want anything to do with humans.
It’s also amazing how people can have this argument in one thread and then go to another thread and leave a comment that just says “ACAB”.
You don’t trust cops? Why not? Because of a few bad apples?
Sounds like you get it…
That argument doesn’t hold water. One is an immutable characteristic, and the other is a career choice. A career that filters for certain personalities.
Well first off, being a man is not an immutable characteristic, because transgender people exist.
Second, the difference between the two groups you bring up isn’t relevant in this comparison, because pointing out the differences between them doesn’t negate the similarities. Both are groups with an inordinate amount of power (physical or legal) over any outgroup and are supported by cultural norms that allow them to exercise that power largely without repercussions. Both groups are also protected from consequences by others within the group, regardless if the others agree with their questionable decisions. And most importantly, both groups are human, meaning the individuals vary widely within the group along the moral spectrum. Even if most within the group are good, bad actors will always exist and there’s no way to know which one you’re dealing with at face value.
Even if it’s not a perfect comparison, it’s apt enough to support my point.
Nah, the choice is between a being that will likely leave you alone and one that likely won’t. Most people who aren’t seeking contact want to be left alone. Interestingly enough, most bears want to be left alone too. As people, we need to allow others the distance and boundaries they want. The best way to befriend someone is to make them feel comfortable around you. Space and respect are important.
If a woman prefers the bear, maybe consider treating her like one. Treat her with respect, don’t make sudden movements, give her space, don’t mess with her cubs, and don’t pressure her into going to a local bar with a really neat vibe.
This whole thing is just another way of pitting men and women against each other.
Men having to listen to women and be confronted with reality and the harms their gender and society are actively causing is NOT pitting people against each other. Women don’t want to fight and ostracize men. They want to be safe FROM men.
If you see this discussion and feel defensive, that’s your brain trying to tell you something’s wrong and you should probably analyze why you feel like you are being attacked.
See, this is what I mean. Stupid arguments. We immediately go to pitting gender experiences against each other.
You’re not confronting reality when you compare men to animals. You’re literally projecting your insecurities onto me by assuming I’m defensive over this topic. I’m not defending either man or woman or bear in this argument. I’m saying this whole topic is a stupid hypothetical and all it does is lead people to argue, like you literally did with me. You’re not confronting reality by saying your safe with a bear, because reality is, you’ll never go be with a bear.
If you want to have a real discussion about the very real and serious harms that women have to deal with, I’m happy to discuss that. That’s a topic worth discussing. This isn’t that discussion. This is a bad faith hypothetical designed to frame a conversation against men for the sake of stirring more shit. And honestly this’ll be the last I engage with this thread because its really already consumed too much of my time.
I hope you understand, I’m not trying to fight or belittle your opinion or attack you. If you wanna frame this as me being defensive, that’s your prerogative, but I just found this whole question to be dumb when I first heard about it a few days ago, and this article just once again reinforced how dumb I found it.
That’s funny. I’m finding it brings me closer to the women to understand them better.
The question is designed to be as divisive as possible. It categorizes large swathes of people into just 2 groups - man or bear. The man group contains mansplainers, but it also contains regular people who simply view humanity as naturally altruistic. The bear group contains people with concerns about men overpowering women, but also contains people who earnestly believe that most if not all men will try to do it if given the chance.
The problem is that people either are unable to or unwilling to acknowledge that these categories are not monolithic. And in claiming that all people in the man group are incels, you are inadvertently insulting everyone in that group. Likewise, in claiming that all people in the bear group are misandrists, you are inadvertently dismissing everyone in that group.
It is not productive to make claims about people based only on their answer to the question. In fact, it appears to be entirely the intention of the question to divide even rational people by exploiting the general human inability to see subgroups within larger categories
I thought it was from the woman’s perspective. She doesn’t know if the man is an incel or a regular, well behaved person.
The point is: do you roll the dice on the man, who could be anything, or the bear, who is a bear.
The known potential bad is better than the unknown potential bad. At least a bear won’t rape you before/while killing you.
IMO, the answer given exposes more about the life experiences of the women answerers, and the result seems to be that their experiences have been bad.
My only issue with that mentality is it completely ignores reality. I understand that most women have had a bad experience with a guy here or there. What they don’t seem to understand is that the types of guys that are doing these things are a small percentage of the population.
The guys that are pulling this crap aren’t even gonna get offended by this whole “man or bear” thing in the first place. At the end of the day it just makes the rest of us feel even more dejected and apathetic about it all. Why should I champion for any woman when I’m going to be seen as a predator regardless?
I’m in the bear group because I’m not scared of being in the woods with a bear. I mean that is literally going for a walk/run in the woods alone…
Louis CK has a bit about how women have to take a terrible risk when dating, since men very often can be aggressive to the point of violent. In the 70s and 80s this was just accepted as a thing (and there was still a debate whether wife-rape was a thing). Since then, we’ve been trying to push the notion that romantic relationships should be consensual, not something that women should just have to weather, like it’s an act of nature. And we’re seeing the pushback from the Christian nationalist movement / transnational white power movement, to the point where rolling back women’s suffrage is on the table.
This is that dominance hierarchy thing again. It seems our society likes men with prowess, especially sports chops, though money chops or political chops are also enjoyed. Our school administrators favor schoolyard bullies over their victims, which is only one example out of dozens how we favor men who are more bestial than civil.
So yeah, having to contend with a bear in the woods may not be worse than having to contend with a man in the woods.
Although, this is about the choice between a strange man and a strange bear, and the scenario comes down to hoping the beastie doesn’t get too hungry / horny or otherwise is willing to respect you and your personhood. If not, it’s a problem of escaping, and while the bear is way faster and stronger (we’re assuming one of the larger ursine species) the man is smarter and may have tools. Given a strange man in the woods, we cannot automatically assume he has the manners of a New York family man with a robust office-clerk résumé.
A related question can be applied to a lot of our elected officials. Would the public be served better if we replaced our current official with a bear? There are a lot of them – people who are allegedly exemplary citizens of our society to which our kids can aspire – who behave worse than a bear might in their position.
It could be a good place for introspection. If you are a guy, and ended up stuck in a survival situation with a woman, would she be lucky she encountered you and not a bear? Similarly, if a woman drank to much at a social gathering and was too inebriated to think clearly, or even needed a place to rest, would your presence improve her safety or pose an additional risk? Not being a threat to our fellow humans is a very low bar, but it is a bar that a lot of people fail to clear.
I opine this is not fully their doing. US society really resents its teenagers and young adults, and did so even when I was a kid in the 1970s-1980s, which drove a lot of guys towards the alt-right even before Steve Bannon worked to turn it into a voting bloc. Here in the States we have a longstanding tradition of letting our young men turn into War Boys, join up with Immorten Joe, ever looking for an opportunity to go out in glory all shiny and chrome. ( Witness me! ) I got out by pure luck in the early 1990s, never quite finding my divine wind moment.
The Louis C.K. who pulled out his little Louis and masturbated in front of female coworkers without their consent? That one?
Yes, sadly. That one.
Found it Here under Dating Takes Courage
A woman saying yes to a date with a man is literally insane and ill-advised, and the whole species’ existence counts on them doing it, and I don’t know how they– How do women still go out with guys when you consider the fact that there is no greater threat to women than men? We’re the number-one threat to women. Globally and historically, we’re the number-one cause of injury and mayhem to women. We’re the worst thing that ever happens to them…
How do they still do it? If you’re a guy, try to imagine that you could only date a half-bear, half-lion, And you’re like, “I hope this one’s nice. I hope he doesn’t do what he’s going to do.”
I mean yeah, Louis is a putz and a predator, but he did make a valid point.
Society is made of the stories we tell ourselves.
Our stories have been pretty bad lately and selling fear and power fantasy still works as well as it always did.
I know it feels like bullshit and we all just say that people should just know and act better but they don’t and they won’t. They operate on what they think in their head is right.
I dunno. Maybe we need less stories maybe we need to tell better ones to inspire better. Maybe we do just need to BE better. I don’t see it happening. We love the bad just way to much. Far more interesting.
We really gonna keep this going instead of just being better men? Hub McCan would be disappointed.
I don’t think it’s that they don’t want to empathize so much as that they are unable to do so, largely due to upbringing and a male-centric society.
That men are really bad at trying not make everything about men. What’s yours?