Tap for context
Some woman on the internet said she would feel safer spending a night in the woods with a random bear rather than with a random man
deleted by creator
i’m just trying to figure out why this is becoming a colloquialism, i mean we’ve had would you rather for a while. But this is a very different format from it, and it’s rather, obtuse. Is the most polite way i can think to explain it.
I hate that i enjoy sociology sometimes, this is one of those times. People suck.
🙄 peak internet
Definitely no room for understanding what women go through while acknowledging the absurd shit tossed out there.
It’s easy to say you understand, but if you think picking the bear is absurd, then you clearly don’t. There is a reason SO MANY women pick the bear without a second thought. It’s not a troll or a joke, but the reality that some random man who knows we are alone far from civilization is far far more dangerous than some random bear just existing.
No it’s ridiculous. The chance that a random bear out of the bear population attacks you, is infinitely more likely than a random man out of the male population does the same.
The vast majority of people are decent human beings. While it is statistically supported that men are more likely to be perpetrators of violence against women than vice versa, saying that men are inherently dangerous oversimplifies and generalizes a complex issue. It is important to recognize that most men are not violent; the majority of interactions, even in isolated settings, do not lead to violence. The portrayal of men as inherently dangerous can contribute to fear and stigma that doesn’t necessarily align with the everyday experiences of many people.
Tl;dr Please stop this sexist nonsense. If I would walk around and say women shouldn’t be allowed near the elderly or children because they are statistically more likely to commit child neglect and abuse, both against elderly people and kids, I’d rightfully be called a sexist. Statistically that is just as true as the statement that men are more often the perpetrators in violence against intimate partners (allthough men do get abused as well, about 1 in 10 compared to 1 in 4 for women).
The chance that a random bear out of the bear population attacks you, is infinitely more likely than a random man out of the male population does the same.
Flat out wrong. And you have to ignore just a mountain of statics and evidence to say this. There was about 60 bear attacks last year, but 1 in 5 women are assaulted by men. It’s easy to dismiss any and every discussion related to sexism as sexist, just as racist dorks say “BLM and CRT is racist against white people”. But it’s such a small narrow shelfish ignorant position.
But I am not going to waste time with you, this thread already has ample sources for those stats and its gone on long enough. You can either listen to women, or continue to whine when they describe their experiences, but I’m done with reading these little outbursts from men who have nothing to contribute but “not all men” while misunderstanding and misrepresentating the question.
I’m happy to listen to their experience. I’m not happy to listen to useless generalizations that do not get us anywhere.
It’s a ridiculous statement to say all men are dangerous and just wait to abuse someone. If you can’t see that right now, I’m sorry.
Has nothing to do with BLM or CRT. I’m not American, no one here really cares about “race” whatever that even means in humans. People are people and should be treated as such.
Generalization do not help anyone moving forward. It gets you dismissed and ignored, which certainly doesn’t help you create the platform women need on some issues.
And to your stats: Please read the whole text. Not 1 in 5 women get assaulted by men a YEAR, 1 in 5 women have that happening to them within their lifetimes. That’s still masively to high, but it’s not what you seem to make it out to be here.
I, unlike you, would be happy to talk about this. Maybe I’d learn something. But you seem far more interested in repeating talking points and be condescending to me.
Unfortunate. But thank you for your time anyway.
It’s a ridiculous statement to say all men are dangerous and just wait to abuse someone. If you can’t see that right now, I’m sorry.
Never said that. Wouldn’t say that. Don’t think that.
You’re just putting up a strawman to push over. Absolutely no where in this thread did someone say all men are dangerous, in fact I personally said the contrary many many many times.
That’s still masively to high, but it’s not what you seem to make it out to be here.
Again, I didn’t say 1 in 5 per year, that’s you inferring as another strawman. I knew what the stats were, and if we agree that 20% in their lifetime being the victim of SA is a lot, and that 60 something people attacked by bears comparitivly ISN’T many, then my original point stands. I intentionally did not link to any stats about per year because that number true number is unknown and likely wildly under outed as most events are not reported.
Maybe I’d learn something. But you seem far more interested in repeating talking points and be condescending to me.
This is an ironic thing to complain of when you condescendly assume I don’t know what my own links are about, but okay. You act like you’re trying to learn and have a reasonable discussion but all you’ve done is dismiss and make bad faith assumptions while dancing around the actual point, that way more women are harmed by men than bears.
Not all men do this, but it’s immposible to tell the ones who do from the ones who don’t. There is good reason why women are wary of unknown men, we have a learned experience that dropping your guard can quickly lead to absolutely horrible outcomes. As I said before, 1 in 5 women have such experince.
So compare this to a bear existing in the woods. Bears already do that, they generally mind their own business and only in rare cases attack humans. Sure there are probally SOME ultra aggressive bears out there, just like ultra aggressive men, but as a population bears are not actively seeking out women to harm. However there IS unknown invisible amount of men who are doing exactly that. Finding women who are alone and vulnerable. The question isn’t “who could do more damage to a woman, a bear or a man?” it’s who would you rather risk being alone with?
Most women pick the bear because statistically, going to lead to better outcomes. If I come across the bear will likely keep fishing/gathering, the ways to run hide or scare it off are obviouse. But coming across a man in the woods is flat out scary, maybe they will help, but if they are a bad person, then my ability to hide, run or escape is VASTLY diminished against someone who is both as intelligent as I, but also probally much faster and stronger.
Not every man would chase us down, but 20% of women have encountered men who WILL take opportunities when presented with them. Being alone in the woods away from defenses, civilization or any amount of assistance? I’ll be completely at his mercy It’s just not comperable situation against a bear.
So if your interested in potentially learning something about a different perspective, than you need to actually do that instead of just going to the knee jerk dissimal “not all men are violent” which was never said in the first place.
unless you’re browsing a furry porn website apparently. Weirdly, i saw the MOST sane takes there.
The internet is a mysterious place.
Or maybe people don’t like being roped in with terrible people based on a part of them that they have no control over? Just a thought.
In this scenario the woman has limited information. She has no choice but to assume average chances of a man or a bear killing her, regardless of the individual.
When you’re facing down a threat in the woods, how much they enjoy being stereotyped isn’t your problem.
If you believe you’re less likely to be in danger with a bear than a man, you’re just sexist.
That begs quite a few questions.
Which would be?
It’s nonsense. Out of 100 bear encounters about 1 turns violent. Now, how many men does the average women come in contact to daily and how many of them turn violent? I’m pretty sure the numbers are much, much lower than that for a bear encounter.
My Wife walked passed approximately 1’000 just today. No one even talked to her in a weird way. This whole argument is just fear mongering with sociallly acceptable sexism. This doesn’t solve any problems.
Also, statistically, strangers are the last people tk worry about. The overwhelming majority of abuse victims know their abuser or are even related. You should be more afraid to see uncle Frank and aunt Jenny in the woods than any random man.
This is a gish gallop so I’m just going to highlight that the scenario in question is alone in the woods, not walking past men on a busy street.
Please consider that you might be getting defensive, and will misinterpret both the initial premise and any explanations as a result.
Not at all. You said being alone in a forest with a man is more dangerous than a bear, and I said that’s statistically nonsense.
Just because I wrote more than 2 sentences, doesn’t make that a gish gallop.
There are 2 premises:
- Bears are dangerous (I agree)
- A random man in a forest is more dangerous to a woman than that bear (I strongly disagree)
I showed my numbers for that 1 argument and that’s it. I’m happy to be proven wrong, if you have anything more than “it just is”.
I’m not defensive I find this comparison to be simply ridiculous.
Yeah, the bear pick is the sneaky way women try to rob the average man of status by implying that we are mindless beasts willing to do the worst at the first chance we get.
The fact that you think the point of this is your status and not someone else’s safety says so much.
Because it is about insulting men. No one’s actually getting trapped with bears because they’re answering either way. It’s there to prove a view, would you rather be stuck with a bear or a black person? A gay person? A trans person? A jew? A Muslim?
It’s there to rile up people about their prejudices and I’m just sad we’re all getting piled on like this.
Look, I’m a man, I’m not feeling insulted by this at all. If you are, maybe it’s time to ask why.
I have no problem being a man while also acknowledging that sexual assault by men is a problem that is big enough that it has created a “caution culture” where people teach their daughters to be vigilant and women will cross the street if someone is walking behind them to stay safe. It isn’t like this is overblown, studies vary but all agree it’s somewhere more than one in ten women are victims of sexual violence in their lifetime. That’s a non-dismissible statistic.
Sure sexual assault by women is a thing too, but men tend to handle it differently than women do. All we are doing here is acknowledging that in our culture “male stranger danger” is a thing that exists and is pervasive and strong enough that many women would be willing to risk the bear because at least it won’t rape them.
Why would you be taking that personally?
personally i’m not insulted, i get it, i understand the problems, but i also don’t understand this at all.
It’s like it’s hyper polarized almost. The second someone says something or asks a question the response is almost verbatim “yeah but bear wont rape me” (incredibly shitty verbatim quoting but this isn’t a fucking PHD paper so dont @ me lol)
Like i get that there’s a problem we should be talking about. Why aren’t we? We’re just reiterating the same statement over and over again, expecting for something to change suddenly.
It’s almost an over abundance of caution, similar to “stranger danger” when in reality, the person most likely to abuse your children, is you or someone you know. Not just a random stranger. Which in it of itself can breed an anti-safety culture, where people aren’t concerned about people they know “because they would never do this” only to find out that, yes, in fact, they would do that.
I think hyper polarization is one of the greatest societal issues we face currently. Whether it be war of genders, politics, etc. We are losing the calm middle ground that should be the majority without outside influence.
It’s so incredibly easy to polarize. We see it in this thread too. The top of this comment thread is a polarization too. Essentially dividing men into 2 distinct set of groups. You’re either good or a villain. This dichotomy is ridiculous and every social community eats it up like crazy, this Lemmy included. These create effects of over abundance, as you mention of caution, fear and hate.
If anyone actually thinks that they’d be better off with an encounter with a wild bear than a man, they’re just stupid and insane. Just walking down the street, I encounter 1000s of men. If there were 1000s of bears, I’m sure no one would go there. But we’re not appealing to logic. We’re appealing to feelings that’s been derived from these polarizations and sadly I see no way for this to end.
It’s so incredibly easy to polarize. We see it in this thread too. The top of this comment thread is a polarization too. Essentially dividing men into 2 distinct set of groups. You’re either good or a villain. This dichotomy is ridiculous and every social community eats it up like crazy, this Lemmy included. These create effects of over abundance, as you mention of caution, fear and hate.
yeah, i just don’t understand how people engage in this and don’t feel even the littlest bit of fascist tinge to it, because this is how fascist power structures come into play. This is literally how they work. You have an in group, and an out group, anybody in the in group is loyal to you, and anybody in the outgroup is fucking dead.
Well, because it’s prejudice being directed and reinforced towards us! I am the average man, and so are you! I am down for all the #metoo movements ya’ll need but it needs to be pointed towards specifics. I won’t allow to be put in the same cage I supportedsome people to get out of.
Incel said what?
https://youtu.be/SSVXbgR4JFs here’s my point better explained. You can reply the moment you feel like actually discussing and not dismissing me based on my gender.
Your gender is incel?
gets called an incel
posts incel shit in response
demands he isn’t dismissed based on gender
Edit. I think people misunderstood. I was pointing out the irony of the incels comments.
Man, I’m so glad I found people like contra points early in my life because you certainly aren’t helping. If you are a lonely man out there, it’s fine to feel alone and isolated. This worlds harsh and changing for the worst. Remember to keep your empathy, even for those that won’t give it to you back.
Can I dissmis you based on linking this channel with hardcore incel vibes?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/SSVXbgR4JFs
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
🤌🏻
Context: Some woman on the internet said she would feel safer spending a night in the woods with a random bear rather than with a random man
Some woman
Not “some woman” — quite a few women. Lots of women.
I’m a man and even I would pick a bear
I too prefer chubby hairy men.
finally, someone who gets me.
Hi.
Really? What people do you usually hang around with?
Bears are incredibly strong and dangerous and will kill you just for fun.
I would honestly prefer a random man to a fucking moose.
Man is more unpredictable than bear. I know A bear can kill me, but I have no idea what a random man has in mind for me.
Sure. I guess it depends on what odds you are comfortable with. I prefer the very small odds of something worse than death or anything happing at all with Man than the high odds of death with a bear.
Where are you getting these odds from? For how many people live in bear regions, go camping/hunting/biking etc, there have not been that many bear attacks. Source
From this scenario I’m obviously assuming you have to be close to the bear for the entire day.
It’s not like the bear/man is at the other side of the forest.
And as to where I got my odds from? Well out of my ass. There are no statistics on this extremely specific scenario.
Being locked in a room is quite different from maybe finding a bear in the wild. I’d suggest a grade school level statistics class if that was anything but complete sarcasm.
I would suggest paying attention before typing out your insults. No one ever said anything about being trapped in a room with a man or a bear, the question was about being lost in the FOREST with a man or a bear.
This has a strong “at least they’re honest about wanting to kill me!” energy lol.
Or maybe the whole thing is a joke. I honestly can’t tell
Bear: Couldn’t tell you what he’s up to even if it wanted to
Men: Can actually listen and talk their intentions.
Why is a man less predictable in this case? You all just claim things without the slightest bit of argument behind it… so please tell my why that would be the case.
Thanks.
The random man probably hasn’t anything in mind for you, just minding his own business.
The scale is shark > bear > man > moose. Don’t fuck with moose.
Large prey animals in general. I see a hippo im running
Won’t help, those fuckers go 30 mph. Usain bolt only managed 23 dot something for comparison
I mean… on sight doesn’t mean they’re already chasing, the point is to avoid that
Don’t make eye contact, don’t attract attention, get the almighty fuck out.
Because a nice bear is going to ask for consent, and might snuggle you and…wait. What kind of bear are we talking about?
Removed by mod
Why do you feel the need to make this racist
Don’t feed the troll.
*then
deleted by creator
A bear won’t try to convince you that you weren’t really assaulted and accuse you of just wanting attention
Are we talking brown bears or black bears?
Brown bears are violently territorial and will attack you for being in eyeshot.
Black bears are basically giant racoons and will move away from people - especially if you’re making loud noises and making yourself look big - because they don’t want that smoke. They’ll only get aggressive if you surprise them or get anywhere near their younglings.
I’d probably take a black bear over a lot of dudes. As long as we got a good hundred feet or so of distance, Mr Bear and I ain’t gonna bother each other.
Totally agreed, the question is so vague it’s absurd. Are we talking a panda or a grizzly? Is the man a locked-in paraplegic or an violent ex con?
Regardless how you answer there’s always another possibility that makes your decision look stupid.
Yeah but that’s a different scenario all togther. Not all men are dangerous rapists, obviously. But enough are prone to assault and SA that it’s statistically safer to have some random bear (possibly grizzly or teddy) than some random man. If you don’t feel like the random guy walking down the street is dangerous, that’s probably because random men on the street don’t regularly harass you, which is unfortunately still a very common occurance to most women.
While I understand and respect your viewpoint, I’m not quite sure you understand what I’m saying here… The question is designed to be a no win scenario, it’s phrased in such a vague way that no matter how you answer someone else can chime in and say oh no, your not imagining the terrible scenario I’m imagining. There’s literally no way of answering it in a way that someone is going to chime in and tell your wrong.
It’s literally designed to be a test designed to gauge your reaction more than it is to be answered seriously.
Without more info one can’t possibly respond in a legitimate manner. And any responses without additional information is more of a mirror to your own personal disposition and fears than it is a legitimate response to the question.
I was in the smoky mountains with my kids camping, and we heard a bear digging around. My kids started crying, they for sure knew they were dead.
I got out of the tent, stomped my feet so the bear heard me and wasn’t startled, and then went “boogaaboogaaa” and raised my arms. Poor little black bear went running off and kept looking back.
And my kids had a really cool story about when their dad chased away a giant scary bear.
Bear seeing a lone person in the woods:
I get the sentiment, but realistically I’ll still pick the random man. A man could kill or rape me. A bear is likely to kill me.
Actually a bear is very unlikely to come after you. I come from an extremely rural part of Alberta, Canada, and large bears would sometimes wander in and near town. They wouldn’t run around swiping people up and murdering them, they would just basically wander around eating garbage and looking for food. The reality is that if you were in the woods with a random bear, unless it was starving or you were near its Cubs, it likely wouldn’t see you as important.
I’ll tell you what though. The bodies of indigenous women would get found in the woods sometimes. Bears didn’t put them there, men did.
As my wife put it, if the bear kill me, nobody would ask how I was dressed.
Yeah, if I get attacked by a bear the police won’t blame, interrogate, and shame me. I won’t be looked down on as broken or used.
That’s a good point, but I value my life more than my postmortem dignity.
I saw a bear in Canada, it just ran off.
I saw a man there once. Same thing happened.
Unless you are Lady Gaga in a meat dress.
“…for the first time in history, we can blame the attack on how someone was dressed.”
Statistical error. Unlikely to encounter a bear; but per bear encounter, less likely to survive than per men encounter.
Serial killers and rapists are very clever and because there exist serial killers who want to kill indigenous women in the woods, they will likely succeed. Bears have no such desire, and because indigenous women are clever they will avoid the bears.
But I’m willing to bet that the odds of a random man being a rapist/murderer are much lower than a random bear deciding to kill me.
It’s hard thing to think about because our brains want to rephrase the situation into taking account how likely it is to encounter men vs bears in the first place. That’s why this isn’t very applicable to, say, staying safe at night or in bars.
…except it is. This is why, if you have to take a ride home with a strange man, it’s much safer to go with an arbitrary man of your choosing than the one who offers.
Actually statistics show that an encounter with a bear is orders of magnitude more dangerous than an encounter with a man. Obviously. I encounter 1000s of men as I was down the street and I’m not dead yet.
Yes, it’s very unlikely to run into a bear. But if that’s the point you’re making, you’re missing the predicate of the question where the encounter is already assumed.
The Grizzly Man set out to prove what you stated and was eaten by bears, just like everyone else who has ever set out to prove that grizzly bears aren’t dangerous.
Nobody said bears aren’t dangerous. In fact, the whole point of this bear v. man hypothetical is the knowledge that bears are indeed very dangerous.
The bear discourse is the true measure of whether a given man is a red or green flag.
deleted by creator
You’ll often hear smart-alec martial arts masters say that the best self-defence technique is the 400m sprint, but they couldn’t be more wrong. In truth it’s the 1km parcour.
i like this one, this one is good.
I don t think thats right , I think everyone just underestimate the danger of a bear .
Have you spoken to women about it?
i’m aro/ace and have an intense aversion from interacting with people. I’m pretty sure that’s a green flag?
A colored flag means a sign giving a clue on something. It doesn’t define a person, and can only be used to describe some abstract fact. You can say “getting angry when talking about the bear discourse” is a redflag, but saying “a man is a red flag” is not correct
Yes, that’s my point. The response to the bear discourse reveals red or green flags.
Just saying you didn’t know how to use those words
Syntactically they should have used ‘displays’ not ‘is’ a green or red flag, but everyone divined the meaning of the damned sentence and the internet is garbage so who gives a rats
I do, lol.
“Question. What kind of bear is best?”
Identity theft is not a joke, Jim.
For survival: black bear
For dying: polar bear
If you want a surprise: brown bear (although they also won’t kill you if you stay away from them)
False. Black bear.
Not the bear market
Ice bear best bear
Idk Pan-Pan is pretty cute. Ice Bear is cool though.
Do Giant Pandas count?
Men seriously feeling the need to convince the world that they are not as dangerous as a wild bear.
I think men are out at this point. The question of “Bear Vs. Shark” however is still unanswered?
well a shark can’t swim out of the water, and it would also die. Unless we’re in an underwater forest, in which case we can’t breath. So uh…
Yes… you’re almost there…answer the question
i can’t answer the question unless i’m given more information smh.
If we’re talking a magical forest shark, i’m not sure i want to ask questions about why it’s there. And why it hasn’t died yet, presumably. And if we’re in a wet environment, then i’m curious how that’s accomplished. The ocean is very big.
I m losing faith in humanity any time this conversation resurfaces and I believe it would be a massive benefit to everyone involved if it never happened
well, after having thought about it for hours. And i really mean hours (please help me, also don’t mind me, i’m just autistic as fuck and think about these sorts of things a lot)
I have finally put together my ultimate conclusion on this topic. And it is as follows:
For starters, why am i in the woods? Presumably in this example i was just teleported out there at random, with one other entity, either a human or a bear. Now idk much about bear psychology, but if i were a bear, and a human popped up out of nowhere in front of me, i would lose my shit. So chances are im probably going to die.
As for a human, assuming a statistically random sample from the world, lets assume for the sake of this example, someone from within the same geographical area that i am in, because it makes logical sense for the statement here. The chances of them being 1. significant deviant enough that the second they see me, and decide they want to be a problem, is low enough that i’m willing to take it. Paired with the fact that often times abusers and rapists tend to be people you already know (it’s just a basic fun fact about being around people) and in this case, it’s probably someone i’ve never seen before, much less interacted with. I’m assuming the chances of me getting my shit fucked up are probably between 0-5% i feel like that’s pretty reasonable. i can’t imagine much more than like 10% of any given western population are active rapists. So we’ll go with that. And like i said the bear? Probably going to flip it’s shit. And even if it doesn’t it’s still gotta be higher than 10% i would assume.
Now, moving on to the secondary factors, we’re lost in a forest. The very obvious factor here is that being there with another individual greatly increases your odds of being found/getting out, both due to collective knowledge accumulation between the two of you, and the likelihood that other people realize you’re gone being twice as high (roughly) but we won’t consider that aspect significant. So moving back to the productive aspects of having two people. Assuming we’re the female in this case, and the other person is a male, as per the statement rules. That means we have someone who is more likely to be stronger, and more capable of exerting themselves, which could prove useful in a situation like this. However more people is still more better, so we’ll say about a 100% productivity bonus just to be safe here. As aforementioned, we have a secondary source of knowledge here, so we can collectively decide on things, as well as think about them, which often leads to more correct/better solutions/outcomes. As well as the obvious benefit of having someone to socialize with, this is a natural morale booster. Humans are social creatures. Nuff said.
One more thing though, since we’ve established that there are potential benefits to this situation, we must now compare those benefits to the downsides of the other situation, so let’s do that
- being alone (having no additional help, assuming we aren’t immediately mauled and eaten by the bear)
- not being alone (the likely potential that you DO get help, and quite significant amounts of it, with the small additional chance of being raped and killed) Ok i think that pretty much sums it up.
Alright, now moving on to the tertiary aspects of this, let’s modify the original statement. And say that we didn’t just randomly teleport, and that we walked into the woods with someone else (we aren’t counting kidnapping because then this statement wouldn’t really apply would it?) Anyway, now that we’ve pulled foul play off of the table. You’re walking into the forest with someone you probably already know, or someone who you’ve gotten to know thus far. They aren’t a stranger or at the very least, not a complete stranger, presumably you don’t just wander into the forest randomly for no reason, so lets assume you’re going on a hike or something. It’s good exercise after all, so for one thing, you’ve got some level of equipment with you. Probably some level of self defense capability (depending on where you are and how much you care) you did not come into this with the intent of being lost, and you are with someone that you know.
I feel like i don’t have to expand on why picking the bear in this option would be a bad choice…
alright, that concludes my lengthy essay on my opinion of this “thought experiment” feel free to yell at me or whatever, or engage with this, i probably missed something. New information always adds to the fun :) The whole point of a thought experiment is trying out new thoughts and weird ideas after all. Also just for the record, since some of you are probably curious. I have no opinion about these sorts of situations what so ever, because they aren’t real, and don’t exist, so the only valuable thing i can glean from them is through stats and situational analysis.
Genderes are a problem, races are a problem, creeds are a problem, sports preferences are a problem, anything will do… as long as we stay divided and subjugated.
Yes, and this whole story shows how far we are going. Society isn’t doing well at all
Removed by mod
