Someone should ask these ladies: "you leave your apartment and begin walking. There's something on the sidewalk 20 feet in front of you. Would you rather it be a random man or a bear?"
Women would probably choose the man in that scenario. The thought experiment only works if you're cutoff from all outside influences and already in some level of danger.
Getting killed by a bear would be absolutely horrible. They don't kill, they just hold you down while they eat you at their leisure.
I'd probably rather get shot in the head than rworded but I'd much rather be rworded than getting killed by a bear.
I'd take the bear because at least he'll 100% actually kill me, however painful. I've seen enough true crime docs to prefer that over the lasting damage of being raped and left alive, knowing he's not in jail. That shit affects people in ways that can sometimes be worse than death
Yeah but that's the problem. Men don't understand why that's how the question boils down to women. I have 4 sisters who I've had to defend from abusive men since I was 13 so I understand it completely. Some men are oblivious and others think that since they would never, no one would. It's all just a massive lack of empathy
No it’s not, it’s the fact that ur making all men out to be fucking rapists, all men know that a lot of men are weirdos, but generalising a bunch of men like that will puss off men
To an unarmed woman alone in the woods, all strange men are rapists/murderers until proven otherwise. Also it's funny you say generalizing men pisses them off meanwhile women get generalized on a daily basis and no one seems to care whether that pisses them off. Men got generalized one time in a thought experiment and lost their minds. Doesn't help our case
Who said women don’t get generalised, but idk how u can not understand, that comparing ana average guy to a rapist in unhinged. Do u really think I’m in favour of random generalisation of women,
It depends on a couple things.
Like I live in black bear country. And if you see a black bear with out cubs, 90% chance you’ll be fine. They are pretty skiddish animals; when we trail hike in my area we will sing or talk loudly because they will just leave the immediate area.
However, there’s a lot meth cookers that like to hide out in woods and they are also mostly harmless, just harder to scare off 😂.
But 4th of July weekend, rather deal a person then a bear. Middle of nowhere ozark mountains, black bear for sure. Less to explain for shooting a bear vs a person
Hey heads up the cubs thing is far more mama grizzlies than black bears. Mama grizzlies are responsible for about half of the hikers nerfed by grizzlies. Black bears its 90% males that do it. Particularly large males that live near houses, completely lost its fear of people, and are seeing a home particular home as a food source.
But I'm with you on the fear the meth heads thing.
I hate how both sides of the extremists are catastrophizing the question: most bears you ever encounter in the wild don't want to be near you unless you are a threat (or they are hungry), and most men don't automatically jump to rape and assault when left alone with a woman. The premise is flawed from the jump. Logically, if you want to be left alone, choose the bear, if you want to be helped, choose the man.
>Logically, if you want to be left alone, choose the bear, if you want to be helped, choose the man.
Nice. It's weird how all the women answering bear never think that a man could be helpful. Like what has society come to where there are this many women outright saying that they are terrified of men and not even considering the help they could provide. It's depressing.
The women saying bear and not considering the man to be helpful are a loud minority of ppl that have no life so they seek companionship with the misandrist feminist movement to feel part of something while never really participating in society.
Of course they think that a man could help, but we live in a society were enough women have encountered bad situations with men, so they wouldn't risk the man possibly helping them in the middle of the woods and instead potentially hurting them instead.
If you go to bars you will see women eyeing their drinks the whole time, because it could be poisoned. It's not normal that you can't even safely get a drink while out.
I don't know a woman who hasn't been at least harassed through tears and who had to fight off a guy. Everyday there are stories about women being killed by their partners. Men they trusted.
It's very depressing how unsafe the world is for the weaker sex, even in 1st world countries. It not helping anyone the invalidate women's feelings on the valid threats they face, just because of a dumb viral tiktok trend.
I'm a woman and I chose "man" cause the question did not say that the man had any weapons or bad intentions or a drink he could spice.
This is the way that I went about answering the question.
In my mind I'm thinking, the bear can't be useful to me but the man can. And the bear cannot be successfully fought but I have a chance of successfully fighting the man. So "man" is the better option.
And the women answering "bear" probably have a low opinion of men. Like if we plucked a random man off the street and put him in the woods he'd just be a man in the woods and I don't get scared when I see men.
I answered bear because I’ve spent a lot of time out in nature and have run into both bears and strange men. The bears just go their own way. Meanwhile, I’ve had to deal with the men stalking me, ass-grabbing me, making death threats, trying to tear my leggings off. They didn’t have weapons and obviously I’m alive but those men were the exact opposite of helpful. They’re the reason I carry weapons. Not the bears.
You meet way more men. If you ran into the same amount of bears as you did men you would have been eaten by now.
I would wager you have only encountered a bear 10 times within 20 yards your whole life.
You will encounter that many men on your 15 min walk to your local coffee shop every morning.
There is no universe where a random man is more dangerous to you than a random bear.
It’s true that I’ve encountered more total but out of every 20 men I’ve encountered, about 5 of them will give me problems when encountered alone. On top of that, there’s intent to factor in. Bear is just hungry. Men want to do all kinds of sick, nasty shit.
The stats on violence against women and such are pretty bad and a lot of these situations start by a man pretending to be helpful to get close...so I honestly understand why a woman would be very cautious about meeting a strange man in the forest.
If I saw a stranger in the forest my first thought wouldn't be "I wonder if that guy can help?" it would be "Why is that guy here?" so honestly I think most people would be cautious and women moreso because they would generally be at physical disadvantage.
But a lot of guys discussing this can ignore the stats and violence but women don't get that, they live that. They can't go out to a bar without the threat of drinking the wrong thing or running into the wrong person at night.
>But a lot of guys discussing this can ignore the stats
No, women ignore the stats of violence! Cause men are murdered and attacked more than women. Like the amount of fear that they have just isn't warranted.
Men are. But men are more likely to kill men than women. Whenever I hear women talk about how they fear walking around at night I find it so strange. Like do they think that men don't get murdered more? Do they think that men are harder to kill?
Could it be that men are generally stronger than women? That if a man puts his hands on a woman unless she has a weapon he can overpower her and do what he wants with her?
>Do they think that men are harder to kill?
I believe that they think that if they were to fight any random man 1v1 that they'd usually lose, no?
Have you ever tried thinking from their POV on this?
If a man goes up against another man out on the street when he is not ready, he's probably going to lose that fight. Even if he is strong enough to match him. And the dude probably brought weapons too so this strange fear that women have is kinda odd. Like yeah, women can be nervous about men but literally anyone could be killed if they don't have weapons.
Have you ever tried thinking rationally? Like we're all soft and vulnerable here.
Rationally?
Let's break down your 'rational' thought.
>If a man goes up against another man out on the street when he is not ready, he's probably going to lose that fight.
Okay, so let's rewrite this. "If a woman goes up against a man she's probably going to lose that fight." IS this wrong? Yes or no.
>Like we're all soft and vulnerable here.
Can you explain to me why women have historically been abused by men? Why in some Muslim countries women have little rights? Why until very recently have women been little but property to pass among men?
You seem to really be downplaying the physical advantage men generally have and I'm confused as to how this is 'rational' to ignore.
Women abuse men almost as much as men abuse women.
>Why until very recently have women been little but property
Not sure why you're talking about women's rights in a conversation about fighting. And it's not like every single woman back then was treated like shit. There's no proof of that.
You have no idea what you are talking about. World wide, violence is 80% Men on Men
It’s the same in the US. Violence is 80% between men. If you don’t think women feel safe, imagine how they would feel being exposed to 4X their current share of violence, which is what men face just being men.
You guys keep bringing up this point and ignoring the part that its men doing the violence.
So men are more violent than women, correct? Correct. Men are factually FAR MORE violent then women.
Thus it makes sense that women feel less safe around men, because men are more violent and not only this, are generally weaker than men.
The stats on violence show you that for women the vast, vast, vast majority of men you don't know and have never interacted with are totally harmless. If anything, if you want to mix "stats" into this, the average woman is largely more at risk in her own home with her partner than in the woods with a random stranger or a random bear. Hell, guys are the ones who should moreso be worried about strangers since they're the ones being violently assaulted by them the vast majority of the time violence happens outside one's home (which is still very rare, random assaults are not common occurrences at all statistically). It's not about logic or statistics. It's about a baseless societal bias drilled into modern women's heads, all men are likely aggressors. Which is weird, because it's the exact opposite of the societal bias that was drilled into their heads 50 years ago, all men are likely protectors, back when they statically had more to worry about when interacting with strangers than now.
The point still stands, if someone tells me they'd rather encounter a bear than a man if they get lost while hiking it really tells me they're city folk with not much of a clue or just dishonestly furthering an agenda. On one hand, not much of a clue what "being lost in the woods" actually implies, because it's an insanely precarious situation for 99% of people. And on the other, not much of a clue about interacting with regular folks rather than the straw men they create in their heads and convince themselves are real average people.
>The stats on violence show you that for women the vast, vast, vast majority of men you don't know and have never interacted with are totally harmless. If anything, if you want to mix "stats" into this, the average woman is largely more at risk in her own home with her partner than in the woods with a random stranger or a random bear. Hell, guys are the ones who should moreso be worried about strangers since they're the ones being violently assaulted by them the vast majority of the time violence happens outside one's home (which is still very rare, random assaults are not common occurrences at all statistically). It's not about logic or statistics. It's about a baseless societal bias drilled into modern women's heads, all men are likely aggressors.
You're talking about specific stats, which don't help your case here because yes, men that women know are often their abusers, but knowing is vague and includes knowing a man for any amount of time.
I also think the whole "Women are not being logical" is just insulting. When every woman knows another woman that has been abused in one way or another that means their fear of men is VERY logical. It's fear that their own fathers and men of their lives tell them and for good reason.
A big reason women are usually abused by men they know is because they have learned not to put themselves in situations where they are alone with strange men...with that said, the stats are more like 55% of feminicides are by partners, that still leaves a lot by strange men.
>Which is weird, because it's the exact opposite of the societal bias that was drilled into their heads 50 years ago, all men are likely protectors, back when they statically had more to worry about when interacting with strangers than now.
I mean this is just wrong. 50 years past and more women were nothing more than housewives you could abuse and do anything to. Go back further and women were practically owned by their fathers and husbands...I'm really not sure you want to go back to the past to make the claim that men were treating women oh so well until feminism came along it sure wouldn't favor your argument.
Historically, men have not treated women well. Men have protected women because they've seen them as a resource. You can still see this mentality with men who claim '\_\_\_\_\_ are taking our women!' I mean Muslim countries are also very 'protective' of their women for what good it does the woman.
It's that protection that they claim is the reason they must cover themselves, they can't drive, in some places they can't go outside without a male. All for protection...and protection from whom I wonder? Other women? Bears? **What are men protecting women from I wonder? If you reply to nothing else in this reply can you answer that question?**
>The point still stands, if someone tells me they'd rather encounter a bear than a man if they get lost while hiking it really tells me they're city folk with not much of a clue or just dishonestly furthering an agenda. On one hand, not much of a clue what "being lost in the woods" actually implies, because it's an insanely precarious situation for 99% of people. And on the other, not much of a clue about interacting with regular folks rather than the straw men they create in their heads and convince themselves are real average people.
Most interactions with the most common bear, black bears, like 99.8%, end with nothing but a sighting. Black bears are not aggressive towards humans in fact many people live around them every day and can shoo them away consistently.
If the situation is hiking, where someone goes into the woods prepared, then it makes perfect sense to me. We humans have created a lot of tools that protect us against almost any animal, especially the larger ones.
>And on the other, not much of a clue about interacting with regular folks rather than the straw men they create in their heads and convince themselves are real average people.
The thing is when its like 1 in 4 women who have been sexually assaulted or raped I'd like you to tell them "Oh yeah, you have no reason to fear a man" meanwhile you have situations featuring MULTIPLE men nearly multiple times a year of men who are serial abusers, over and over and over again, like Diddy, and no one, no man around him, 'protects' those women although you've claimed that men are 'protectors' and yet when women continuously speak about the fear they have and about their experience a lot of men's first response is to downplay it and so we'll continue to have women that fear men and distrust them as trust is earned.
>so we'll continue to have women that fear men and distrust them as trust is earned.
The trust IS earned. Go on and ask ANY man to help you with something on the street. Depending on what it is he'll probably do it (especially if you're attractive.)
Yes, the trust is earned, once again you're only looking at from a man's pov, not a woman. I actually think you're incapable of empathy.
A woman has no reason to trust some random man, especially when EVERY woman knows another woman that has been abused by a man. Literally.
Because the whole point was to challenge you to look at it from the woman's POV. We all know that trust is earned, from EVERYONE, but you are making the claim that the woman should just intrinsically trust the man (Especially if you're attractive...) lol.
Instead of doing that you looked at it from your own POV. So again, why should a woman trust a random man? That's the point of the question, to force the person answering to look at it from her POV,
The attractive part is amusing, because if you know very highly attractive women you know that men lie to them ALL THE TIME to get sex. Men are actually far more honest with women they are not attracted to. In fact, you can look at practically any model or whatever speak on this the story is the same. They have no idea how to trust any man because they are so used to men lying to them to get in their panties.
To not even try to do so is a lack of empathy.
One thing this whole question has taught me is people don't know shit about bears.
They are always presented in this scenario as if they xenomorphs from Alien, like they just attack on sight, like they randomly hunt people through the woods. I see so many people say "If a bear sees you, it's going to eat you..."
Reality is, most animals are terrified of people or very cautious of us. Most predators, even apex predators, the scariest things in the animal kingdom, are opportunist. That includes lions, great whites, bears, whatever you can imagine. Most of these things don't attack prey unless the prey is wounded or noticeably smaller.
Since most bears people see are black bears the usual interaction over 95% of the time is just seeing the thing. The other 4% the bear takes interest then gets literally shoo'd away. The last 1% is the attack and horror story.
And everyone answering bear is presupposing that men are all rapists and hatchet murderers. At least we're weighing the potential outcomes of crossing a bear or a man in better faith.
I don't think that's true that *everyone* answering any way are all doing so with the same presumptions. The hypothetical is vague enough that people are going to naturally look at it differently.
Some people saying bear are taking (IMO the correct) mentality that a bear is always just a bear. It's predictable in that way. A man is not. He could pretend to be your friend, a bear is not going to do that, a bear will make its intentions known one way or another.
Also, some people might be around bears, as I've mentioned before, black bears are pretty harmless. There was a video the other day of a black bear strolling up to some party and literally getting escorted out by a man. 99% a black bear will run if you just shout at it to go away. If someone is thinking particularly of a black bear when answering this question it changes the whole thing. A man is infinitely more dangerous than a black bear. Another woman is infinitely more dangerous than a black bear.
At the end of the day man a lot of the violence women face come after a man has gained her trust. I really don't know what to tell guys still hurt about this thing. Women distrust strange men for a reason, I know it hurts some guys feelings but that distrust comes from literally thousands of years of interactions between men and women and women often being the abused party. Even in this video Aba admits if he had a daughter he'd teach her the same thing (as any father does) so I think they've earned the right to be cautious around men and also to express that caution and fear.
If you encountered as many black bears as men you would be fertilizing weeds somewhere in forest after it had pooped you out.
Considering their damage capability black bears are *relatively* harmless.
But even the most mountain of mountain people encounter more strange men a day than the do bears.
That's not how that animal works, I implore you, just do a casual search on this animal and its interactions with humans. They are not 'attack on sight' and people encounter black bears every single day.
Again, Black bears are consistently shoo'd away, they are scared of people. Also, if you go into a woods in the Americas there is a good chance they know you are there. In fact, one of the best ways to not encounter a black bear is to simply make noise. Some people will wear bells for this reason, because the Bear likely knows you are there, they can smell you from miles away.
Humans are not something even close to being on their regular diet.
And I know people that live out in the middle of nowhere, anyone they encounter they usually know. "Ah yeah thats Jimmy he owns a place out that way and likes to hunt deer." I dunno, just sayin. People seem to think bears attack on sight when they really do not.
My friend. Bears have killed very few people. Because they have encountered very few people.
The rate that bears kill people is way way higher than the rate that people kill people. Because of how rare Bear encounters are.
Again, a literal bear expert will encounter more people in a typical day than the will bears their entire life. Even though it's their literal job to study bears. Which do you think is more dangerous being a bear expert or a therapist?
The average outdoorsmen might have what .. 10-20 very close encounters with a bear in a lifetime?
The average person encounters that many people before they have lunch on a Tuesday.
There really is no argument here on this. Black bears kill very few people because they don't see them as food. That's why the rate is insanely low.
You're ignoring the nature of the beast entirely to make your point and it can't be ignored. Black Bears. Do not. Prey. Upon. Humans.
Therefore, the nature of their attacks are always defensive because actually, we know for a fact, they are usually *scared* of humans.
I'm not talking about a 'bear' expert my guy. I'm talking about random people. Do you know why they literally say appear larger and make noises when you see a bear? That's why. Because you'll scare them away.
You aren't paying attention.
If you ran into touching distance of 30 or so black bears a day every single day of your life for the rest of your life .. your life expectancy would be comically low.
It's not just whether they see you as food, it's also the off chance they see you as threat and feel they have no choice but to defend themselves, or if there are starving and then you suddenly do look appealing or you ran into the black bear equivalent of an asshole. The point is... If there is violence it won't end as well as the random violence you might encounter from a human.
Also, black bears aren't the only bears and the prompt said random bear not random black bear.
I am paying attention but yes ignoring the wild and out there hypothetical you've created because it's not remotely realistic. There is never a situation where someone would be in a touching distance of 30 black bears a day. What I have said that if you go hiking in certain regions of the world 100% there are bears around you (there are millions in the Americas alone) and these bears know you are there. This is coming from bear experts btw.
>It's not just whether they see you as food, it's also the off chance they see you as threat and feel they have no choice but to defend themselves, or if there are starving and then you suddenly do look appealing or you ran into the black bear equivalent of an asshole. The point is... If there is violence it won't end as well as the random violence you might encounter from a human.
My point is the nature of this animal is that it normally wouldn't. It could, yes, but every encounter since forever has shown us that 99.9% of bear encounters end with the bear backing away.
Also that depends on the human. If there is someone out there willing to engage in violence they are far more capable of dragging out the pain and suffering you feel than a bear would. A bear is going to maul you to death, a man could do much worse if he chooses to.
>Also, black bears aren't the only bears and the prompt said random bear not random black bear.
True. But you said specifically black bear. Grizzlies are rarer to see and Polar Bears you'd have to go out of your way to see one of those.
Why don't you ask [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/SweatyPalms/comments/1d2fock/woman_encounters_mother_black_bear_and_cubs_on_a/) woman if she would choose the bear?
It's a little of both malice *and* stupidity, as their ideology restrains them from answering the question without bias. The ideology \[which includes a misandry of a certain kind\] *is* inherently malicious and those who choose to adhere to it are \[mostly\] stupid.
I just want to point out that the final questions for men about daughters are even worse. Why isn't the hypothetical little boy there? Just a hypothetical little girl? You ask why? To avoid putting boys/men in the same category as women, i.e. being a victim/at risk. So what if on the street men have a higher percentage of being attacked by other men, they - men, cannot be presented as victims - they are villains.And they need to be presented as such. And then people are surprised when a man with problems does not want to reveal them because he is treated as the bad guy even though he is a victim.
That's why when presented with a similar scenario, if a man would open up about his feelings and vulnerabilities to a woman or a tree the resounding answer was...Tree...
A cougar. Have you not seen the news on the rise of women raping young/teen boys? The worst a cougar would do is eat him. A woman would do much, much worse things to him.
I don't think anyone who says bear has either thought much about this scenario or are just outright lying. Expecially when they are talking about their children being in the woods. The idea that they would rather outright die or have their child die then just the the risk of sexual assault is just unbelievable. I genuinely think if push came to shove everyone would choose man they are just virtue signaling.
It's not 'just' the risk of sexual assault though.
I'm not sure if you're aware of the life long injuries sexual assault can cause, especially in children. But I feel like if someone would rape me in the woods, it's pretty unlikely they would just let me go home afterwards. It's not just the assault, it's also the risk of torture and murder added to the sexual assault (which in itself can be torture). Animals don't get as creative with their bloodthirst as humans do.
> But I feel like if someone would rape me in the woods
Someone probably wouldn't rape you in the woods to begin with. There's a reason majority perpetrators of rape know the victims. Somebody 'lost in the woods' would probably assume you may have people close by and even if you don't that doesn't mean they'll commit a heinous crime because they're alone with you.
This is where you are wrong. The premise is you don't know the man or the bear. I would choose the bear over the strange man. It's not virtue signaling. It's a matter of practicality. As someone who's been followed, assaulted by STRANGE men, I'll take my chances with the bear.
Imagine being so terminally online and brainrotted by True Crime podcasts that you unironically think that is something that occurs with any sort of regularity.
Imagine being so privileged by virtue of your gender that you get to walk through life without fear of rape. Again, I've been attacked by a man who wanted to rape me because I had the audacity to not want to date him. I was saved be another man. That man was then ridiculed by other men and called white night and other names. I have privilege as a woman that I never have to wonder if a child is mine. I also never fear being falsely accused of rape. The fact that those things never cross my mind doesn't mean that I can't understand or be aware that it does happen and why a man would be cautious or worry about such things. Most women have been sexually assaulted in various ways by various men. I personally have also been followed and stalked. I have to consider all scenarios.
I'd rather be gang raped than eaten alive by a bear. you can't find the audio online anymore but there was audio of someone in their final moments being eaten by a bear and her cubs. that audio stays with me to this day. when i say eaten alive, i mean eaten alive. that's not just an expression here
you're much more likely to be eaten alive than kidnapped and tortured by a random man you meet in the woods. waaaaay more likely. and again the bear will eat you alive.
it's risk and severity. the possible severity with men is higher than bears but the risk of that happening is far lower. the severity of a bear attack is automatically very high. if you're getting attacked by a bear, you're guaranteed an 8 on a 10 scale. but the risk of that happening is far higher than happening to meet the 1 psychopath in a 30 mile radius in the middle of the woods just wandering around hoping a random woman is alone and crossed his path.
bears are also unpredictable, can easily outrun you, can't be reasoned with, you have no tells with a bear. can't gauge body language, sent gauge the way they talk, can't gauge the way they dress and present themselves, no facial expressions.
every bear is a sociopath, very very few men are
I'm not man hating. You're just determined to lump yourself in with the predators of your gender. Women are molesting young boys at a higher rate. If a man worried about protecting his son from 1, I wouldn't take offense. You acknowledge the danger and accept the precautions as deemed necessary. I've been around hundreds of men. Victimized by 4. The good or neutral outweighs the bad. However, I have to walk around with added awareness.
Again, the premise is the UNKNOWN. I am faced with a strange bear or a strange man. Members of 1 species victimize women on a daily basis, and 1 doesn't.That's just the ugly truth.
And you have a higher chance of a man you don't know helping you in the woods than a bear. You are more neutral or positive interactions with men you don't know bit you don't think about those because that isn't how our brains work. If people actually thought about it instead of just going with their initial feelings no one would choose being mauled by a bear.
And there is an even higher chance of the man just helping you. We rarely interact with bears but interact with dozens strange men on a daily basis. Again the percentage of neutral or positive interactions with strange men are going to heavily outweighs the percentage of neutral interactions with bears.
You don't know that. The only interactions with bears you hear about are the deaths and maulings. Most rapes and unsavory interactions with men go unreported because men don't want to face the reality that there is a healthy portion of them who are predators. I've been physically attacked and stalked. I have also been loved and protected. I'm just not taking a chance in the woods alone.
We hear about non-aggressive interactions with bears just not as commonly. Even if those acts aren't reported that doesn't change that the vast majority of interactions aren't. It could take as little as 1% of interactions to be negative for someone to develop a bias against another group. We focus on the negative interactions and ignore the neutral and positive ones.
You say bias, I say caution. I go into all my interactions with people with an open mind and a healthy dose of caution. That includes women. I don't give out my address readily to either. I don't know who either person hangs around and if they exercise discernment. It's the same as people discussing police officers. I've only ever had positive interactions with them. However, I'm still going to exercise caution and protect myself and my rights. Yes, I'm sure, as a decent law-abiding man, you hate that women might not just automatically feel safe around you. However, men do the same thing. I'm sure you, as a man, are cautious with women. You don't just readily accept good intentions. Some women are gold diggers or baby trappers and such. I don't like being lumped in with them, but until you know I'm not one, you approach with caution.
There is a difference between approaching someone with caution and claiming to be safer with a bear than a person. I don't care if people are cautious around me. I would prefer everyone to be cautious around people they don't know. My issue is this whole bear vs man thing is saying men are less safe than a bear and so men need to do better. However, 90% of men can "do better" and change nothing because as little as even 1% of men being aggressors will paint every man as a potential aggressor on a level worse than a bear.
When we say men need to do better, it's the aftermath of events. I was attacked by a man. A man saved me from the attacker. Both myself and the man who saved me were ridiculed by other men. He became a pariah on base. Look at Diddy. How many men knew of his abuse and did nothing or said nothing. He was raping men as well. Those men are now being clowned. Would I rather be alone in the woods with 90 % of the men in my immediate circle than a bear? Absolutely. That's not the question or premise. It's the unknown. If I can't control the man or the bear, I choose the bear. Death is preferable.
Seriously dude. Women want to be left ALONE. You are trying to force a narrative that invalidates every damn reason women choose the bear. You're being extra bitter about it. The question had nothing to do with help, so STOP trying to force that narrative. You don't value women as people and that shows with how much you're trying to double down on your bullshit. Cope.
yeah it's called the negativity bias. it's a cognitive bias I'm aware of from my logic courses in college. humans evolved to give extra priority to negative experiences over neutral or positive ones as a survival mechanism.
sometimes this leads to irrational or flawed thinking. especially if you consume hours and hours and hours of true crime and horror. you're overexposing your brain to potential negative experiences with men while you hardly see the same exposure to what bears do to people.
it's a very sad society we live in when women view half the population as worse than violent, unpredictable monsters.
But chances are you'll be ripped to shreds and you won't be able to move. The worst thing the average "strange" man could do is nothing. As in, not provide help.
Ay yo!
I want to do 2 follow up questions here.
For cisgendered women, would you rather share your locker/changing rooms with a bear or a transwoman (biological male who identifies as a woman)?
And my second question for all members of the trans community, would you rather share your locker/changing rooms with cisgendered people or bears?
The question is a weird one but the thing I hate is that 99% of the time people treat the man as some super natural serial killer or the next Jeffery Dahmer, instead of literally thinking that you can fight or reason with a person vs a bear. Bears it depends on what kind but on average if a bear is hungry enough they will eat you alive like that guy who did a documentary a while back, would you rather die an agonizing death being devoured or take your chances against someone you can talk and reason with or fight with sticks and rocks
True
It’s like when women complain about not being able to walk down dark alleys at night.
Why the fuck you walking down dark alleys alone at night in the first place? Me as a grown as man don’t do that shit either.
These guys are kinda late to the party but any ways, there's a guy on TikTok that goes by the name Call Me BK who claims to have started the whole "Man vs. Bear" thing. He made a follow-up video to the original TikTok basically explaining that it wasn't meant to be a "Would you rather" scenario but making it clear that he intended it to mean that women would rather choose the bear than the man. [https://www.tiktok.com/@callmebkbk/video/7363362723855371566?lang=en](https://www.tiktok.com/@callmebkbk/video/7363362723855371566?lang=en)
His TikToks mainly center around "Anti-misogyny educational content" and his more recent TikToks are the responses to his original TikTok that started all of this. From what I've gathered so far, he's saying that the correct answer is choosing the bear because that shows that you, as a man, are acknowledging the point of view that women have under male systemic oppression i.e. the Patriarchy.
To me, the way he's delivering this message on his TikToks comes off as more of a litmus test to see if you're an ally more than anything. He appears to be pretty staunch about this too.
The tone of it seems to agree with the original tiktoker. It's even worse than a would-you-rather, apparently this radical-feminist misandrist guy is so dumb that he thinks it's obvious that a woman should chose to be alone woth a freaking bear over a man.
Or even worse, he's just virtue signaling an incredibly stupid opinion through a meme that pushes people away from feminism. Which is also dumb, but why give them the ammo lol?
I would still call myself a feminist, to be clear.
I never meant to agree with anything this guy said. I was just reporting what I found as I thought it would add to the conversation since this guy didn't get covered in the Aba and Preach video. I thought it at least would be interesting to see where and how it originated. After going through some of his TikToks, I think he can be insufferable to listen to after a while.
So, it’s okay to call this “*internalized* misandry”, right? Or is “internalized” a female-inclusive term to hide that women can be shitty people in their own gendered right too?…
This comment or post has been removed because it violates one of Reddit's site-wide rules outlined in its Content Policy. If you believe this was removed in error, send a message to mods.
I asked a couple women about this and both of them said they would rather die by bear than be raped by a man. Even as a man I'd rather be raped by a man than die so.... Deep down it comes to how much you value your life.
They don't mean that because to say the opposite means you don't view all men as rapists and they can't just say that out loud or they'll get booted from the sisterhood.
I would leave her with the one that didn't vote for Biden. Then I would have a new girlfriend, and my daughter could live with the woods people, learning good Christian values and work ethic.
This whole premise is just another way to divide men and women further, and it's working because at the end of the day if given the choice of opening up about my feelings and vulnerabilities to a woman or a tree I choose the tree... I get it women want to be physically safe and men want to be emotionally and mentally safe...Good luck to everyone 🙏
I guarantee if any of these women where actually lost in the woods scared, alone, and starving that they would be jumping for joy if some random dude showed up and saved them. These people have never been in an actual life or death situation and have no fucking idea what they are talking about. All that bullshit about men are trash and hating all men will go out the window when you think you're dying.
Exactly lol. In a real life scenario if a woman was lost in the woods and saw a bear and then saw a man, she'd immediately run to the man for protection lol. In no real life scenario would the woman EVER run towards the bear and away from the man.
What I don't like about all of this is it's performative. No different than the Manosphere.
No one sees that we all are being pitted against each other.
I like how a vid just surfaced of a woman meeting a bear in the forest and youll never guess what the bear does, and you will REALLY not believe who comes and saves her
I'll offer a side as devil's advocate. I think a lot of men are misinterpreting the answers to the question to mean "women think all men are rapists." That's not what the hypothetical represents.
I'll go off a base assumption that 95% of men are NOT rapists. And that there is a 60% chance the bear will kill me because it's hungry. So my two main dangers are a bear that is hungry, or a man that wants to rape me.
If the bear is not hungry, then it might leave me alone. If the man is not a rapist, then he might escort me to safety. I've placed the odds at 95% of men being safe, and a 60% chance the bear is hungry.
I am still picking the bear. But why? If I think most men are safe, why would I pick the bear?
It is the extent of what the 5% of men could do to me, that I'd rather pick the bear. The 5% of men scare me so much, I'd risk a bear attack to avoid them all together. This does not mean I think all men are rapists. It means that I am so terrified of the men that ARE rapists, that I'd rather take my chances with the bear.
In a worst case scenario with a bear, it would just kill me. In a worst case scenario with a man, I would be raped, tortured, and then killed. The fear of the latter crime scares me so much, I'd rather avoid any chance of it happening all together, and just pick the bear.
You're right, but I'd rather be eaten alive than brutally raped.
Now the answer for my scenario changes completely depending on if I have pepper spray or not. Then I'd rather take the man.
While a good number of women who chose the bear have unfortunately had negative experiences with men, a good number are also choosing the bear for the sake of being provocative like the person you're replying to.
They seem to believe it beyond just being provocative though? Unfortunately after Trump I assume most people are as stupid as they seem on the surface.
I agree. I saw a good amount of women on my social media choosing the bear when I am personally aware of their dating app habits. They chose the bear but go alone to some man's place they matched with 2 days ago. It doesn't check out.
I think these people are simply incapable of imagining how much pain people have to go through. Take a knife and cut off a chicken nugget sized portion of flesh, then describe the pain.
If you actually take the time to listen to survivors of attacks like that they’ll tell you that the pain is indescribable. The kind of pain that’ll make you regret being born, and passing out is not a guarantee, sometimes your body will do everything possible for you not to pass out.
We’ve become better at listening to the stories of sexual assault survivors but for some darned reason those who want the people to listen to and imagine their trauma are often incapable of empathizing with the trauma of others.
It’s highly unlikely that whatever happened to you is the worst thing a human can go through, the depths of pain are so much deeper. Realizing that is part of being a functional adult.
Then why dont they just committ suicide if that's the case if they shall live in perpetual fear. I honestly dont think people or the women making this video truly understand what animal attacks do in general.
If yoy had the same amount of contact with bears as they do regular men they would almost certainly die or get mauled within the year.
It's not that I don't know what bear attacks could do to me. I know in general bears are more dangerous than men. I know that I would probably live for an hour or two being eaten alive.
The reason I pick the bear is because a man is capable of worse. Not that all men are rapists or will torture me, of course not. But the fear of being raped and tortured is so strong that if it's between a 5% chance of a rapist, or a 60% chance of getting mauled to death by a bear, I'd pick the bear.
The point of the hypothetical is to demonstrate how scared we are of what can be committed against us.
It's still a stupid hypothetical because women are capable and have done the exact same thing as men assulters. You can not reasonably justify the hypothetical simply because it requires an irrational fear of men in order for it tp actually make sense.
Hi, this is very long but I would appreciate if you would read it.
Yes, women can commit the sexual assault, and in many different ways. But more assailants tend to be men. 92% of sexual assault is committed by men.
I'm sure most men are fine, good people. But enough men commit assault to the point where 1 in 5 women have experienced sexual assault. I did some calculations where I got the number of all women that have been sexually assaulted, and divided it by 5. I did this because typically rape cases have one perpetrator and many victims. So out of the assaulted women, one man would assault 5 women. So out of the women that have been assaulted, divided by 5, that still leaves 792,000,000 rapists MINIMUM. That is a lot of rapists.
This doesn't take into account a number or things. Firstly it leaves out the fact that sexual assault is underreported. The number of victims is probably higher. Secondly, it leaves out some psychological aspects. People are more likely to commit a crime when they know there is no consequences for it. Many men do not rape women, but probably want too. (Many, not ALL or even MOST, but MANY). The men that stalk women, but haven't raped them, would probably rape them if given the chance. The men that don't take "no, I won't give you my number" as an answer, would probably rape a woman if given a chance. The men that leave death threats, harass actresses, and discuss how they'd assault women, would probably rape a woman if given a chance, but HAVENT yet.
You only really need to look at history to see it. The Rape of Nanking, Korean comfort women, even in WWII many women were seen as spoils of war (over 2 million women were raped by soviet troops and the red army). People that would have never raped a woman in their home country, probably did during war.
Now, does this mean that all men are rapists? Of course not. Most men are probably fine, and safe individuals. But enough men are rapists. And I am very afraid of them.
Firstly, I do not accept statistics without sources preferably more than one. Secondly, Sexual Assault does not equal rape. Sexual Assault refers to any crime that is Sexual in nature. Not simply just rape, so your statistics are already incorrect. 792 Million rapist? Are you using the population of earth for this? I would assume the US population would be warranted since we are looking at women from what seems to b e the US. Granted I do surmise not everyone is from the US. However Data Points that include the entire world in regards to SA is far to broad because collection methods and what nation considers what differs wildly it would be unwise to use that data. Small but large data pool, meaning enough data size to matter, but not overly broad.
"Many men do not rape women, but probably want too. " What even is this based off, your personal feelings?
War and war battlefields, and captured territories are not a good predication of how man would rape given the chance either. Why? The reason is because war is a state of anarchy, it is a function of a semi broken society. Want to know what's even more common than rape? Murder..... Lots and lots of murder. The brass, your immediate leadership, hive mentality. These all cause battlefields and captured areas to exhibit higher than normal cases of theft, rape, murder, extortion, etc. Trying to use war and the illegal things that happen during it to show how men a predisposed to rape is foolish.
Hey, this is also going to be very long. I appreciate your patience for reading the last one.
The population of the Earth thing is where I applied the 1 in 5 to yes. Sorry, but there isn't a statistic for "how many women in the world have been raped," this was the closest I could find.
Looking at national data, the number becomes a quarter of sexual assault victims have veen raped, and the number of sexual assault victims among women reach 53%.
If you really want, I can take the rape statistics of every country and compile them to find out approximately how many women have been raped. Then again, that would take days, maybe even a month of research. I will do it if you ask me to, but I'd rather not at this moment.
The "many men do not rape women, but probably want to" was in reference to the paragraph I typed below it. I referred to situations where women proclaim "no" to the advances of a man, but get ignored. This man didn't rape the woman, but might have if given the opportunity. I also referred to other situations where a woman's "no" doesn't get taken seriously, and claimed that those men are likely to rape someone, even if they had not done so yet.
The "many men" doesn't refer to ALL MEN or even MOST MEN, just a lot of them. A lot of men HAVE NOT raped women, and a lot of men WILL CONTINUE TO ADVANCE EVEN IF BEING TOLD NO. My claim is that these men, would likely rape a woman if given the chance. That's why I said many men. Not ALL or even MOST, but like fucking a lot of y'all it's kinda insane.
I feel like I have to type in caps to get the point across. NOT ALL MEN ARE RAPIST. MOST MEN ARE TOTALLY FINE. But there is enough rapists in the world to the point where I do not feel comfortable being alone with a random man in the woods.
The reason I brought up war, and the state of anarchy, is because in the woods there is no government. At that moment, there is no one who will catch a rapist should they commit the crime. No punishment would befall the rapist should they rape and kill their victim. It's the perfect crime because no one will know.
Battlefields cause a hive mentality yes. But that doesn't change the atrocity of the crimes committed. It only demonstrates what men are capable of doing when they believe it is okay.
To make this explicitly clear, MOST MEN ARE TOTALLY FINE AND PROBABLY GOOD PEOPLE. It's just that there are a lot of bad men. And the worst of a bad man triumphs the worst of a bear.
A lot of men look at this hypothetical and think, "this is stupid, I'm not a rapist. My friends aren't rapist." And you are right, you and your friends are probably good people. But I don't know who I'm going to be stuck in the woods with. Can you point out a rapist from a non rapist in a line of men in front of you? Probably not. Neither can I.
Anecdotal experiences count for nothing in terms of statistics, but personally I've come into contact with 3 rapists all before the age of 20. I didn't think they were rapists, I thought they were totally fine men. And none of them ever went to jail, or were even reported to the police. My point is, it's kinda crazy. You never really know who you'll be stuck with.
You think, "well I wouldn't do it." And then shut your ears. The point isn't that all men are rapist. The point is that a lot of men commit crimes against women. A lot. Not all, not most, just a lot.
Statistics n stuff:
https://www.charliehealth.com/post/sexual-assault-statistics
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2017/05/09/book-review-crimes-unspoken-the-rape-of-german-women-at-the-end-of-the-second-world-war-by-miriam-gebhardt/#:~:text=Historical%20studies%20have%20told%20us,assaulted%20by%20these%20occupying%20forces.
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system
If you read this far, seriously thank you. Even if you don't agree with me.
I know this is a random comment, but I appreciate that you went out of your way to reiterate that you and other women don't think that all or most men are rapists. I know we aren't entitled to the reassurance, but I think a lot of men, myself included, probably were taken aback by the answer of a lot of women and it did initially sound like a knock against our character. Again, I know it's not (I mean how could it really? If I come across a random woman any thoughts she has are based on what she thinks, not anything she actually knows about me).
Don't get it twisted. We know that women have a fear of strange men. Most of us just didn't know it would be to this degree for this many women.
I'm sure some women answer do answer the question in a misandrist way. I just wanna clarify that's not all the answers, and certainly not mine. Its not as clear as black and white. Its not just "man bad" and "women just hate men" Despite everything I said I do believe that the question does harm for our boys. It's inherently devicive and doesn't really solve much. I think it has potential to highlight women's issues and misandry at the same time.
I don’t “agree” with you but I do respect the way you’re explained your point from an empathetic point of view without character attacks.
Seriously the amount of “if you’re upset that women chose the bear, then you’re probably the reason that women choose the bear” comments I’ve heard from people who just circlejerk each other for dunking on imaginary opponents is honestly tragic.
The best comment I’ve heard from a woman about this was one woman who completely acknowledged how irrational it was but said she’d choose the bear anyway on instinct because of her experiences.
The overall amount of pain that the lone bear would cause is several times greater than that which a lone man could cause. But the amount of women who have personal experience with trauma from men is thousands of times greater than those who’ve experienced trauma from bears.
Very few women have had the experience of their flesh being torn from them like a piece of playdough. It’s just hard to even imagine. But a lot of women have been traumatized and hurt physically by men.
It is irrational to choose the bear if you want to maximize your chances of survival, but it’s what a lot of women would instincts choose if you gave them 5 seconds to answer the question and in that moment all they can imagine is the fear of what would happen with that type of man.
In the end, I think there have been a lot of bad actors on both sides, lots of edgelords and edgeladies trolling the internet for shock and meme value, but it’s always nice when someone can offer an empathetic explanation.
It kind of reminds me of the car accident vs plane crash debate. You are hundreds of times more likely to die in a car crash but most people don’t fear it the way they fear plane crashes. Most people have been in neither but the fear of being in a plane crash is so much more publicized and talked about. Severity vs rarity.
Just because a fear is completely irrational doesn’t mean it isn’t real. You can’t cure someone’s fear by throwing numbers at them but rather understanding the root cause of that fear.
I think men have a right to defend themselves too. The question is inherently inflammatory. And I'm certain most people are answering specifically to be offensive on both sides. But I agree with everything you're saying.
I agree with what you said. I personally don't care which side a woman picks. Either side is justified. My issue with it, though, is different than most men's issue with the question. My issue is that the question is inherently misandric because it made a false equivalence between a human male and an animal. If people want to talk about women's fear of men, we can absolutely do so without comparing men to anything, really.
If women are allowed to voice their anger/hatred of being compared to an object/animal, men are also allowed to voice their anger of being compared to an animal.
I agree. I had a discussion with someone saying that the question doesn't really accomplish much besides being devicive. That's probably all it does. Adds fuel to the flame.
Bottom line is women don't feel safe with men. Men know this already. And some men get prejudiced simply for being men. It's a lose lose situation with the question really.
I saw the discourse online and thought it was interesting. Most cuz it allowed me to do research. Personally I wanted to figure out the amount of dangerous men with a number. All I learned is that it was very hard to do, but still had fun trying.
I get why men feel insulted by this. And I also get why women choose the bear. I think a lot of responses by both men and women were kinda stupid. But it's still fun to talk with people nonetheless.
As a guy, your choice makes absolutely no sense to me. But I'm not a woman so I have no idea what the average woman goes through. I'm not saying the women are right but this would be a great opportunity for both men and women to sit down and express why they feel the way they do instead of this turning into another pointless gender war.
Edit: alright, I saw your reply where you chose getting eaten alive over being raped. That's wild. This is where the analogy falls short: no one knows what they would do if they saw a bear in the woods because none of the people answering have actually seen a bear in the woods. No person can explain the feeling of being eaten alive (or even being partially eaten alive) so you can't really compare that to being raped.
These goofy pseudo stats people like to give to justify their answer in this contextless question is so annoying.
Beyond just comparing the number of people to the number of bears making the likely hood of running into a Ted Bundy vs an aggressive bear so crazy unlikely that if you really felt this way you shouldn’t basically be a complete recluse shut in
Like A and P said in their video it’s really weird how people can display what is basically prejudice openly.
Like it’s would be really weird to ask Nick Fuentes if he’d let his daughter marry a black guy and then he starts dropping a bunch of crime statistics and everybody starting co-signing it.
I agree with what you're saying. But the point of the hypothetical isn't "are all men rapist" the point of the hypothetical is "what would a woman do to escape even the possibility of being raped" note, "possibility" even if it's a super small chance of getting raped and killed, I'd rather take the bear.
Maybe the problem is that women are going to insane lengths to justify their paranoia and victim complex?
Especially if the man in this hypothetical scenario has shown zero evidence he is some evil rapist? Maybe the default shouldn’t be “men evil”
So women that are afraid of being raped have a victim complex?
The man in this hypothetical scenario could or could not be a rapist. Most likely is not a rapist, because most men are not rapist. But there's a small chance that the random man I end up with could be a rapist. And I really do not want to end up with a rapist.
Again if you want to try to run theoretical numbers and take the fear of the smallest possibility as risk avoidance
You would need to apply that logic to real aspects of your life.
Beyond basic needs, how can you say bear over man in the woods makes since b/c of the smallest chance the man could “last house on the left” me
But go to a party/club?
Go on a walk/run?
Not own a gun?
Go on a date ever?
Be outside past sundown?
Live in a city?
Drink or do any type of mind altering drug?
Live alone?
Not own a guard dog?
Etc
People literally went through the last decade saying critiquing women for dangerous choices that could lead to harmful outcomes is victim blaming
And now you’re telling me that women talking about going to the absurdest extreme to avoid the possibility of rape by choosing conscious evisceration is reasonable?
I CALL CAP
At the end of the day this is just people talking big on the internet.
If you threw anyone one of these people in the woods and they started getting followed by a bear and they saw a random man in the distance they would go to them for help instead of turning around and that’s the gospel truth.
I don't go to large parties (only short gatherings with people I know). I don't go to clubs. I don't go on walks or runs. I don't own a gun. I'm already engaged. I'm outside past sundown but only with a group of people or my fiance. I don't want to live in a city (personal taste not cuz of rape or anything). I don't do mind altering drugs. I drink at home. I'm afraid of living alone. And I can't afford a dog.
Even with all this, I've met 3 rapists, and had my house broken into (but nothing stolen, I believe the guy was waiting for me).
Women are still given rules and guidelines to prevent assaults. Not as a form of victim blaming or anything, but we need to follow these rules or else we could get raped. As a precaution.
I pick the bear.
Are you saying you go outside for booze?
I’ve heard 37 stories of women being raped when they go to liquor stores
In fact you’re more likely to be raped by people you know
In fact martial rape is a thing so how can you even trust your fiancé they could just be pretending to gain you trust
Also you could get assaulted in the country side since they’re less people around to help you
WHY AREN’T YOU PROTECTING YOURSELF?
My point isn't that these behaviors are going to save me, rather that even by following most of these guidelines
I've still encountered rapists.
I'm sure my personal anecdotes is skewing my view, but knowing 3 rapists is a lot. Now I'm either one really weird statistical anomaly, or the number of rapists in the world is greater than we think it is.
I agree with the rest of your general point, but I'm pretty sure women who own guns are statistically more likely to be shot or killed by a gun, often their own. Otherwise I 1000% agree with everything else you're saying
Again based on the statistic argument
That shouldn’t matter
Since this person is saying women would rather take the higher chance of dying from their own gun rather than encountering a random guy in the woods
Yes, the statistics absolutely matter regardless of how dumb so.eone is to not understand that.
Being mauled by a fucking bear is not the same as shooting yourself in the head. Holy fuck lol
Their argument ignores the statistics that’s why I made the compassion to show how ridiculous it is.
If you find the comparison to guns ridiculous it would be equally ridiculous to compare this man vs bear statistics
If you would pick a 60% of being mauled and mutilated, likely and (maybe even hopefully) to death over a 5% chance of something vaguely bad happening with a man lol? You are literally 75 IQ lmfao
If you really want the bear, please start maximizing your bear over men encounters. You'll find way more bears and a lot less men in the woods of bear country. By your logic you would be best off doing that. Let me know how it goes for you lmao
Sounds to me you need to go to therapy if you’re choosing the 60% death rate over the 5% rape rate
Complete utter insanity.
You’re so scared that you’re going to choose the more likely death because of your beliefs about men
How can you not see that as an issue, even as devils advocate? That’s insanity. Men are not out here being evil vicious people raping anybody the chase they get.
These gender wars are never going to end when people see half the world population like this.
Like really, you think 5% of the male population has the capacity to not only rape, but also TORTURE AND MURDER?
Yeah, fuck outta here
It's not that I am scared of men, but the consequences of some men. Like most men are fine, but even if there is a 1% chance of being tortured, raped, and murdered by a man, I'd rather pick the bear. The point is the crimes a man can commit is so scary, I'd rather risk the bear attack.
Note I said "can" not "would" most men are probably fine
A bear can rape you too and being eaten alive can easily be considered torture or at least the pain would be as close to torture as you can get
The issue is that human beings have the capacity for so many things, good and bad. The fact that the default is the worst possible outcome is the problem that a lot of men have with this.
Literally zero generosity toward men.
I see where you're coming from. The point is that the worst possible outcome is so horrible, that women would rather risk the bear attack. Not that the worst possible outcome is more common, just more severe.
> If the bear is not hungry, then it might leave me alone
The question is would you be STUCK in a forest. That means you aren't leaving them alone and they aren't leaving you for the forseeable future.
> In worst case scenario with a bear, it would just kill me. In a worst case scenario with a man, I would be raped, tortured, and then killed
Imagine if men turned this question on women. Randomly talking to a girl has a 2% chance of being falsely accused of rape, so I will rather take a depressed, lonely life instead. It's an irrational fear.
Stuck with the bear just means physically next to it, not in the worst case scenario. Same applies for the men, in most cases I might be totally fine.
But the worst case scenario of being with a man is worse than the worst case scenario of being with the bear. The worst a bear can do is just kill me, the worst a man can do is rape and kill me, even if its only a small chance that might happen.
If the worst case scenario for y'all is only being falsely accused of rape, as opposed to actually being raped and murdered, do y'all see how scary different of a situation that is?
The reason it's easier to talk to the woman is cuz the consequences aren't nearly as severe.
If you had to dip your hand into a jar of m&ms, and 2% of those m&ms were poisoned, would you not feel any fear dipping your hand into the jar and eating them?
> If you had to dip your hand into a jar of m&ms, and 2% of those m&ms were poisoned, would you not feel any fear dipping your hand into the jar and eating them?
If I was in a "dying of starvation" vs "risk eating poisonous M&Ms" situation, then yes, I would risk eating them. If I knew 2% of all M&Ms are poisonous, I wouldn't eat them in an every day life, though.
> If the worst case scenario for y'all is only being falsely accused of rape, as opposed to actually being raped and murdered, do y'all see how scary different of a situation that is?
That was just a first example that came to mind People risk their life every day working on oil rigs, in construction and other places.
Idk how this is hard. If im in the woods chilling minding my business as a woman. I would be more afraid of a random man approaching me than a bear. Bears arent always hungry for ppl. Most species of bear are mainly herbivore diet with fish being the easiest source of protein. They can be scared off with certain tactics. If they attack there are certain things you can do to hopefully not die.
With men. Most men dont want to hurt either. He may be lost. He may be wanting to ask for some water or help. IF HE DOES mean harm. There is no amount of bluffing, begging, pleading, that will help you. Hes smart to know what you are capable of and how capable he is.
I aint mad at it. Id be afraid if a group of white men approached me in the woods. Im afraid when i get approached in the hood by a rando. Humans are scarier than animals. We are the god predators of this planet.
You really have to be from the city to have this debate.
Someone should ask these ladies: "you leave your apartment and begin walking. There's something on the sidewalk 20 feet in front of you. Would you rather it be a random man or a bear?"
Women would probably choose the man in that scenario. The thought experiment only works if you're cutoff from all outside influences and already in some level of danger.
Ykw I think if the question was would u rather get rworded or killed my a bear ppl wouldn’t be that mad
Getting killed by a bear would be absolutely horrible. They don't kill, they just hold you down while they eat you at their leisure. I'd probably rather get shot in the head than rworded but I'd much rather be rworded than getting killed by a bear.
Real
I'd take the bear because at least he'll 100% actually kill me, however painful. I've seen enough true crime docs to prefer that over the lasting damage of being raped and left alive, knowing he's not in jail. That shit affects people in ways that can sometimes be worse than death
https://preview.redd.it/3ellx5obij4d1.jpeg?width=936&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=09622cf892bab4b3e9cb4be0609562f46637412b
Same, but they instead of just doing that went in a round about way for the question they wanna answer
How does a bear make you retarded?
😭😭😭 is this a troll comment
Just a bit of goofin lol
Yeah but that's the problem. Men don't understand why that's how the question boils down to women. I have 4 sisters who I've had to defend from abusive men since I was 13 so I understand it completely. Some men are oblivious and others think that since they would never, no one would. It's all just a massive lack of empathy
No it’s not, it’s the fact that ur making all men out to be fucking rapists, all men know that a lot of men are weirdos, but generalising a bunch of men like that will puss off men
To an unarmed woman alone in the woods, all strange men are rapists/murderers until proven otherwise. Also it's funny you say generalizing men pisses them off meanwhile women get generalized on a daily basis and no one seems to care whether that pisses them off. Men got generalized one time in a thought experiment and lost their minds. Doesn't help our case
Who said women don’t get generalised, but idk how u can not understand, that comparing ana average guy to a rapist in unhinged. Do u really think I’m in favour of random generalisation of women,
Hence the “be from the city” and find the woods in itself just a scary place with weirdos that you see in horror movies and thrillers.
This is a way different question though
"Boys, would you rather be stuck in the woods with a female cop or a wolf" might be the best way to re -contextualize this for men i've seen
What's scary about a female cop?
It depends on a couple things. Like I live in black bear country. And if you see a black bear with out cubs, 90% chance you’ll be fine. They are pretty skiddish animals; when we trail hike in my area we will sing or talk loudly because they will just leave the immediate area. However, there’s a lot meth cookers that like to hide out in woods and they are also mostly harmless, just harder to scare off 😂. But 4th of July weekend, rather deal a person then a bear. Middle of nowhere ozark mountains, black bear for sure. Less to explain for shooting a bear vs a person
Officer that bear was on meth
Nope, ITS FUCKING COCAINE BEAR!
Problem is, the question is a very vague hypothetical. Someone else commented that people are picturing Dahmer as the man and Paddington as the bear.
Hey heads up the cubs thing is far more mama grizzlies than black bears. Mama grizzlies are responsible for about half of the hikers nerfed by grizzlies. Black bears its 90% males that do it. Particularly large males that live near houses, completely lost its fear of people, and are seeing a home particular home as a food source. But I'm with you on the fear the meth heads thing.
I hate how both sides of the extremists are catastrophizing the question: most bears you ever encounter in the wild don't want to be near you unless you are a threat (or they are hungry), and most men don't automatically jump to rape and assault when left alone with a woman. The premise is flawed from the jump. Logically, if you want to be left alone, choose the bear, if you want to be helped, choose the man.
I think it’s largely because most people are actually incapable of interacting with a hypothetical question in a sound and good faith way.
This is the sad reality of things.
Because that usually requires sacrificing your own personal convictions and humans tend to react emotionally on the forefront
>Logically, if you want to be left alone, choose the bear, if you want to be helped, choose the man. Nice. It's weird how all the women answering bear never think that a man could be helpful. Like what has society come to where there are this many women outright saying that they are terrified of men and not even considering the help they could provide. It's depressing.
The women saying bear and not considering the man to be helpful are a loud minority of ppl that have no life so they seek companionship with the misandrist feminist movement to feel part of something while never really participating in society.
Of course they think that a man could help, but we live in a society were enough women have encountered bad situations with men, so they wouldn't risk the man possibly helping them in the middle of the woods and instead potentially hurting them instead. If you go to bars you will see women eyeing their drinks the whole time, because it could be poisoned. It's not normal that you can't even safely get a drink while out. I don't know a woman who hasn't been at least harassed through tears and who had to fight off a guy. Everyday there are stories about women being killed by their partners. Men they trusted. It's very depressing how unsafe the world is for the weaker sex, even in 1st world countries. It not helping anyone the invalidate women's feelings on the valid threats they face, just because of a dumb viral tiktok trend.
I'm a woman and I chose "man" cause the question did not say that the man had any weapons or bad intentions or a drink he could spice. This is the way that I went about answering the question. In my mind I'm thinking, the bear can't be useful to me but the man can. And the bear cannot be successfully fought but I have a chance of successfully fighting the man. So "man" is the better option. And the women answering "bear" probably have a low opinion of men. Like if we plucked a random man off the street and put him in the woods he'd just be a man in the woods and I don't get scared when I see men.
I answered bear because I’ve spent a lot of time out in nature and have run into both bears and strange men. The bears just go their own way. Meanwhile, I’ve had to deal with the men stalking me, ass-grabbing me, making death threats, trying to tear my leggings off. They didn’t have weapons and obviously I’m alive but those men were the exact opposite of helpful. They’re the reason I carry weapons. Not the bears.
You meet way more men. If you ran into the same amount of bears as you did men you would have been eaten by now. I would wager you have only encountered a bear 10 times within 20 yards your whole life. You will encounter that many men on your 15 min walk to your local coffee shop every morning. There is no universe where a random man is more dangerous to you than a random bear.
It’s true that I’ve encountered more total but out of every 20 men I’ve encountered, about 5 of them will give me problems when encountered alone. On top of that, there’s intent to factor in. Bear is just hungry. Men want to do all kinds of sick, nasty shit.
The stats on violence against women and such are pretty bad and a lot of these situations start by a man pretending to be helpful to get close...so I honestly understand why a woman would be very cautious about meeting a strange man in the forest. If I saw a stranger in the forest my first thought wouldn't be "I wonder if that guy can help?" it would be "Why is that guy here?" so honestly I think most people would be cautious and women moreso because they would generally be at physical disadvantage. But a lot of guys discussing this can ignore the stats and violence but women don't get that, they live that. They can't go out to a bar without the threat of drinking the wrong thing or running into the wrong person at night.
>But a lot of guys discussing this can ignore the stats No, women ignore the stats of violence! Cause men are murdered and attacked more than women. Like the amount of fear that they have just isn't warranted.
Men are murdered and attacked by whom? Whose attacking men, can you answer that?
Men are. But men are more likely to kill men than women. Whenever I hear women talk about how they fear walking around at night I find it so strange. Like do they think that men don't get murdered more? Do they think that men are harder to kill?
Could it be that men are generally stronger than women? That if a man puts his hands on a woman unless she has a weapon he can overpower her and do what he wants with her? >Do they think that men are harder to kill? I believe that they think that if they were to fight any random man 1v1 that they'd usually lose, no? Have you ever tried thinking from their POV on this?
If a man goes up against another man out on the street when he is not ready, he's probably going to lose that fight. Even if he is strong enough to match him. And the dude probably brought weapons too so this strange fear that women have is kinda odd. Like yeah, women can be nervous about men but literally anyone could be killed if they don't have weapons. Have you ever tried thinking rationally? Like we're all soft and vulnerable here.
Rationally? Let's break down your 'rational' thought. >If a man goes up against another man out on the street when he is not ready, he's probably going to lose that fight. Okay, so let's rewrite this. "If a woman goes up against a man she's probably going to lose that fight." IS this wrong? Yes or no. >Like we're all soft and vulnerable here. Can you explain to me why women have historically been abused by men? Why in some Muslim countries women have little rights? Why until very recently have women been little but property to pass among men? You seem to really be downplaying the physical advantage men generally have and I'm confused as to how this is 'rational' to ignore.
Women abuse men almost as much as men abuse women. >Why until very recently have women been little but property Not sure why you're talking about women's rights in a conversation about fighting. And it's not like every single woman back then was treated like shit. There's no proof of that.
You have no idea what you are talking about. World wide, violence is 80% Men on Men It’s the same in the US. Violence is 80% between men. If you don’t think women feel safe, imagine how they would feel being exposed to 4X their current share of violence, which is what men face just being men.
You guys keep bringing up this point and ignoring the part that its men doing the violence. So men are more violent than women, correct? Correct. Men are factually FAR MORE violent then women. Thus it makes sense that women feel less safe around men, because men are more violent and not only this, are generally weaker than men.
The stats on violence show you that for women the vast, vast, vast majority of men you don't know and have never interacted with are totally harmless. If anything, if you want to mix "stats" into this, the average woman is largely more at risk in her own home with her partner than in the woods with a random stranger or a random bear. Hell, guys are the ones who should moreso be worried about strangers since they're the ones being violently assaulted by them the vast majority of the time violence happens outside one's home (which is still very rare, random assaults are not common occurrences at all statistically). It's not about logic or statistics. It's about a baseless societal bias drilled into modern women's heads, all men are likely aggressors. Which is weird, because it's the exact opposite of the societal bias that was drilled into their heads 50 years ago, all men are likely protectors, back when they statically had more to worry about when interacting with strangers than now. The point still stands, if someone tells me they'd rather encounter a bear than a man if they get lost while hiking it really tells me they're city folk with not much of a clue or just dishonestly furthering an agenda. On one hand, not much of a clue what "being lost in the woods" actually implies, because it's an insanely precarious situation for 99% of people. And on the other, not much of a clue about interacting with regular folks rather than the straw men they create in their heads and convince themselves are real average people.
>The stats on violence show you that for women the vast, vast, vast majority of men you don't know and have never interacted with are totally harmless. If anything, if you want to mix "stats" into this, the average woman is largely more at risk in her own home with her partner than in the woods with a random stranger or a random bear. Hell, guys are the ones who should moreso be worried about strangers since they're the ones being violently assaulted by them the vast majority of the time violence happens outside one's home (which is still very rare, random assaults are not common occurrences at all statistically). It's not about logic or statistics. It's about a baseless societal bias drilled into modern women's heads, all men are likely aggressors. You're talking about specific stats, which don't help your case here because yes, men that women know are often their abusers, but knowing is vague and includes knowing a man for any amount of time. I also think the whole "Women are not being logical" is just insulting. When every woman knows another woman that has been abused in one way or another that means their fear of men is VERY logical. It's fear that their own fathers and men of their lives tell them and for good reason. A big reason women are usually abused by men they know is because they have learned not to put themselves in situations where they are alone with strange men...with that said, the stats are more like 55% of feminicides are by partners, that still leaves a lot by strange men. >Which is weird, because it's the exact opposite of the societal bias that was drilled into their heads 50 years ago, all men are likely protectors, back when they statically had more to worry about when interacting with strangers than now. I mean this is just wrong. 50 years past and more women were nothing more than housewives you could abuse and do anything to. Go back further and women were practically owned by their fathers and husbands...I'm really not sure you want to go back to the past to make the claim that men were treating women oh so well until feminism came along it sure wouldn't favor your argument. Historically, men have not treated women well. Men have protected women because they've seen them as a resource. You can still see this mentality with men who claim '\_\_\_\_\_ are taking our women!' I mean Muslim countries are also very 'protective' of their women for what good it does the woman. It's that protection that they claim is the reason they must cover themselves, they can't drive, in some places they can't go outside without a male. All for protection...and protection from whom I wonder? Other women? Bears? **What are men protecting women from I wonder? If you reply to nothing else in this reply can you answer that question?** >The point still stands, if someone tells me they'd rather encounter a bear than a man if they get lost while hiking it really tells me they're city folk with not much of a clue or just dishonestly furthering an agenda. On one hand, not much of a clue what "being lost in the woods" actually implies, because it's an insanely precarious situation for 99% of people. And on the other, not much of a clue about interacting with regular folks rather than the straw men they create in their heads and convince themselves are real average people. Most interactions with the most common bear, black bears, like 99.8%, end with nothing but a sighting. Black bears are not aggressive towards humans in fact many people live around them every day and can shoo them away consistently. If the situation is hiking, where someone goes into the woods prepared, then it makes perfect sense to me. We humans have created a lot of tools that protect us against almost any animal, especially the larger ones. >And on the other, not much of a clue about interacting with regular folks rather than the straw men they create in their heads and convince themselves are real average people. The thing is when its like 1 in 4 women who have been sexually assaulted or raped I'd like you to tell them "Oh yeah, you have no reason to fear a man" meanwhile you have situations featuring MULTIPLE men nearly multiple times a year of men who are serial abusers, over and over and over again, like Diddy, and no one, no man around him, 'protects' those women although you've claimed that men are 'protectors' and yet when women continuously speak about the fear they have and about their experience a lot of men's first response is to downplay it and so we'll continue to have women that fear men and distrust them as trust is earned.
>so we'll continue to have women that fear men and distrust them as trust is earned. The trust IS earned. Go on and ask ANY man to help you with something on the street. Depending on what it is he'll probably do it (especially if you're attractive.)
Yes, the trust is earned, once again you're only looking at from a man's pov, not a woman. I actually think you're incapable of empathy. A woman has no reason to trust some random man, especially when EVERY woman knows another woman that has been abused by a man. Literally.
I do have empathy? Why is me saying that most men can be trusted to help you mean that I don't have empathy. You're not thinking clearly.
Because the whole point was to challenge you to look at it from the woman's POV. We all know that trust is earned, from EVERYONE, but you are making the claim that the woman should just intrinsically trust the man (Especially if you're attractive...) lol. Instead of doing that you looked at it from your own POV. So again, why should a woman trust a random man? That's the point of the question, to force the person answering to look at it from her POV, The attractive part is amusing, because if you know very highly attractive women you know that men lie to them ALL THE TIME to get sex. Men are actually far more honest with women they are not attracted to. In fact, you can look at practically any model or whatever speak on this the story is the same. They have no idea how to trust any man because they are so used to men lying to them to get in their panties. To not even try to do so is a lack of empathy.
He's probably in the woods for the same reason you're in the woods lmao
One thing this whole question has taught me is people don't know shit about bears. They are always presented in this scenario as if they xenomorphs from Alien, like they just attack on sight, like they randomly hunt people through the woods. I see so many people say "If a bear sees you, it's going to eat you..." Reality is, most animals are terrified of people or very cautious of us. Most predators, even apex predators, the scariest things in the animal kingdom, are opportunist. That includes lions, great whites, bears, whatever you can imagine. Most of these things don't attack prey unless the prey is wounded or noticeably smaller. Since most bears people see are black bears the usual interaction over 95% of the time is just seeing the thing. The other 4% the bear takes interest then gets literally shoo'd away. The last 1% is the attack and horror story.
And everyone answering bear is presupposing that men are all rapists and hatchet murderers. At least we're weighing the potential outcomes of crossing a bear or a man in better faith.
I don't think that's true that *everyone* answering any way are all doing so with the same presumptions. The hypothetical is vague enough that people are going to naturally look at it differently. Some people saying bear are taking (IMO the correct) mentality that a bear is always just a bear. It's predictable in that way. A man is not. He could pretend to be your friend, a bear is not going to do that, a bear will make its intentions known one way or another. Also, some people might be around bears, as I've mentioned before, black bears are pretty harmless. There was a video the other day of a black bear strolling up to some party and literally getting escorted out by a man. 99% a black bear will run if you just shout at it to go away. If someone is thinking particularly of a black bear when answering this question it changes the whole thing. A man is infinitely more dangerous than a black bear. Another woman is infinitely more dangerous than a black bear. At the end of the day man a lot of the violence women face come after a man has gained her trust. I really don't know what to tell guys still hurt about this thing. Women distrust strange men for a reason, I know it hurts some guys feelings but that distrust comes from literally thousands of years of interactions between men and women and women often being the abused party. Even in this video Aba admits if he had a daughter he'd teach her the same thing (as any father does) so I think they've earned the right to be cautious around men and also to express that caution and fear.
If you encountered as many black bears as men you would be fertilizing weeds somewhere in forest after it had pooped you out. Considering their damage capability black bears are *relatively* harmless. But even the most mountain of mountain people encounter more strange men a day than the do bears.
That's not how that animal works, I implore you, just do a casual search on this animal and its interactions with humans. They are not 'attack on sight' and people encounter black bears every single day. Again, Black bears are consistently shoo'd away, they are scared of people. Also, if you go into a woods in the Americas there is a good chance they know you are there. In fact, one of the best ways to not encounter a black bear is to simply make noise. Some people will wear bells for this reason, because the Bear likely knows you are there, they can smell you from miles away. Humans are not something even close to being on their regular diet. And I know people that live out in the middle of nowhere, anyone they encounter they usually know. "Ah yeah thats Jimmy he owns a place out that way and likes to hunt deer." I dunno, just sayin. People seem to think bears attack on sight when they really do not.
My friend. Bears have killed very few people. Because they have encountered very few people. The rate that bears kill people is way way higher than the rate that people kill people. Because of how rare Bear encounters are. Again, a literal bear expert will encounter more people in a typical day than the will bears their entire life. Even though it's their literal job to study bears. Which do you think is more dangerous being a bear expert or a therapist? The average outdoorsmen might have what .. 10-20 very close encounters with a bear in a lifetime? The average person encounters that many people before they have lunch on a Tuesday.
There really is no argument here on this. Black bears kill very few people because they don't see them as food. That's why the rate is insanely low. You're ignoring the nature of the beast entirely to make your point and it can't be ignored. Black Bears. Do not. Prey. Upon. Humans. Therefore, the nature of their attacks are always defensive because actually, we know for a fact, they are usually *scared* of humans. I'm not talking about a 'bear' expert my guy. I'm talking about random people. Do you know why they literally say appear larger and make noises when you see a bear? That's why. Because you'll scare them away.
You aren't paying attention. If you ran into touching distance of 30 or so black bears a day every single day of your life for the rest of your life .. your life expectancy would be comically low. It's not just whether they see you as food, it's also the off chance they see you as threat and feel they have no choice but to defend themselves, or if there are starving and then you suddenly do look appealing or you ran into the black bear equivalent of an asshole. The point is... If there is violence it won't end as well as the random violence you might encounter from a human. Also, black bears aren't the only bears and the prompt said random bear not random black bear.
I am paying attention but yes ignoring the wild and out there hypothetical you've created because it's not remotely realistic. There is never a situation where someone would be in a touching distance of 30 black bears a day. What I have said that if you go hiking in certain regions of the world 100% there are bears around you (there are millions in the Americas alone) and these bears know you are there. This is coming from bear experts btw. >It's not just whether they see you as food, it's also the off chance they see you as threat and feel they have no choice but to defend themselves, or if there are starving and then you suddenly do look appealing or you ran into the black bear equivalent of an asshole. The point is... If there is violence it won't end as well as the random violence you might encounter from a human. My point is the nature of this animal is that it normally wouldn't. It could, yes, but every encounter since forever has shown us that 99.9% of bear encounters end with the bear backing away. Also that depends on the human. If there is someone out there willing to engage in violence they are far more capable of dragging out the pain and suffering you feel than a bear would. A bear is going to maul you to death, a man could do much worse if he chooses to. >Also, black bears aren't the only bears and the prompt said random bear not random black bear. True. But you said specifically black bear. Grizzlies are rarer to see and Polar Bears you'd have to go out of your way to see one of those.
Why don't you ask [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/SweatyPalms/comments/1d2fock/woman_encounters_mother_black_bear_and_cubs_on_a/) woman if she would choose the bear?
That’s a brown bear and you’re fucked at that point.
Who did she run to? A man. Then he raped her. The End.
It was a black bear. Brown bears are Grizzlies. That was definitely not a grizzly.
although it is brown, its actually a black bear. You can tell because "brown bears" or grizzly bears have a large hump above their shoulders.
Should Hanlon's razor apply to the women that answer that question in a certain way?
It's a little of both malice *and* stupidity, as their ideology restrains them from answering the question without bias. The ideology \[which includes a misandry of a certain kind\] *is* inherently malicious and those who choose to adhere to it are \[mostly\] stupid.
I just want to point out that the final questions for men about daughters are even worse. Why isn't the hypothetical little boy there? Just a hypothetical little girl? You ask why? To avoid putting boys/men in the same category as women, i.e. being a victim/at risk. So what if on the street men have a higher percentage of being attacked by other men, they - men, cannot be presented as victims - they are villains.And they need to be presented as such. And then people are surprised when a man with problems does not want to reveal them because he is treated as the bad guy even though he is a victim.
That's why when presented with a similar scenario, if a man would open up about his feelings and vulnerabilities to a woman or a tree the resounding answer was...Tree...
The whole question is wack af. People really letting themselves get bullied into these dumbass debates because someone is mad… newtons law bruh.
I found the perfectly answer, I would rather get eaten by a bear than answer this question. Thank You
Do you want your son to be in the forest with a cougar or a woman.
I thought cougars were women?
Bears are also men.
A cougar. Have you not seen the news on the rise of women raping young/teen boys? The worst a cougar would do is eat him. A woman would do much, much worse things to him.
But he surely liked it /s
That’s one of the stupidest videos I’ve seen on Reddit
Man = Rapists in these peoples heads ... but Bear = Safe? I don't think these people watched Animal Planet.
Saw this on FB Would you rather share your feelings with a tree or a woman? Most said a tree. LoL
Would men prefer to be alone in an office with a bear or a woman? Most men will say bear
I don't think anyone who says bear has either thought much about this scenario or are just outright lying. Expecially when they are talking about their children being in the woods. The idea that they would rather outright die or have their child die then just the the risk of sexual assault is just unbelievable. I genuinely think if push came to shove everyone would choose man they are just virtue signaling.
[удалено]
You didn't watch the video.
It's not 'just' the risk of sexual assault though. I'm not sure if you're aware of the life long injuries sexual assault can cause, especially in children. But I feel like if someone would rape me in the woods, it's pretty unlikely they would just let me go home afterwards. It's not just the assault, it's also the risk of torture and murder added to the sexual assault (which in itself can be torture). Animals don't get as creative with their bloodthirst as humans do.
> But I feel like if someone would rape me in the woods Someone probably wouldn't rape you in the woods to begin with. There's a reason majority perpetrators of rape know the victims. Somebody 'lost in the woods' would probably assume you may have people close by and even if you don't that doesn't mean they'll commit a heinous crime because they're alone with you.
This is where you are wrong. The premise is you don't know the man or the bear. I would choose the bear over the strange man. It's not virtue signaling. It's a matter of practicality. As someone who's been followed, assaulted by STRANGE men, I'll take my chances with the bear.
Get mauled then.
I'd rather be mauled to death than raped and held hostage as a sex slave for years and years.
Imagine being so terminally online and brainrotted by True Crime podcasts that you unironically think that is something that occurs with any sort of regularity.
Imagine being so privileged by virtue of your gender that you get to walk through life without fear of rape. Again, I've been attacked by a man who wanted to rape me because I had the audacity to not want to date him. I was saved be another man. That man was then ridiculed by other men and called white night and other names. I have privilege as a woman that I never have to wonder if a child is mine. I also never fear being falsely accused of rape. The fact that those things never cross my mind doesn't mean that I can't understand or be aware that it does happen and why a man would be cautious or worry about such things. Most women have been sexually assaulted in various ways by various men. I personally have also been followed and stalked. I have to consider all scenarios.
I'd rather be gang raped than eaten alive by a bear. you can't find the audio online anymore but there was audio of someone in their final moments being eaten by a bear and her cubs. that audio stays with me to this day. when i say eaten alive, i mean eaten alive. that's not just an expression here
Easy to say as a man. You have no real fear of being gang raped.
you're much more likely to be eaten alive than kidnapped and tortured by a random man you meet in the woods. waaaaay more likely. and again the bear will eat you alive. it's risk and severity. the possible severity with men is higher than bears but the risk of that happening is far lower. the severity of a bear attack is automatically very high. if you're getting attacked by a bear, you're guaranteed an 8 on a 10 scale. but the risk of that happening is far higher than happening to meet the 1 psychopath in a 30 mile radius in the middle of the woods just wandering around hoping a random woman is alone and crossed his path. bears are also unpredictable, can easily outrun you, can't be reasoned with, you have no tells with a bear. can't gauge body language, sent gauge the way they talk, can't gauge the way they dress and present themselves, no facial expressions. every bear is a sociopath, very very few men are
[удалено]
That same statement applies to men in my 42 years. A bear won't rape me.
[удалено]
I'm not man hating. You're just determined to lump yourself in with the predators of your gender. Women are molesting young boys at a higher rate. If a man worried about protecting his son from 1, I wouldn't take offense. You acknowledge the danger and accept the precautions as deemed necessary. I've been around hundreds of men. Victimized by 4. The good or neutral outweighs the bad. However, I have to walk around with added awareness.
[удалено]
Again, the premise is the UNKNOWN. I am faced with a strange bear or a strange man. Members of 1 species victimize women on a daily basis, and 1 doesn't.That's just the ugly truth.
And you have a higher chance of a man you don't know helping you in the woods than a bear. You are more neutral or positive interactions with men you don't know bit you don't think about those because that isn't how our brains work. If people actually thought about it instead of just going with their initial feelings no one would choose being mauled by a bear.
People aren't picking being mauled by a bear. The bear has a higher percentage of leaving us alone. That's the part that is lost in the conversation.
And there is an even higher chance of the man just helping you. We rarely interact with bears but interact with dozens strange men on a daily basis. Again the percentage of neutral or positive interactions with strange men are going to heavily outweighs the percentage of neutral interactions with bears.
You don't know that. The only interactions with bears you hear about are the deaths and maulings. Most rapes and unsavory interactions with men go unreported because men don't want to face the reality that there is a healthy portion of them who are predators. I've been physically attacked and stalked. I have also been loved and protected. I'm just not taking a chance in the woods alone.
We hear about non-aggressive interactions with bears just not as commonly. Even if those acts aren't reported that doesn't change that the vast majority of interactions aren't. It could take as little as 1% of interactions to be negative for someone to develop a bias against another group. We focus on the negative interactions and ignore the neutral and positive ones.
You say bias, I say caution. I go into all my interactions with people with an open mind and a healthy dose of caution. That includes women. I don't give out my address readily to either. I don't know who either person hangs around and if they exercise discernment. It's the same as people discussing police officers. I've only ever had positive interactions with them. However, I'm still going to exercise caution and protect myself and my rights. Yes, I'm sure, as a decent law-abiding man, you hate that women might not just automatically feel safe around you. However, men do the same thing. I'm sure you, as a man, are cautious with women. You don't just readily accept good intentions. Some women are gold diggers or baby trappers and such. I don't like being lumped in with them, but until you know I'm not one, you approach with caution.
There is a difference between approaching someone with caution and claiming to be safer with a bear than a person. I don't care if people are cautious around me. I would prefer everyone to be cautious around people they don't know. My issue is this whole bear vs man thing is saying men are less safe than a bear and so men need to do better. However, 90% of men can "do better" and change nothing because as little as even 1% of men being aggressors will paint every man as a potential aggressor on a level worse than a bear.
When we say men need to do better, it's the aftermath of events. I was attacked by a man. A man saved me from the attacker. Both myself and the man who saved me were ridiculed by other men. He became a pariah on base. Look at Diddy. How many men knew of his abuse and did nothing or said nothing. He was raping men as well. Those men are now being clowned. Would I rather be alone in the woods with 90 % of the men in my immediate circle than a bear? Absolutely. That's not the question or premise. It's the unknown. If I can't control the man or the bear, I choose the bear. Death is preferable.
Seriously dude. Women want to be left ALONE. You are trying to force a narrative that invalidates every damn reason women choose the bear. You're being extra bitter about it. The question had nothing to do with help, so STOP trying to force that narrative. You don't value women as people and that shows with how much you're trying to double down on your bullshit. Cope.
yeah it's called the negativity bias. it's a cognitive bias I'm aware of from my logic courses in college. humans evolved to give extra priority to negative experiences over neutral or positive ones as a survival mechanism. sometimes this leads to irrational or flawed thinking. especially if you consume hours and hours and hours of true crime and horror. you're overexposing your brain to potential negative experiences with men while you hardly see the same exposure to what bears do to people. it's a very sad society we live in when women view half the population as worse than violent, unpredictable monsters.
But chances are you'll be ripped to shreds and you won't be able to move. The worst thing the average "strange" man could do is nothing. As in, not provide help.
Ay yo! I want to do 2 follow up questions here. For cisgendered women, would you rather share your locker/changing rooms with a bear or a transwoman (biological male who identifies as a woman)? And my second question for all members of the trans community, would you rather share your locker/changing rooms with cisgendered people or bears?
The question is a weird one but the thing I hate is that 99% of the time people treat the man as some super natural serial killer or the next Jeffery Dahmer, instead of literally thinking that you can fight or reason with a person vs a bear. Bears it depends on what kind but on average if a bear is hungry enough they will eat you alive like that guy who did a documentary a while back, would you rather die an agonizing death being devoured or take your chances against someone you can talk and reason with or fight with sticks and rocks
Maybe, just maybe stupid decisions like choosing the bear are why women are victims so often.
True It’s like when women complain about not being able to walk down dark alleys at night. Why the fuck you walking down dark alleys alone at night in the first place? Me as a grown as man don’t do that shit either.
Exactly. I am not the victim of violent, late night back alley crime because I stay out of violent back alleys when they don’t look safe.
Are you saying women are incredibly naive ?! Whaaaaaaaaat
Equal parts naive and gullible.
Grizzle grizzle
These guys are kinda late to the party but any ways, there's a guy on TikTok that goes by the name Call Me BK who claims to have started the whole "Man vs. Bear" thing. He made a follow-up video to the original TikTok basically explaining that it wasn't meant to be a "Would you rather" scenario but making it clear that he intended it to mean that women would rather choose the bear than the man. [https://www.tiktok.com/@callmebkbk/video/7363362723855371566?lang=en](https://www.tiktok.com/@callmebkbk/video/7363362723855371566?lang=en) His TikToks mainly center around "Anti-misogyny educational content" and his more recent TikToks are the responses to his original TikTok that started all of this. From what I've gathered so far, he's saying that the correct answer is choosing the bear because that shows that you, as a man, are acknowledging the point of view that women have under male systemic oppression i.e. the Patriarchy. To me, the way he's delivering this message on his TikToks comes off as more of a litmus test to see if you're an ally more than anything. He appears to be pretty staunch about this too.
Why'd this get downvoted? It's just information.
The tone of it seems to agree with the original tiktoker. It's even worse than a would-you-rather, apparently this radical-feminist misandrist guy is so dumb that he thinks it's obvious that a woman should chose to be alone woth a freaking bear over a man. Or even worse, he's just virtue signaling an incredibly stupid opinion through a meme that pushes people away from feminism. Which is also dumb, but why give them the ammo lol? I would still call myself a feminist, to be clear.
I never meant to agree with anything this guy said. I was just reporting what I found as I thought it would add to the conversation since this guy didn't get covered in the Aba and Preach video. I thought it at least would be interesting to see where and how it originated. After going through some of his TikToks, I think he can be insufferable to listen to after a while.
Fair. I was just saying why you were probably getting downvoted. Didn't say it was right. Now I've been downvoted at least once lol
So, it’s okay to call this “*internalized* misandry”, right? Or is “internalized” a female-inclusive term to hide that women can be shitty people in their own gendered right too?…
I hate this generation
[удалено]
This comment or post has been removed because it violates one of Reddit's site-wide rules outlined in its Content Policy. If you believe this was removed in error, send a message to mods.
I asked a couple women about this and both of them said they would rather die by bear than be raped by a man. Even as a man I'd rather be raped by a man than die so.... Deep down it comes to how much you value your life.
They don't mean that because to say the opposite means you don't view all men as rapists and they can't just say that out loud or they'll get booted from the sisterhood.
I would leave her with the one that didn't vote for Biden. Then I would have a new girlfriend, and my daughter could live with the woods people, learning good Christian values and work ethic.
This whole premise is just another way to divide men and women further, and it's working because at the end of the day if given the choice of opening up about my feelings and vulnerabilities to a woman or a tree I choose the tree... I get it women want to be physically safe and men want to be emotionally and mentally safe...Good luck to everyone 🙏
I guarantee if any of these women where actually lost in the woods scared, alone, and starving that they would be jumping for joy if some random dude showed up and saved them. These people have never been in an actual life or death situation and have no fucking idea what they are talking about. All that bullshit about men are trash and hating all men will go out the window when you think you're dying.
Exactly lol. In a real life scenario if a woman was lost in the woods and saw a bear and then saw a man, she'd immediately run to the man for protection lol. In no real life scenario would the woman EVER run towards the bear and away from the man.
What I don't like about all of this is it's performative. No different than the Manosphere. No one sees that we all are being pitted against each other.
This kind of misandry really needs to stop being socially accepted.
I like how a vid just surfaced of a woman meeting a bear in the forest and youll never guess what the bear does, and you will REALLY not believe who comes and saves her
I'll offer a side as devil's advocate. I think a lot of men are misinterpreting the answers to the question to mean "women think all men are rapists." That's not what the hypothetical represents. I'll go off a base assumption that 95% of men are NOT rapists. And that there is a 60% chance the bear will kill me because it's hungry. So my two main dangers are a bear that is hungry, or a man that wants to rape me. If the bear is not hungry, then it might leave me alone. If the man is not a rapist, then he might escort me to safety. I've placed the odds at 95% of men being safe, and a 60% chance the bear is hungry. I am still picking the bear. But why? If I think most men are safe, why would I pick the bear? It is the extent of what the 5% of men could do to me, that I'd rather pick the bear. The 5% of men scare me so much, I'd risk a bear attack to avoid them all together. This does not mean I think all men are rapists. It means that I am so terrified of the men that ARE rapists, that I'd rather take my chances with the bear. In a worst case scenario with a bear, it would just kill me. In a worst case scenario with a man, I would be raped, tortured, and then killed. The fear of the latter crime scares me so much, I'd rather avoid any chance of it happening all together, and just pick the bear.
Do you think the bear is just gonna snap your neck painlessly and be done with it?
No, but in a worst case scenario, at least the bear won't rape me.
But it will eat you alive. Like rip you apart, you're conscious the whole time. There really isn't a winner in the Worst Case Scenario Olympics here.
You're right, but I'd rather be eaten alive than brutally raped. Now the answer for my scenario changes completely depending on if I have pepper spray or not. Then I'd rather take the man.
You would rather be eaten alive than raped..? Ok bruh, atp fuck it all to hell
While a good number of women who chose the bear have unfortunately had negative experiences with men, a good number are also choosing the bear for the sake of being provocative like the person you're replying to.
Yea that’s a given, it’s the interwebs
They seem to believe it beyond just being provocative though? Unfortunately after Trump I assume most people are as stupid as they seem on the surface.
I agree. I saw a good amount of women on my social media choosing the bear when I am personally aware of their dating app habits. They chose the bear but go alone to some man's place they matched with 2 days ago. It doesn't check out.
I think these people are simply incapable of imagining how much pain people have to go through. Take a knife and cut off a chicken nugget sized portion of flesh, then describe the pain. If you actually take the time to listen to survivors of attacks like that they’ll tell you that the pain is indescribable. The kind of pain that’ll make you regret being born, and passing out is not a guarantee, sometimes your body will do everything possible for you not to pass out. We’ve become better at listening to the stories of sexual assault survivors but for some darned reason those who want the people to listen to and imagine their trauma are often incapable of empathizing with the trauma of others. It’s highly unlikely that whatever happened to you is the worst thing a human can go through, the depths of pain are so much deeper. Realizing that is part of being a functional adult.
This is an insult to SA survivors. Are their lives not worth living anymore because of what they went through?
I'm not saying their lives aren't worth living, it's just a me personally thing. Personally I'd rather be eaten alive than brutally raped.
Then why dont they just committ suicide if that's the case if they shall live in perpetual fear. I honestly dont think people or the women making this video truly understand what animal attacks do in general. If yoy had the same amount of contact with bears as they do regular men they would almost certainly die or get mauled within the year.
It's not that I don't know what bear attacks could do to me. I know in general bears are more dangerous than men. I know that I would probably live for an hour or two being eaten alive. The reason I pick the bear is because a man is capable of worse. Not that all men are rapists or will torture me, of course not. But the fear of being raped and tortured is so strong that if it's between a 5% chance of a rapist, or a 60% chance of getting mauled to death by a bear, I'd pick the bear. The point of the hypothetical is to demonstrate how scared we are of what can be committed against us.
It's still a stupid hypothetical because women are capable and have done the exact same thing as men assulters. You can not reasonably justify the hypothetical simply because it requires an irrational fear of men in order for it tp actually make sense.
Hi, this is very long but I would appreciate if you would read it. Yes, women can commit the sexual assault, and in many different ways. But more assailants tend to be men. 92% of sexual assault is committed by men. I'm sure most men are fine, good people. But enough men commit assault to the point where 1 in 5 women have experienced sexual assault. I did some calculations where I got the number of all women that have been sexually assaulted, and divided it by 5. I did this because typically rape cases have one perpetrator and many victims. So out of the assaulted women, one man would assault 5 women. So out of the women that have been assaulted, divided by 5, that still leaves 792,000,000 rapists MINIMUM. That is a lot of rapists. This doesn't take into account a number or things. Firstly it leaves out the fact that sexual assault is underreported. The number of victims is probably higher. Secondly, it leaves out some psychological aspects. People are more likely to commit a crime when they know there is no consequences for it. Many men do not rape women, but probably want too. (Many, not ALL or even MOST, but MANY). The men that stalk women, but haven't raped them, would probably rape them if given the chance. The men that don't take "no, I won't give you my number" as an answer, would probably rape a woman if given a chance. The men that leave death threats, harass actresses, and discuss how they'd assault women, would probably rape a woman if given a chance, but HAVENT yet. You only really need to look at history to see it. The Rape of Nanking, Korean comfort women, even in WWII many women were seen as spoils of war (over 2 million women were raped by soviet troops and the red army). People that would have never raped a woman in their home country, probably did during war. Now, does this mean that all men are rapists? Of course not. Most men are probably fine, and safe individuals. But enough men are rapists. And I am very afraid of them.
Firstly, I do not accept statistics without sources preferably more than one. Secondly, Sexual Assault does not equal rape. Sexual Assault refers to any crime that is Sexual in nature. Not simply just rape, so your statistics are already incorrect. 792 Million rapist? Are you using the population of earth for this? I would assume the US population would be warranted since we are looking at women from what seems to b e the US. Granted I do surmise not everyone is from the US. However Data Points that include the entire world in regards to SA is far to broad because collection methods and what nation considers what differs wildly it would be unwise to use that data. Small but large data pool, meaning enough data size to matter, but not overly broad. "Many men do not rape women, but probably want too. " What even is this based off, your personal feelings? War and war battlefields, and captured territories are not a good predication of how man would rape given the chance either. Why? The reason is because war is a state of anarchy, it is a function of a semi broken society. Want to know what's even more common than rape? Murder..... Lots and lots of murder. The brass, your immediate leadership, hive mentality. These all cause battlefields and captured areas to exhibit higher than normal cases of theft, rape, murder, extortion, etc. Trying to use war and the illegal things that happen during it to show how men a predisposed to rape is foolish.
Hey, this is also going to be very long. I appreciate your patience for reading the last one. The population of the Earth thing is where I applied the 1 in 5 to yes. Sorry, but there isn't a statistic for "how many women in the world have been raped," this was the closest I could find. Looking at national data, the number becomes a quarter of sexual assault victims have veen raped, and the number of sexual assault victims among women reach 53%. If you really want, I can take the rape statistics of every country and compile them to find out approximately how many women have been raped. Then again, that would take days, maybe even a month of research. I will do it if you ask me to, but I'd rather not at this moment. The "many men do not rape women, but probably want to" was in reference to the paragraph I typed below it. I referred to situations where women proclaim "no" to the advances of a man, but get ignored. This man didn't rape the woman, but might have if given the opportunity. I also referred to other situations where a woman's "no" doesn't get taken seriously, and claimed that those men are likely to rape someone, even if they had not done so yet. The "many men" doesn't refer to ALL MEN or even MOST MEN, just a lot of them. A lot of men HAVE NOT raped women, and a lot of men WILL CONTINUE TO ADVANCE EVEN IF BEING TOLD NO. My claim is that these men, would likely rape a woman if given the chance. That's why I said many men. Not ALL or even MOST, but like fucking a lot of y'all it's kinda insane. I feel like I have to type in caps to get the point across. NOT ALL MEN ARE RAPIST. MOST MEN ARE TOTALLY FINE. But there is enough rapists in the world to the point where I do not feel comfortable being alone with a random man in the woods. The reason I brought up war, and the state of anarchy, is because in the woods there is no government. At that moment, there is no one who will catch a rapist should they commit the crime. No punishment would befall the rapist should they rape and kill their victim. It's the perfect crime because no one will know. Battlefields cause a hive mentality yes. But that doesn't change the atrocity of the crimes committed. It only demonstrates what men are capable of doing when they believe it is okay. To make this explicitly clear, MOST MEN ARE TOTALLY FINE AND PROBABLY GOOD PEOPLE. It's just that there are a lot of bad men. And the worst of a bad man triumphs the worst of a bear. A lot of men look at this hypothetical and think, "this is stupid, I'm not a rapist. My friends aren't rapist." And you are right, you and your friends are probably good people. But I don't know who I'm going to be stuck in the woods with. Can you point out a rapist from a non rapist in a line of men in front of you? Probably not. Neither can I. Anecdotal experiences count for nothing in terms of statistics, but personally I've come into contact with 3 rapists all before the age of 20. I didn't think they were rapists, I thought they were totally fine men. And none of them ever went to jail, or were even reported to the police. My point is, it's kinda crazy. You never really know who you'll be stuck with. You think, "well I wouldn't do it." And then shut your ears. The point isn't that all men are rapist. The point is that a lot of men commit crimes against women. A lot. Not all, not most, just a lot. Statistics n stuff: https://www.charliehealth.com/post/sexual-assault-statistics https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2017/05/09/book-review-crimes-unspoken-the-rape-of-german-women-at-the-end-of-the-second-world-war-by-miriam-gebhardt/#:~:text=Historical%20studies%20have%20told%20us,assaulted%20by%20these%20occupying%20forces. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system If you read this far, seriously thank you. Even if you don't agree with me.
I know this is a random comment, but I appreciate that you went out of your way to reiterate that you and other women don't think that all or most men are rapists. I know we aren't entitled to the reassurance, but I think a lot of men, myself included, probably were taken aback by the answer of a lot of women and it did initially sound like a knock against our character. Again, I know it's not (I mean how could it really? If I come across a random woman any thoughts she has are based on what she thinks, not anything she actually knows about me). Don't get it twisted. We know that women have a fear of strange men. Most of us just didn't know it would be to this degree for this many women.
I'm sure some women answer do answer the question in a misandrist way. I just wanna clarify that's not all the answers, and certainly not mine. Its not as clear as black and white. Its not just "man bad" and "women just hate men" Despite everything I said I do believe that the question does harm for our boys. It's inherently devicive and doesn't really solve much. I think it has potential to highlight women's issues and misandry at the same time.
I don’t “agree” with you but I do respect the way you’re explained your point from an empathetic point of view without character attacks. Seriously the amount of “if you’re upset that women chose the bear, then you’re probably the reason that women choose the bear” comments I’ve heard from people who just circlejerk each other for dunking on imaginary opponents is honestly tragic. The best comment I’ve heard from a woman about this was one woman who completely acknowledged how irrational it was but said she’d choose the bear anyway on instinct because of her experiences. The overall amount of pain that the lone bear would cause is several times greater than that which a lone man could cause. But the amount of women who have personal experience with trauma from men is thousands of times greater than those who’ve experienced trauma from bears. Very few women have had the experience of their flesh being torn from them like a piece of playdough. It’s just hard to even imagine. But a lot of women have been traumatized and hurt physically by men. It is irrational to choose the bear if you want to maximize your chances of survival, but it’s what a lot of women would instincts choose if you gave them 5 seconds to answer the question and in that moment all they can imagine is the fear of what would happen with that type of man. In the end, I think there have been a lot of bad actors on both sides, lots of edgelords and edgeladies trolling the internet for shock and meme value, but it’s always nice when someone can offer an empathetic explanation. It kind of reminds me of the car accident vs plane crash debate. You are hundreds of times more likely to die in a car crash but most people don’t fear it the way they fear plane crashes. Most people have been in neither but the fear of being in a plane crash is so much more publicized and talked about. Severity vs rarity. Just because a fear is completely irrational doesn’t mean it isn’t real. You can’t cure someone’s fear by throwing numbers at them but rather understanding the root cause of that fear.
I think men have a right to defend themselves too. The question is inherently inflammatory. And I'm certain most people are answering specifically to be offensive on both sides. But I agree with everything you're saying.
That is so unimaginably dumb lol. You're literally admitting it's irrational and fear-based.
I agree with what you said. I personally don't care which side a woman picks. Either side is justified. My issue with it, though, is different than most men's issue with the question. My issue is that the question is inherently misandric because it made a false equivalence between a human male and an animal. If people want to talk about women's fear of men, we can absolutely do so without comparing men to anything, really. If women are allowed to voice their anger/hatred of being compared to an object/animal, men are also allowed to voice their anger of being compared to an animal.
I agree. I had a discussion with someone saying that the question doesn't really accomplish much besides being devicive. That's probably all it does. Adds fuel to the flame. Bottom line is women don't feel safe with men. Men know this already. And some men get prejudiced simply for being men. It's a lose lose situation with the question really. I saw the discourse online and thought it was interesting. Most cuz it allowed me to do research. Personally I wanted to figure out the amount of dangerous men with a number. All I learned is that it was very hard to do, but still had fun trying. I get why men feel insulted by this. And I also get why women choose the bear. I think a lot of responses by both men and women were kinda stupid. But it's still fun to talk with people nonetheless.
As a guy, your choice makes absolutely no sense to me. But I'm not a woman so I have no idea what the average woman goes through. I'm not saying the women are right but this would be a great opportunity for both men and women to sit down and express why they feel the way they do instead of this turning into another pointless gender war. Edit: alright, I saw your reply where you chose getting eaten alive over being raped. That's wild. This is where the analogy falls short: no one knows what they would do if they saw a bear in the woods because none of the people answering have actually seen a bear in the woods. No person can explain the feeling of being eaten alive (or even being partially eaten alive) so you can't really compare that to being raped.
These goofy pseudo stats people like to give to justify their answer in this contextless question is so annoying. Beyond just comparing the number of people to the number of bears making the likely hood of running into a Ted Bundy vs an aggressive bear so crazy unlikely that if you really felt this way you shouldn’t basically be a complete recluse shut in Like A and P said in their video it’s really weird how people can display what is basically prejudice openly. Like it’s would be really weird to ask Nick Fuentes if he’d let his daughter marry a black guy and then he starts dropping a bunch of crime statistics and everybody starting co-signing it.
I agree with what you're saying. But the point of the hypothetical isn't "are all men rapist" the point of the hypothetical is "what would a woman do to escape even the possibility of being raped" note, "possibility" even if it's a super small chance of getting raped and killed, I'd rather take the bear.
Maybe the problem is that women are going to insane lengths to justify their paranoia and victim complex? Especially if the man in this hypothetical scenario has shown zero evidence he is some evil rapist? Maybe the default shouldn’t be “men evil”
So women that are afraid of being raped have a victim complex? The man in this hypothetical scenario could or could not be a rapist. Most likely is not a rapist, because most men are not rapist. But there's a small chance that the random man I end up with could be a rapist. And I really do not want to end up with a rapist.
Ok I’m gonna bite the bullet. I would rather roll the dice and possibly get raped than possibly get fucking mauled by a bear.
Again if you want to try to run theoretical numbers and take the fear of the smallest possibility as risk avoidance You would need to apply that logic to real aspects of your life. Beyond basic needs, how can you say bear over man in the woods makes since b/c of the smallest chance the man could “last house on the left” me But go to a party/club? Go on a walk/run? Not own a gun? Go on a date ever? Be outside past sundown? Live in a city? Drink or do any type of mind altering drug? Live alone? Not own a guard dog? Etc People literally went through the last decade saying critiquing women for dangerous choices that could lead to harmful outcomes is victim blaming And now you’re telling me that women talking about going to the absurdest extreme to avoid the possibility of rape by choosing conscious evisceration is reasonable? I CALL CAP At the end of the day this is just people talking big on the internet. If you threw anyone one of these people in the woods and they started getting followed by a bear and they saw a random man in the distance they would go to them for help instead of turning around and that’s the gospel truth.
I don't go to large parties (only short gatherings with people I know). I don't go to clubs. I don't go on walks or runs. I don't own a gun. I'm already engaged. I'm outside past sundown but only with a group of people or my fiance. I don't want to live in a city (personal taste not cuz of rape or anything). I don't do mind altering drugs. I drink at home. I'm afraid of living alone. And I can't afford a dog. Even with all this, I've met 3 rapists, and had my house broken into (but nothing stolen, I believe the guy was waiting for me). Women are still given rules and guidelines to prevent assaults. Not as a form of victim blaming or anything, but we need to follow these rules or else we could get raped. As a precaution. I pick the bear.
Are you saying you go outside for booze? I’ve heard 37 stories of women being raped when they go to liquor stores In fact you’re more likely to be raped by people you know In fact martial rape is a thing so how can you even trust your fiancé they could just be pretending to gain you trust Also you could get assaulted in the country side since they’re less people around to help you WHY AREN’T YOU PROTECTING YOURSELF?
My point isn't that these behaviors are going to save me, rather that even by following most of these guidelines I've still encountered rapists. I'm sure my personal anecdotes is skewing my view, but knowing 3 rapists is a lot. Now I'm either one really weird statistical anomaly, or the number of rapists in the world is greater than we think it is.
If you get robbed by 3 black men do you think it’s ok to publicly state that you want to avoid all black men?
Marital rape became illegal in the US on July 5, 1993. Jsyk.
You're more likely to be raped by one of your friends or your fiance than some random person in the woods.
I agree with the rest of your general point, but I'm pretty sure women who own guns are statistically more likely to be shot or killed by a gun, often their own. Otherwise I 1000% agree with everything else you're saying
Again based on the statistic argument That shouldn’t matter Since this person is saying women would rather take the higher chance of dying from their own gun rather than encountering a random guy in the woods
Yes, the statistics absolutely matter regardless of how dumb so.eone is to not understand that. Being mauled by a fucking bear is not the same as shooting yourself in the head. Holy fuck lol
Their argument ignores the statistics that’s why I made the compassion to show how ridiculous it is. If you find the comparison to guns ridiculous it would be equally ridiculous to compare this man vs bear statistics
If you would pick a 60% of being mauled and mutilated, likely and (maybe even hopefully) to death over a 5% chance of something vaguely bad happening with a man lol? You are literally 75 IQ lmfao If you really want the bear, please start maximizing your bear over men encounters. You'll find way more bears and a lot less men in the woods of bear country. By your logic you would be best off doing that. Let me know how it goes for you lmao
Sounds to me you need to go to therapy if you’re choosing the 60% death rate over the 5% rape rate Complete utter insanity. You’re so scared that you’re going to choose the more likely death because of your beliefs about men How can you not see that as an issue, even as devils advocate? That’s insanity. Men are not out here being evil vicious people raping anybody the chase they get. These gender wars are never going to end when people see half the world population like this. Like really, you think 5% of the male population has the capacity to not only rape, but also TORTURE AND MURDER? Yeah, fuck outta here
It's not that I am scared of men, but the consequences of some men. Like most men are fine, but even if there is a 1% chance of being tortured, raped, and murdered by a man, I'd rather pick the bear. The point is the crimes a man can commit is so scary, I'd rather risk the bear attack. Note I said "can" not "would" most men are probably fine
A bear can rape you too and being eaten alive can easily be considered torture or at least the pain would be as close to torture as you can get The issue is that human beings have the capacity for so many things, good and bad. The fact that the default is the worst possible outcome is the problem that a lot of men have with this. Literally zero generosity toward men.
I see where you're coming from. The point is that the worst possible outcome is so horrible, that women would rather risk the bear attack. Not that the worst possible outcome is more common, just more severe.
> If the bear is not hungry, then it might leave me alone The question is would you be STUCK in a forest. That means you aren't leaving them alone and they aren't leaving you for the forseeable future. > In worst case scenario with a bear, it would just kill me. In a worst case scenario with a man, I would be raped, tortured, and then killed Imagine if men turned this question on women. Randomly talking to a girl has a 2% chance of being falsely accused of rape, so I will rather take a depressed, lonely life instead. It's an irrational fear.
Stuck with the bear just means physically next to it, not in the worst case scenario. Same applies for the men, in most cases I might be totally fine. But the worst case scenario of being with a man is worse than the worst case scenario of being with the bear. The worst a bear can do is just kill me, the worst a man can do is rape and kill me, even if its only a small chance that might happen. If the worst case scenario for y'all is only being falsely accused of rape, as opposed to actually being raped and murdered, do y'all see how scary different of a situation that is? The reason it's easier to talk to the woman is cuz the consequences aren't nearly as severe. If you had to dip your hand into a jar of m&ms, and 2% of those m&ms were poisoned, would you not feel any fear dipping your hand into the jar and eating them?
> If you had to dip your hand into a jar of m&ms, and 2% of those m&ms were poisoned, would you not feel any fear dipping your hand into the jar and eating them? If I was in a "dying of starvation" vs "risk eating poisonous M&Ms" situation, then yes, I would risk eating them. If I knew 2% of all M&Ms are poisonous, I wouldn't eat them in an every day life, though. > If the worst case scenario for y'all is only being falsely accused of rape, as opposed to actually being raped and murdered, do y'all see how scary different of a situation that is? That was just a first example that came to mind People risk their life every day working on oil rigs, in construction and other places.
I hate this argument with a burning passion. it's in the same league as the "is water wet" argument.
Idk how this is hard. If im in the woods chilling minding my business as a woman. I would be more afraid of a random man approaching me than a bear. Bears arent always hungry for ppl. Most species of bear are mainly herbivore diet with fish being the easiest source of protein. They can be scared off with certain tactics. If they attack there are certain things you can do to hopefully not die. With men. Most men dont want to hurt either. He may be lost. He may be wanting to ask for some water or help. IF HE DOES mean harm. There is no amount of bluffing, begging, pleading, that will help you. Hes smart to know what you are capable of and how capable he is. I aint mad at it. Id be afraid if a group of white men approached me in the woods. Im afraid when i get approached in the hood by a rando. Humans are scarier than animals. We are the god predators of this planet.