It's a reference to a TikTok video that's been going around on women's TikTok accounts of girls asking their boyfriends or husbands if they'd rather have their wife/ girlfriend alone in the woods with a bear or a random man, and a lot of them had to think about it. This has been used as a point to demonstrate how even men recognize the threatening presence of another man to women
Yeah, I don't think the chances of rape and murder are super high unless we change the stipulation of random man to random criminals.
This is the dumbest shit ever.
Look up a video of a bear mauling something and maybe consider painful death vs. your awful choice / terrible ability to be in a relationship.
Most people think having your heart broken is a bit less painful than being eaten alive.
No they didn't, the question frames men as wild animals, which is dumb as fuck.
If I said your kids have to be left alone with margerie Taylor Green or Alex Jones, you might think about it.
The gender isn't the problem between the 2, it's that they are both fucking mental.
Gotta remember most women hear “what was she wearing?” Or “boys will be boys what do you expect” when it comes to sexual assault so in their mind men can be wild animals
Considering on average 1 out of every 6 American women is the victim of a rape in their life time and there have only been 180 fatal bear attacks in North America since 1784, statistically speaking as a woman, you’re more likely to be raped than attacked by a bear. Now obviously there’s a lot more to it but still.
not defending anything here, I swear it on my life, I'm asking a genuine question
Wouldn't that be a bit accountable to the fact that:
A. There are a lot less bears in the world than men
B. Women see men much more often than bears
again I'm asking a genuine question I'm not a reddit incel I swear
Yes for sure. Statistics like these have to be taken with a grain of salt. I’m not trying to say that if there were equal number and dispersion of bears as there were men in the world, there would still be less bear attacks on women than man on woman assaults. Obviously bears have more destructive power than man (at least if they were *bare* handed). But the question was posed because bears don’t make conscious decisions to go out of their way to attack humans. They will do everything in their power to avoid humans because they’re all about protecting themselves and their young. They have no reason to attack you unless they feel threatened. Bears don’t lie and pretend to be friendly just to wait for you to let your guard down.
Definitely sounds like you’re defending it. Women don’t feel safe and you’re still like “but why tho?” Because men make them feel like they can’t be because personal experiences. It’s not really that hard
No, once again, you are using the stat wrong. Yes sexual assault is extremely common. That does not mean men statistically all assault women. That is the Stat they won't tell you.
99% of all sexual assaults are caused by men, which does not mean 99% of men are sexual predators. There is a huge leap in logic here.
I've seen a counterargument for this being that some would still prefer this over the man since they would still die at the end of it where a man could do anything, including keeping you alive.
Me personally, I would fucking shit myself if I was told I was alone in the woods with another person, even a child.
I'd need more clarification. Is it any random man from anywhere in the world and the same for any random bear?
Because if that's the case, there are more black bears than every other species of bear put together and it isn't close. There's a nearly 70% chance that it's a black bear under those circumstances... And black bears don't usually pose a danger to humans. The probability distribution is roughly 70% black bear, 20% brown bear, 10% any other bear. (the split of that 10% being roughly 4-4-2-1-1 polar, sloth, sun, spectacled, and panda respectively)
But even in those circumstances, a 4% chance of polar bear (and therefore near certain death) is STILL worse than the odds of any random man being a serious danger.
Statistically, the man is still less dangerous than a 4% chance of polar bear.
If you're talking about a more realistic scenario, and you restrict it to just bears and men that one would commonly find in the woods, it's a roughly 80% chance you are with a black bear and a 20% chance it's a brown bear. As for the men, it's mostly hikers and backpackers...
If you look at those statistics, and compare them to bear attack and rape statistics, I can see why a lot of women would choose the bear... Not because the men are particularly dangerous, statistically, but because sigular bears usually aren't. And that's a level of "assuredness" that rape won't happen.
But overall, by the numbers? Random men are less dangerous than bears, on average.
And a perfectly rational person with all this information would choose the man. Because it's statistically the safer option.
But the odds of either scenario actually resulting in danger is pretty low either way.
So honesty the take away from this should be that "alone in the woods with a bear or a random man" actually isn't that dangerous as far as hypothetical scenarios go.
There’s been a few studies on men and their willingness to commit sexual assault. Generally the floor is that 30% of men would force a woman into sexual intercourse against her will. I’ve seen as high as 50% reported in one study but generally they put it in the range of 30-40% assuming the man knows they could get away with it.
While a bear is never safe, I think a woman is way more likely to be able to scare one away than not. The same is not said for a man. If they want to attack you, they will.
If we are going off statistics more women are raped/murdered every hour than attack by a bear. You’re in a huge ass Forrest most bears will leave you alone if you leave them alone. It’s not the same for most men
That this is a question about how women feel not statistics. Women don’t feel safe around men and all you have to say is “StAtisTicalLy you’Re SafEr aRouNd meN”. Lol yall are why women feel safer choosing a beat. 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted so they are just choosing by personal experience, you guys make women feel this way by making it a statistic competition instead of just hearing what they say lol
Is the bear gonna go out of his way to help the wife/gf? Or will it be normal wild bear?
If it’s goal is to help the wife/gf, then bear is the much better option, since it knows the forrest better and is steonger then an average man
But if it’s just a wild bear, with no allegiance
Then a man would be much more helpful to the wife/gf
Technically it started with a random dude asking random women. A bunch of men got all bent out of shape the most of the women chose the bear over the man. So women started asking their significant others as a way to show men how they’d answer with someone they care about.
There’s nothing more terrifying than being alone in the presence of a human that you don’t know their intentions. At least I know that a bear will kill me
Not quite.
The TikTok trend this is referencing was a series of Women being asked if they rather be alone in the woods with a random bear, or a random man.
A large swath of the female population answered they’d take the bear for a variety of reasons.
This cause the internet to do its thing & the two main responses from people who are missing the point has been to either make shitty jokes about women being into bears, or making shitty jokes about women not understanding how dangerous a bear is.
Again both these responses missing the point that’s it’s not about which (man or bear) can be more dangerous, that’s obviously the bear (physically at least), but which is more likely to be dangerous & in what ways.
It had originally started as a trend where tiktokers would impromptu ask women on the street whether they’d prefer to be alone in the woods with a random man or a bear.
Almost unanimously the women in question answered that they’d prefer bears- reason being, at least a bear is going to be honest about any predatorial intent and can be avoided or placated, whereas men can’t be trusted to be rational like the bear can.
Naturally, this hit the alt-right/manosphere like a bomb in a preschool daycare; a whole lot of screaming and hollering and not a whole lot of actual dialogue beyond “wamen eevul, we gloriousl Men (tm) are Nice Guys (c) who would never hurt a fly!”
So the toktikers responded by asking the boyfriends if they’d prefer their girlfriends to be alone in the woods with either a bear or another man. The amount of thought this question provoked has Implications that are still being explored, much to incels’ chagrin.
> (depending on the type of bear.)
What do you mean? It's any type of bear from the pool of all bears. Polar bear or black bear, pure luck of the draw. But it doesn't matter anyway because you have some chance to defend yourself against a man who wants to hurt you and no chance at all to defend yourself against any kind of bear if they want to hurt you.
The only real question is whether you think that on balance more random men would attack you than random bears, which is absurd on its face. Most assaults (sexual or otherwise) aren't crimes of opportunity against random people at random times, they're against someone the perpetrator knows and they're often premeditated. The generous interpretation of the discourse here is that we've collectively forgotten how dangerous large predators are because they haven't been an issue in generations.
I’m elementary school we were taught basic bear safety. I’m not sure if it’s foolproof but I’m confident that I can survive a bear attack, albeit with scratches and bruises. Another dude all quiet out in the sticks alone at night is probably on meth. If I don’t have a gun, I’m probably not beating the guy on meth.
If it’s black, fight back. If it’s brown, lay down. In an ideal situation I have bear spray but if it’s between getting murdered by a meth head or trying my luck with an animal who doesn’t want to eat me anyway, I’m choosing that bear.
I think part of this is the whole "be with" part of the question because being with a random person, your mind goes to them being near you the whole time. Being with a bear, you think, theres a good chance we see each other and they go their way and I go mind.
In real camping you're likely to cross paths with dozens of random men and you both just continue your paths and I think most people are fine with that.
>Almost unanimously the women in question answered that they’d prefer bears- reason being, at least a bear is going to be honest about any predatorial intent and can be avoided or placated, whereas men can’t be trusted to be rational like the bear can.
This is the proper answer. Hell as a dude I'd say bear over a man or women here
For exactly the reasons you said.
Because people have made the lives of other people political, so at this point there's almost nothing in the world you can talk about that isn't political.
I've never voted and always am accused of being either far right or far left by people. It simply amazes me how standoffish politics have gotten.
Political parties need to be abolished and candidates should be weighed by their individual merrit. Maybe we'd get to see a real leader again.
Every democracy has political parties because it’s normal for like-minded people to group together and increase their influence that way. Individual candidates matter of course but nine times out of ten, their political party is enough to tell you their views on issues which makes it easier for the voters to decide who to support. Having a limited number of political parties is the issue as voters have less choice.
You know voting includes more than just voting for a party, right? I've never registered to a party but I still vote. There's stuff like propositions and non-party positions on pretty much every ballot. Calling for a "real leader" in a civic position and not doing the bare minimum of voting is kind of ironic.
See this is where humans are illogical.
Theres capacity for harm with a strange man that is known but there’s not logical thinking into intentional harm from a human vs a bear that is a known quantity besides one’s own experience.
You don’t have people educated to think that assault (as they might feel as guys like they can measure their own instincts vs an animals) it also seems to be enlightening that what matters to some men is sexual exclusivity over safety.
To me, this is a cultural sign that most men view the process of being a man through a narrow and focused lens that is really damaging them at heart
Bear vs Man? I think I could beat a bear, they don't seem very strong.
Oh, you mean women choosing between a bear and a man? I hope they don't choose me. I can beat a bear, but I don't think I could win against a woman. Maybe if I teamed up with the bear we could win?
Any women and/or bears want to volunteer for an experiment so we can settle the "bear vs man" debate?
It’s making fun of women who state they would rather encounter a bear in the woods than a strange man. The reason being that you don’t know if a man will rape and torture you while you know a bear will either kill you or leave you alone.
Exactly, which is why the bear is a less scary prospect. The extreme of a mostly quick death vs some truly fucked up torture then death on the off chance they do get attacked. I don’t know why some men are so upset about this, you should prefer to run into a bear too.
Idk why the assumption is that men are automatically gonna torture you to death if you meet them in the woods? I’ve spent a lot of time in the woods, never been scared of meeting solo people. You’re not running into tweakers in the middle of national parks and forests lol
You meet a bear in the spring when it’s mating season or they have cubs, you’re absolutely likely to get fucking annihilated. Outside of that they mostly just leave you alone.
You’re missing the point by a mile. Yeah, in certain situations bears are terrifying that’s true. But in just as many situations, a random man in the woods could also be terrifying. And some women would prefer to see the bear at their worst, than the man.
I mean, don’t be a coward then? Most people, not just guys, in the woods alone are just nature nerds lol I can’t imagine being so afraid of people that I let it affect my life at all and I work with drug addicts for living. In that context bears seems to be my answer.
If I seem argumentative it wasn’t my intention, text can lose some things in translation. I’d say I’m more incredulous that this is a point people are trying to make using this bear vs man as an illustration.
Exactly this.
What people don't seem to understand is that It's an emotional reaction, imagining both worst case scenarios and choosing the less terrible one.
A perfectly rational person with all the information would invariably choose the man, because men are statistically less dangerous than bears by a significant margin.
However, because both scenarios are very unlikely to end in violence to begin with, many women would opt to choose to hedge against the least preferable of the two worst case scenarios, rather than increase thier (already very high) overall survival odds.
And I guess that's fair? Even if it does sound ridiculous, as a pragmatist with a healthy fear of bear attacks, I can at least understand the thought processes involved.
Personally, though, I'm the kind of person with sufficient will to live that just very nearly anything other than dying is preferable and it isn't a contest. So the thought of choosing the option more likely to kill me in a hypothetical like this is like anathema to the way I think and operate.
But I can't expect everyone, or anyone else really, to think and operate like me. If in thier mental calculus, they're avoiding the potential of a fate worse than death by slightly increasing thier chances of death and that's acceptable to them then who am I to judge?
Exactly this.
What people don't seem to understand is that It's an emotional reaction, imagining both worst case scenarios and choosing the less terrible one.
A perfectly rational person with all the information would invariably choose the man, because men are statistically less dangerous than bears by a significant margin.
However, because both scenarios are very unlikely to end in violence to begin with, many women would opt to choose to hedge against the least preferable of the two worst case scenarios, rather than increase thier (already very high) overall survival odds.
And I guess that's fair? Even if it does sound ridiculous, as a pragmatist with a healthy fear of bear attacks, I can at least understand the thought processes involved.
Personally, though, I'm the kind of person with sufficient will to live that just very nearly anything other than dying is preferable and it isn't a contest. So the thought of choosing the option more likely to kill me in a hypothetical like this is like anathema to the way I think and operate.
But I can't expect everyone, or anyone else really, to think and operate like me. If in thier mental calculus, they're avoiding the potential of a fate worse than death by slightly increasing thier chances of death and that's acceptable to them then who am I to judge?
Every answer I've seen, women answering or dads answering for their child, is they know the bear is deadly. But killing you, even slowly, is the worst thing the bear can do. It isn't the worst thing a man can do.
I’m not trying to suggest you shouldn’t feel the way that you do, because it’s genuinely pretty fucked up we’ve gotten to the point that this conversation is even taking place and that’s kind of the whole point.
But realistically speaking, even assuming the odds of a man and a bear killing you are the same, neither will be quick. Bears have been known for pinning prey items down and eating them alive, which is one of the worst ways to die that I can imagine.
A man could keep you alive for years or decades though. A lot of those missing people are not dead people.
And the other aspect, the question isn't which is more deadly, it's which would you rather, and simply put a lot of women deal with PTSD over assaults and the ensuing victim blaming, and they are going to be averse to this, and yeah, choose the bear.
First of all, it’s not how I feel. I have a taser with 86,000,000 volts to take any random people down. The question was trying to understand what the image was about.
Second of all, if the absolute worst case against a bear is being eaten alive, it’s still better than the worst case against a person. [Here is one extreme](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Junko_Furuta) but it can be so much worse.
I know the story. People are monsters. I agree with the sentiment, for the record. I don’t think women are wrong for choosing the bear. I would too, regardless of the person in question being a man or a woman, because for all I know they’ll act friendly then stab me in the throat. I’m a 260 lb man, I still don’t leave the house without a firearm or a knife as much as possible.
I was solely weighing in on the ‘quick death’ part.
I don’t think a bear eating you is a quick death…
But isn’t this the same way old people just think all minorities are out to get them?
What if I framed it like this, would you prefer to meet a Bear or a Mexican in the woods?
Dude, I’m not arguing this. You know why it’s not the same thing, and if you don’t then you need to learn about stranger danger again. I was explaining the picture, and the reasoning behind it. That’s it.
You really want to see some cognitive dissonance, ask if they’d rather encounter a bear or a *muslim* man in the woods alone. All those “men are dangerous” arguments will go out the window when it’s a man of a specific race
logically I would choose the woman. I think this is a counterattack to the people saying they would choose the bear over the man. But a bear is much stronger physically and can kill you. A man can also be dangerous but might be reasoned with.
I think it was mostly about the fact that a bear either leaves you alone or outright murders you. And men could do far more unpredictable and horrific stuff
I legit think a woman would be able to deter an aggressive bear way more easily than an aggressive man. The huge majority of bears don’t want shit to do with people. If we’re assuming it’s a single random bear from the world I’d 100% take those odds if I was a woman. Plus you have the added perk that if you get attacked by a bear people will actually believe you -_-
So is the assumption that every woods animal/ person is dangerous and you are trying to pick the least dangerous thing or is it literally a random bear and random human?
bc if it is the ladder I’m having a hard time seeing a compelling argument for the confused Indian or Chinese man in the forest being more dangerous than a bear…
The difference between the bear and man is nature. The worst thing that’s gonna happen with a bear is I’m gonna get mauled to death. With a man, I could be raped, tortured, mentally and physically abused in every aspect AND THEN be killed. So…
Brutally torn apart vs rape, torture, mental abuse, and then murdered…
You tell me which you’d rather have.
Ah I see. I appreciate you explaining this, I was confused but it makes more sense with the first assumption.
I’d actually pick the human still bc there is no universe where I out run or beat a bear in a fight. Perhaps I can out smart it but even that would be a stretch.
The random human though, I think I’d have a much better chance. Heck, a swift kick to the testes can be painful enough to incapacitate most men.
Even if I can’t win, I think I’d be able to put up enough of the fight that I’d make it not worth their time.
More over, a human can absolutely be reasoned with (in comparison to a bear lol) so if we go with the second assumption a human is clearly the best choice imo
Bears eat your liver and gall bladder while you are still alive, clawing apart your flesh and rooting around inside you- eating the fatty parts they like and leaving the rest of you to rot.
But the average man is worse because saying so is proactive and engagement baity- and of course anyone giving the human answer is shamed and harassed for going off script - and the people answering bear don’t actually have to deal with the consequences of their theoretical choice so it’s worth more social currency to give the annoying answer.
Where did you get the idea that bears eat their prey alive?
Edit: it's also not about the correct logical answer. It's the fact that a lot of people both male and female pause to think about it. And the fact they have to pause is the conversation this hypothetical is meant to start. People don't try to be annoying or preachy. It's meant to start a dialogue. An old one for sure, but still an extremely relevant one
It’s about ‘starting a dialogue’ because it’s social media engagement bait and ‘dialogue’ is good for the algorithm- yes brown bears have a tendency to eat humans alive, just go for the fatty organs.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/olga-moskalyova_n_930464
That is one single example where even within the example not all the people were eaten alive.
And the fact that some people post it as bait to go with the trend doesn't mean that it isn't creating a conversation. It's not like the "would you still love me if I turned into a worm" post that was popular because it was funny. It's popular because it's something people talk about. And yes, if it gets talked about a lot it gets boosted which makes it more talked about. But that isn't a bad thing
There’s a problem with that conversation in the first place. If you would genuinely want to be alone in the woods with a bear over a man then I think you’re stupid. Here’s a secret, most men don’t want to kill/rape most women. I know, shocking. Sure most bears won’t either but it would be easier to fight of a man than a bear. Sure it’s creating a conversation but it’s a conversation of stupid people.
I think statistics would support that a higher ratio of men would attempt to attack or assault a woman than bears. And even if a bear attacks it’s only a 14% chance of it being fatal. If it’s a truly random man vs a truly random bear (only says one bear, so no cubs) you’d be crazy as a woman to not take the bear. It’s statistically the much safer option. Maybe you’re slightly more likely to die to a bear, but way less likely to be actually attacked by one.
My issue is none of this is actionable. I have spent my whole life feeling like I am a burden and in the way. As if I need to prove myself innocent to every person I meet in public, and make sure I am never left alone with anyone because I don't want to make someone feel unsafe. The only option left as a young male is essentially to have never existed in the first place. I didn't ask to be born a monster.
If that's how you feel, you aren't the target of the bear vs. man discourse. The target would be people that treat women like they're being irrational because they're scared to walk alone at night. The target is people who don't believe women have a reason to be afraid. The message isn't for you, and that's okay.
You're not a monster friend, and I'm sincerely sorry you feel that you are. For what it's worth, even when I'm alone with a guy at night and cross the street to avoid him, I rationally recognize that he's probably a stand-up dude and I feel guilty for maybe making him feel bad. We're just doing the risk mitigation that has been taught to us our whole lives.
While this message is addressed towards someone else, I just wanted to say it's nice to see someone say this. It just gets a bit difficult to handle sometimes, when most of the people you know also think this way and most of the time the response isn't what you said. Usually it's "because it's usually true" or "It's good you think that, then you won't be bad".
Sorry if this seemed a bit out of left field, just thought it was nice to see "You're not a monster" for once and worth a reponse.
I think the discussion gets so heated on both sides that it hurts all of us. Some compassion goes a long way.
There are so many amazing men in my life and the world is brighter because they're in it. The world is brighter because of you too ❤️
I want to just say that I am trying to communicate something here, not just feel victimized. If this is supposed to be about discourse then I think we should pay attention to what it is we are trying to communicate. If we don't understand each other then there will never be peace, regardless of who the parties are.
Intrinsically i AM the subject of this discourse, and that's what I think people are missing here. The question relates to random men vs a bear. To everyone that doesn't know me, I am random. And as previously discussed people agreeing aren't just women, it is also men. The immediate assumption is that the man is a murderer, rapist, or just generally a threat. Not that we think he is, but must act as though he is in this scenario. The bear however is essentially guaranteed death with no way to avoid it. So the question interprets, would you rather be anywhere with a man alone, or die. Again not only did women take the bear, but men when asked by women did too.
As a thought experiment instead of hearing this as what it is presented as, I just want to invite people to try reading it by replacing the subject "men" in the sentence, to "me". Or that is to say, imagine instead of a generalization, they are talking about you specifically. I invite you to read it that way, because that is the way every young boy and old man will hear it, including your father, brothers, and sons.
I'm not even saying anything about the answers either way, but what I am asking is what is there to be done with this information. If the entire world can only see a threat first and your humanity only once deemed safe on a case by case basis, what then. What are we really trying to say here? What are we actually trying to do with this?
I'm not trying to be snarky either, I am genuinely asking, because what we are dealing with here is something that I'm not even sure is solvable, because it is about risk aversion which isn't wrong, but those risks will always be there. In a time with the world being so divided and angry at everything, I think it's important for all of us individually to live with intention and compassion.
I don't really think it would bother me honestly. Children are taught stranger danger. I am a stranger to children. If a child avoids me because I'm a stranger and strangers might be dangerous, good. It doesn't hurt my feelings, because I understand that it is valid for them to be careful and I want them to be safe.
I've come across bears hiking, and the ones here leave you alone if they don't have cubs and you don't startle them. They go along their merry way. Bears definitely are not guaranteed death.
The reason this discourse is happening so aggressively is because so many of us have been told our fears are unfounded. Every woman who has been attacked has also been told that the precautions she takes are ridiculous. I don't think it's supposed to be actionable. It's just people seeking acknowledgement that their lived experience is real and that it can be scary.
I appreciate your response, and I want to say thank you for being willing to take the time to meaningfully think about and discuss this. I do genuinely want this to be about understanding and sharing perceived experience rather than some sort of meaningless competition of suffering.
I think the first point is fundamentally a difference in men's and women's lived experience. As someone that lives it, it's isolating and hurtful in a fairly existential way when it extends out from just children to everyone. Maybe it's a lived experience that just can't be communicated without firsthand experience.
As someone who works in healthcare it's very noticeable, but not in the way you might first guess. As a student in clinicals when I first put my scrubs on and worked with patients I was treated with such a warmth and acceptance by total strangers, and I had never felt that before in my life. I love working in healthcare because the people I work with know I'm there to help them and that I'm not a threat and it's honestly near euphoric compared to being in public with street clothes on.
I can deeply understand that last point, but it also troubles me at the same time. None of that has effectively reached the conversation at large and I feel like the point of it has been lost to the screaming.
I don't know. It just makes me feel sick that my existence makes people around me feel unsafe. I just want a path forward to an open and accepting community where people feel safe but I legitimately don't know how I am supposed to help other than just stay inside and never interact with anyone. Honestly I think I'm stuck on it because I hate making people uncomfortable at all.
Thank you again. I really do appreciate your efforts here.
You know what a woman’s greatest fear is? Rape, murder, etc.
You know what a man’s greatest fear is? Being *accused* of that.
Not even comparable. Sorry you feel burdened, but we feel hunted.
I want to clarify first that I appreciate the response, and I hear you. My favorite person on this earth is my sister and the runner up is my grandmother, and they are the basis for a lot of how I try to conduct myself in general, and I try to always have them in mind when I am doing generally anything.
I also want to take a moment to say this isn't coming from a place of victimhood competition, but from a place of attempting to better understand the suffering of humanity as a whole so we can try to better everyone's conditions. Without understanding, there can be no peace or love, no matter the parties involved.
I work in physical therapy as a man, and the odds are actually pretty inverted in our field with SA, though the field is largely female dominated. I won't say specifics but it's happened to me twice. The first was my first patient ever. When I brought it up to my female co workers and female boss they laughed at me. I had to go through a lot of higher ups and documentation to make sure it couldn't get ME in trouble. It was only later on that day one of my co workers pulled me aside and asked me how I was doing that I noticed I was kinda just in shock and wanted to cry.
I bring that up so i can frame my issues here. This conversation itself makes us think of each other in generalizations. My issue with this whole discussion is that it inherently removes humanity from the discussion, and reveals that we are content in dehumanizing others if it promotes safety. My issue with this conversation is that all it tells us as men is that we will always be a threat first in everyone's eyes. But more than that my biggest issue is that this doesn't teach young men and boys anything new, and instead reinforces the perceived idea that the world would rather we just weren't here.
I'm not saying this conversation is even for young boys and men, but what I am saying is that they will hear it anyway. When they hear this, including your fathers brothers and sons, what do we want them to do with this information? What do we want them to actualize to be accepted by a community. There must be something better to this than "women will always be scared and men will always be unsafe".
How do we plan to actualize this discussion to benefit humanity? The reason men see this and get upset is because all it has done so far has irritated the wounds from being dehumanized but hasn't told us anything about how to heal society.
Lmao what? I never said that men cant be hunted, assaulted, murdered, or in any other way mistreated. I am anti ALL rape. Crazy that needs to be said.
But in the comment I was replying to, that person was specifically lamenting how he felt the burden of proving that he was “safe” to women, and how the thought of a woman keeping up her guard around him, and that made him feel like a monster.
I acknowledged he felt burdened and that sucks, but the fear of being hunted is worse than the fear of being misunderstood.
I think you just took this opportunity to purposefully misinterpret my message so you could trauma dump. I apologize those things happened to you, they have ALL happened to me too. But it’s not the trauma Olympics.
If you encounter a bear, you’re usually already pretty fucked. Most animals will avoid you, so if you encounter a bear then it’s not avoiding you for a reason. Either it didn’t notice you (in which case you’re fucked because you’ve startled it), or it is actively coming to harm you for some reason (like it’s cubs are near or it’s hungry). If you encounter a man in the woods, then chances are you’re going to be perfectly fine. The average solo hiker is just going to completely ignore you, with the majority of the rest simply saying “hi” and then moving on.
The narrative comes from a ton of first hand accounts of bear attacks and watching their behavior. They’re opportunistic omnivores, they don’t have a strong evolutionary drive to kill their prey, they can, but they often don’t if they can just hold it down and eat it anyways.
That's bullshit, an alive prey is one that can run or hurt you. They definitely have a drive to kill it as soon as possible. Animals like hyaenas don't kill first eat later because they're pack hunters, so first come first serve. Killing takes time so hyaenas start eating the second they get the chance. Bears are apex, solitairy predators so they have no competition. So it's more worthwhile for them to kill their prey to prevent their prey fleeing or hurting them.
Most bears aren’t risky to be around (pandas are bears and are pretty no confrontational). Most bears can be scared off. Sure a polar bear or a grizzly is going to be dicey, but the premise is a *random* bear. And out of all the bears that exist in the world, I’m confident I can scare off a majority of them. I own bear repellent for a reason.
A man though? Most men also don’t pose a danger. But on the chance I do get a dangerous one, I likely won’t be able to scare or fight him off. Best I can do is run. But humans are the most dangerous species on earth for a reason, and I’m not as strong or as fast or have as much stamina as most men.
And let’s not pretend we don’t know how truly evil and horrific humans can be. The worst a bear can do is eat me alive. That pales in comparison to the worst an evil human can do to me.
For those asking what does this meme mean, women were asked (by one of those video interviewers for clicks) what would they rather be alone with in the woods, a bear or a man. The women in the video chose the bear. Some men were offended by this because they don’t understand what that some women fear the possibility of getting a very dangerous man over the bear. While an aggressive bear will kill you, a depraved man can do things far worse than an aggressive bear.
Alright, what the hell happened?
I think this is a baldur’s gate reference but I have no idea
It's a reference to a TikTok video that's been going around on women's TikTok accounts of girls asking their boyfriends or husbands if they'd rather have their wife/ girlfriend alone in the woods with a bear or a random man, and a lot of them had to think about it. This has been used as a point to demonstrate how even men recognize the threatening presence of another man to women
To be fair with a bear you would at least get killed without getting sexually assaulted first
I think that's the point
Sure
Yeah, I don't think the chances of rape and murder are super high unless we change the stipulation of random man to random criminals. This is the dumbest shit ever.
I’m choosing the bear bro 💀
Then you will die But first I would like you to think who staffs the vast majority of search and rescue. Who would be a random stranger.
Nah you will NOT 💀 bro does NOT know wildlife shit. Bears will 99.99% want NOTHING to do with you. A man on the other hand
But a man might stuff my holes
Fair. As a man, I would choose the bear over a random woman too.
Agreed. I would still choose bear but only because I been cheated on too much
Look up a video of a bear mauling something and maybe consider painful death vs. your awful choice / terrible ability to be in a relationship. Most people think having your heart broken is a bit less painful than being eaten alive.
Sure, but the point is just that people had to actually consider their answer to begin with.
No they didn't, the question frames men as wild animals, which is dumb as fuck. If I said your kids have to be left alone with margerie Taylor Green or Alex Jones, you might think about it. The gender isn't the problem between the 2, it's that they are both fucking mental.
Gotta remember most women hear “what was she wearing?” Or “boys will be boys what do you expect” when it comes to sexual assault so in their mind men can be wild animals
Yeah, and when you treat all brown people like terrorists your racist. If you treat all men like criminals, you are _______. Fill in the blank.
Something tells me women cover their glasses when you enter a party
Considering on average 1 out of every 6 American women is the victim of a rape in their life time and there have only been 180 fatal bear attacks in North America since 1784, statistically speaking as a woman, you’re more likely to be raped than attacked by a bear. Now obviously there’s a lot more to it but still.
not defending anything here, I swear it on my life, I'm asking a genuine question Wouldn't that be a bit accountable to the fact that: A. There are a lot less bears in the world than men B. Women see men much more often than bears again I'm asking a genuine question I'm not a reddit incel I swear
Yes for sure. Statistics like these have to be taken with a grain of salt. I’m not trying to say that if there were equal number and dispersion of bears as there were men in the world, there would still be less bear attacks on women than man on woman assaults. Obviously bears have more destructive power than man (at least if they were *bare* handed). But the question was posed because bears don’t make conscious decisions to go out of their way to attack humans. They will do everything in their power to avoid humans because they’re all about protecting themselves and their young. They have no reason to attack you unless they feel threatened. Bears don’t lie and pretend to be friendly just to wait for you to let your guard down.
Definitely sounds like you’re defending it. Women don’t feel safe and you’re still like “but why tho?” Because men make them feel like they can’t be because personal experiences. It’s not really that hard
No, once again, you are using the stat wrong. Yes sexual assault is extremely common. That does not mean men statistically all assault women. That is the Stat they won't tell you. 99% of all sexual assaults are caused by men, which does not mean 99% of men are sexual predators. There is a huge leap in logic here.
Either way, it's still a problem!
And you can play dead easier with a bear
Bears eat animals in such a way that they stay alive as long as possible while being eaten. That way they have a nice self warming meal.
I've seen a counterargument for this being that some would still prefer this over the man since they would still die at the end of it where a man could do anything, including keeping you alive. Me personally, I would fucking shit myself if I was told I was alone in the woods with another person, even a child.
They eat you alive… and start from the crotch…
Wait what? Source?
Predators (lions, bears, wolves) go for the anus and crotch first because it gives access to the prey's organs faster.
I'd need more clarification. Is it any random man from anywhere in the world and the same for any random bear? Because if that's the case, there are more black bears than every other species of bear put together and it isn't close. There's a nearly 70% chance that it's a black bear under those circumstances... And black bears don't usually pose a danger to humans. The probability distribution is roughly 70% black bear, 20% brown bear, 10% any other bear. (the split of that 10% being roughly 4-4-2-1-1 polar, sloth, sun, spectacled, and panda respectively) But even in those circumstances, a 4% chance of polar bear (and therefore near certain death) is STILL worse than the odds of any random man being a serious danger. Statistically, the man is still less dangerous than a 4% chance of polar bear. If you're talking about a more realistic scenario, and you restrict it to just bears and men that one would commonly find in the woods, it's a roughly 80% chance you are with a black bear and a 20% chance it's a brown bear. As for the men, it's mostly hikers and backpackers... If you look at those statistics, and compare them to bear attack and rape statistics, I can see why a lot of women would choose the bear... Not because the men are particularly dangerous, statistically, but because sigular bears usually aren't. And that's a level of "assuredness" that rape won't happen. But overall, by the numbers? Random men are less dangerous than bears, on average. And a perfectly rational person with all this information would choose the man. Because it's statistically the safer option. But the odds of either scenario actually resulting in danger is pretty low either way. So honesty the take away from this should be that "alone in the woods with a bear or a random man" actually isn't that dangerous as far as hypothetical scenarios go.
There’s been a few studies on men and their willingness to commit sexual assault. Generally the floor is that 30% of men would force a woman into sexual intercourse against her will. I’ve seen as high as 50% reported in one study but generally they put it in the range of 30-40% assuming the man knows they could get away with it. While a bear is never safe, I think a woman is way more likely to be able to scare one away than not. The same is not said for a man. If they want to attack you, they will.
If we are going off statistics more women are raped/murdered every hour than attack by a bear. You’re in a huge ass Forrest most bears will leave you alone if you leave them alone. It’s not the same for most men
Most women also don’t run into bears in their (daily) lives, while they do encounter several men
A lot of people live in woodland areas/forrest that have bears but don’t get attacked by bears what’s your point?
The average woman meets about 30.000 men in her life, and 0 non-zoo bears. Your point being?
That this is a question about how women feel not statistics. Women don’t feel safe around men and all you have to say is “StAtisTicalLy you’Re SafEr aRouNd meN”. Lol yall are why women feel safer choosing a beat. 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted so they are just choosing by personal experience, you guys make women feel this way by making it a statistic competition instead of just hearing what they say lol
You are literally the one who brought statistics into this, don’t start taking them out when they stop disagreeing with you.
Is the bear gonna go out of his way to help the wife/gf? Or will it be normal wild bear? If it’s goal is to help the wife/gf, then bear is the much better option, since it knows the forrest better and is steonger then an average man But if it’s just a wild bear, with no allegiance Then a man would be much more helpful to the wife/gf
Fr
1. there are ways to get the bear to leave you alone without arguing with it. 2. The bears friends wont bother you about how nice of a bear it is.
Technically it started with a random dude asking random women. A bunch of men got all bent out of shape the most of the women chose the bear over the man. So women started asking their significant others as a way to show men how they’d answer with someone they care about.
There’s nothing more terrifying than being alone in the presence of a human that you don’t know their intentions. At least I know that a bear will kill me
Thats easy, a random man but my gf brings my 12 guage with her. And if she comes back I'll find out that I got my first girlfriend!
Not quite. The TikTok trend this is referencing was a series of Women being asked if they rather be alone in the woods with a random bear, or a random man. A large swath of the female population answered they’d take the bear for a variety of reasons. This cause the internet to do its thing & the two main responses from people who are missing the point has been to either make shitty jokes about women being into bears, or making shitty jokes about women not understanding how dangerous a bear is. Again both these responses missing the point that’s it’s not about which (man or bear) can be more dangerous, that’s obviously the bear (physically at least), but which is more likely to be dangerous & in what ways.
It might just prove the jealousy present in many relationships, are we back at aphorism stage?
It had originally started as a trend where tiktokers would impromptu ask women on the street whether they’d prefer to be alone in the woods with a random man or a bear. Almost unanimously the women in question answered that they’d prefer bears- reason being, at least a bear is going to be honest about any predatorial intent and can be avoided or placated, whereas men can’t be trusted to be rational like the bear can. Naturally, this hit the alt-right/manosphere like a bomb in a preschool daycare; a whole lot of screaming and hollering and not a whole lot of actual dialogue beyond “wamen eevul, we gloriousl Men (tm) are Nice Guys (c) who would never hurt a fly!” So the toktikers responded by asking the boyfriends if they’d prefer their girlfriends to be alone in the woods with either a bear or another man. The amount of thought this question provoked has Implications that are still being explored, much to incels’ chagrin.
As a man I’d rather be in the woods with a bear (depending on the type of bear.) than a random person.
> (depending on the type of bear.) What do you mean? It's any type of bear from the pool of all bears. Polar bear or black bear, pure luck of the draw. But it doesn't matter anyway because you have some chance to defend yourself against a man who wants to hurt you and no chance at all to defend yourself against any kind of bear if they want to hurt you. The only real question is whether you think that on balance more random men would attack you than random bears, which is absurd on its face. Most assaults (sexual or otherwise) aren't crimes of opportunity against random people at random times, they're against someone the perpetrator knows and they're often premeditated. The generous interpretation of the discourse here is that we've collectively forgotten how dangerous large predators are because they haven't been an issue in generations.
I’m elementary school we were taught basic bear safety. I’m not sure if it’s foolproof but I’m confident that I can survive a bear attack, albeit with scratches and bruises. Another dude all quiet out in the sticks alone at night is probably on meth. If I don’t have a gun, I’m probably not beating the guy on meth.
>but I’m confident that I can survive a bear attack I beg your pardon?
If it’s black, fight back. If it’s brown, lay down. In an ideal situation I have bear spray but if it’s between getting murdered by a meth head or trying my luck with an animal who doesn’t want to eat me anyway, I’m choosing that bear.
I think part of this is the whole "be with" part of the question because being with a random person, your mind goes to them being near you the whole time. Being with a bear, you think, theres a good chance we see each other and they go their way and I go mind. In real camping you're likely to cross paths with dozens of random men and you both just continue your paths and I think most people are fine with that.
>Almost unanimously the women in question answered that they’d prefer bears- reason being, at least a bear is going to be honest about any predatorial intent and can be avoided or placated, whereas men can’t be trusted to be rational like the bear can. This is the proper answer. Hell as a dude I'd say bear over a man or women here For exactly the reasons you said.
Why did this have to go political 😮💨
Because people have made the lives of other people political, so at this point there's almost nothing in the world you can talk about that isn't political.
I've never voted and always am accused of being either far right or far left by people. It simply amazes me how standoffish politics have gotten. Political parties need to be abolished and candidates should be weighed by their individual merrit. Maybe we'd get to see a real leader again.
Every democracy has political parties because it’s normal for like-minded people to group together and increase their influence that way. Individual candidates matter of course but nine times out of ten, their political party is enough to tell you their views on issues which makes it easier for the voters to decide who to support. Having a limited number of political parties is the issue as voters have less choice.
Let's be real, the US gov is a 2 party system out to screw the common people.
You know voting includes more than just voting for a party, right? I've never registered to a party but I still vote. There's stuff like propositions and non-party positions on pretty much every ballot. Calling for a "real leader" in a civic position and not doing the bare minimum of voting is kind of ironic.
And you think someone not sponsored by the Democrats or Republicans stands a chance?
See this is where humans are illogical. Theres capacity for harm with a strange man that is known but there’s not logical thinking into intentional harm from a human vs a bear that is a known quantity besides one’s own experience. You don’t have people educated to think that assault (as they might feel as guys like they can measure their own instincts vs an animals) it also seems to be enlightening that what matters to some men is sexual exclusivity over safety. To me, this is a cultural sign that most men view the process of being a man through a narrow and focused lens that is really damaging them at heart
This guy is why women choose the bear
I am willing to bet hard cold cash that women cover their drinks around you.
It's a reference to the whole "bear Vs man" argument. Pretty stupid and draining imo
Bear vs Man? I think I could beat a bear, they don't seem very strong. Oh, you mean women choosing between a bear and a man? I hope they don't choose me. I can beat a bear, but I don't think I could win against a woman. Maybe if I teamed up with the bear we could win? Any women and/or bears want to volunteer for an experiment so we can settle the "bear vs man" debate?
But also, yes
It’s making fun of women who state they would rather encounter a bear in the woods than a strange man. The reason being that you don’t know if a man will rape and torture you while you know a bear will either kill you or leave you alone.
Both irl are most likely to just leave you alone?
Exactly, which is why the bear is a less scary prospect. The extreme of a mostly quick death vs some truly fucked up torture then death on the off chance they do get attacked. I don’t know why some men are so upset about this, you should prefer to run into a bear too.
Idk why the assumption is that men are automatically gonna torture you to death if you meet them in the woods? I’ve spent a lot of time in the woods, never been scared of meeting solo people. You’re not running into tweakers in the middle of national parks and forests lol You meet a bear in the spring when it’s mating season or they have cubs, you’re absolutely likely to get fucking annihilated. Outside of that they mostly just leave you alone.
You’re missing the point by a mile. Yeah, in certain situations bears are terrifying that’s true. But in just as many situations, a random man in the woods could also be terrifying. And some women would prefer to see the bear at their worst, than the man.
I mean, don’t be a coward then? Most people, not just guys, in the woods alone are just nature nerds lol I can’t imagine being so afraid of people that I let it affect my life at all and I work with drug addicts for living. In that context bears seems to be my answer.
I don’t really know why you’re arguing with me on here. I was explaining what the image is, and apparently I triggered some people with that 🤷♀️
If I seem argumentative it wasn’t my intention, text can lose some things in translation. I’d say I’m more incredulous that this is a point people are trying to make using this bear vs man as an illustration.
Exactly this. What people don't seem to understand is that It's an emotional reaction, imagining both worst case scenarios and choosing the less terrible one. A perfectly rational person with all the information would invariably choose the man, because men are statistically less dangerous than bears by a significant margin. However, because both scenarios are very unlikely to end in violence to begin with, many women would opt to choose to hedge against the least preferable of the two worst case scenarios, rather than increase thier (already very high) overall survival odds. And I guess that's fair? Even if it does sound ridiculous, as a pragmatist with a healthy fear of bear attacks, I can at least understand the thought processes involved. Personally, though, I'm the kind of person with sufficient will to live that just very nearly anything other than dying is preferable and it isn't a contest. So the thought of choosing the option more likely to kill me in a hypothetical like this is like anathema to the way I think and operate. But I can't expect everyone, or anyone else really, to think and operate like me. If in thier mental calculus, they're avoiding the potential of a fate worse than death by slightly increasing thier chances of death and that's acceptable to them then who am I to judge?
Exactly this. What people don't seem to understand is that It's an emotional reaction, imagining both worst case scenarios and choosing the less terrible one. A perfectly rational person with all the information would invariably choose the man, because men are statistically less dangerous than bears by a significant margin. However, because both scenarios are very unlikely to end in violence to begin with, many women would opt to choose to hedge against the least preferable of the two worst case scenarios, rather than increase thier (already very high) overall survival odds. And I guess that's fair? Even if it does sound ridiculous, as a pragmatist with a healthy fear of bear attacks, I can at least understand the thought processes involved. Personally, though, I'm the kind of person with sufficient will to live that just very nearly anything other than dying is preferable and it isn't a contest. So the thought of choosing the option more likely to kill me in a hypothetical like this is like anathema to the way I think and operate. But I can't expect everyone, or anyone else really, to think and operate like me. If in thier mental calculus, they're avoiding the potential of a fate worse than death by slightly increasing thier chances of death and that's acceptable to them then who am I to judge?
The truth of the matter is women need to fear bears more!
Every answer I've seen, women answering or dads answering for their child, is they know the bear is deadly. But killing you, even slowly, is the worst thing the bear can do. It isn't the worst thing a man can do.
lol I would say fearing shit less and realizing the world isn’t out to get you while still being able to be cautious would be a level headed take.
I’m not trying to suggest you shouldn’t feel the way that you do, because it’s genuinely pretty fucked up we’ve gotten to the point that this conversation is even taking place and that’s kind of the whole point. But realistically speaking, even assuming the odds of a man and a bear killing you are the same, neither will be quick. Bears have been known for pinning prey items down and eating them alive, which is one of the worst ways to die that I can imagine.
A man could keep you alive for years or decades though. A lot of those missing people are not dead people. And the other aspect, the question isn't which is more deadly, it's which would you rather, and simply put a lot of women deal with PTSD over assaults and the ensuing victim blaming, and they are going to be averse to this, and yeah, choose the bear.
I don’t disagree with any of the logic there, I was just pointing out that your odds of death being quick with a bear aren’t super high.
First of all, it’s not how I feel. I have a taser with 86,000,000 volts to take any random people down. The question was trying to understand what the image was about. Second of all, if the absolute worst case against a bear is being eaten alive, it’s still better than the worst case against a person. [Here is one extreme](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Junko_Furuta) but it can be so much worse.
I know the story. People are monsters. I agree with the sentiment, for the record. I don’t think women are wrong for choosing the bear. I would too, regardless of the person in question being a man or a woman, because for all I know they’ll act friendly then stab me in the throat. I’m a 260 lb man, I still don’t leave the house without a firearm or a knife as much as possible. I was solely weighing in on the ‘quick death’ part.
I don’t think a bear eating you is a quick death… But isn’t this the same way old people just think all minorities are out to get them? What if I framed it like this, would you prefer to meet a Bear or a Mexican in the woods?
Dude, I’m not arguing this. You know why it’s not the same thing, and if you don’t then you need to learn about stranger danger again. I was explaining the picture, and the reasoning behind it. That’s it.
I’m not arguing, I just added my thoughts to your reply.
"I'm not arguing this because I know deep down how stupid the man or bear question, but I'm too afraid to admit it"
You really want to see some cognitive dissonance, ask if they’d rather encounter a bear or a *muslim* man in the woods alone. All those “men are dangerous” arguments will go out the window when it’s a man of a specific race
Honestly, I’d also rather take my chances with the bear as a man.
Good for you.
You mean a turtle bear right?
It just says... Bear..?
This place is weird.
Or a platypus bear
There is in fact a bear that team avatar met, I think it’s the only non hybrid in the whole show
i thought bears were gay /s
A bear in the woods, woman looking with passion, sokka screams with glee
logically I would choose the woman. I think this is a counterattack to the people saying they would choose the bear over the man. But a bear is much stronger physically and can kill you. A man can also be dangerous but might be reasoned with.
I think it was mostly about the fact that a bear either leaves you alone or outright murders you. And men could do far more unpredictable and horrific stuff
Who doesn't see how obvious this is for women is outwardly dumb or utterly dense.
Which is why I’d also choose the bear. lol I’ve read up on some horrific crimes of men, I don’t want any of it.
I legit think a woman would be able to deter an aggressive bear way more easily than an aggressive man. The huge majority of bears don’t want shit to do with people. If we’re assuming it’s a single random bear from the world I’d 100% take those odds if I was a woman. Plus you have the added perk that if you get attacked by a bear people will actually believe you -_-
100%
So is the assumption that every woods animal/ person is dangerous and you are trying to pick the least dangerous thing or is it literally a random bear and random human? bc if it is the ladder I’m having a hard time seeing a compelling argument for the confused Indian or Chinese man in the forest being more dangerous than a bear…
The difference between the bear and man is nature. The worst thing that’s gonna happen with a bear is I’m gonna get mauled to death. With a man, I could be raped, tortured, mentally and physically abused in every aspect AND THEN be killed. So… Brutally torn apart vs rape, torture, mental abuse, and then murdered… You tell me which you’d rather have.
Ah I see. I appreciate you explaining this, I was confused but it makes more sense with the first assumption. I’d actually pick the human still bc there is no universe where I out run or beat a bear in a fight. Perhaps I can out smart it but even that would be a stretch. The random human though, I think I’d have a much better chance. Heck, a swift kick to the testes can be painful enough to incapacitate most men. Even if I can’t win, I think I’d be able to put up enough of the fight that I’d make it not worth their time. More over, a human can absolutely be reasoned with (in comparison to a bear lol) so if we go with the second assumption a human is clearly the best choice imo
A bear trying to kill you will try and claw and bite you to death. Not exactly painless
What makes you think a man would make it painless if he had foul intentions?
Bears eat your liver and gall bladder while you are still alive, clawing apart your flesh and rooting around inside you- eating the fatty parts they like and leaving the rest of you to rot. But the average man is worse because saying so is proactive and engagement baity- and of course anyone giving the human answer is shamed and harassed for going off script - and the people answering bear don’t actually have to deal with the consequences of their theoretical choice so it’s worth more social currency to give the annoying answer.
Where did you get the idea that bears eat their prey alive? Edit: it's also not about the correct logical answer. It's the fact that a lot of people both male and female pause to think about it. And the fact they have to pause is the conversation this hypothetical is meant to start. People don't try to be annoying or preachy. It's meant to start a dialogue. An old one for sure, but still an extremely relevant one
lol my little sister works for the NPS, she’s been in the woods alone with both plenty of time and is still fine. Maybe chill with the victim complex.
It’s about ‘starting a dialogue’ because it’s social media engagement bait and ‘dialogue’ is good for the algorithm- yes brown bears have a tendency to eat humans alive, just go for the fatty organs. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/olga-moskalyova_n_930464
That is one single example where even within the example not all the people were eaten alive. And the fact that some people post it as bait to go with the trend doesn't mean that it isn't creating a conversation. It's not like the "would you still love me if I turned into a worm" post that was popular because it was funny. It's popular because it's something people talk about. And yes, if it gets talked about a lot it gets boosted which makes it more talked about. But that isn't a bad thing
There’s a problem with that conversation in the first place. If you would genuinely want to be alone in the woods with a bear over a man then I think you’re stupid. Here’s a secret, most men don’t want to kill/rape most women. I know, shocking. Sure most bears won’t either but it would be easier to fight of a man than a bear. Sure it’s creating a conversation but it’s a conversation of stupid people.
I think statistics would support that a higher ratio of men would attempt to attack or assault a woman than bears. And even if a bear attacks it’s only a 14% chance of it being fatal. If it’s a truly random man vs a truly random bear (only says one bear, so no cubs) you’d be crazy as a woman to not take the bear. It’s statistically the much safer option. Maybe you’re slightly more likely to die to a bear, but way less likely to be actually attacked by one.
My issue is none of this is actionable. I have spent my whole life feeling like I am a burden and in the way. As if I need to prove myself innocent to every person I meet in public, and make sure I am never left alone with anyone because I don't want to make someone feel unsafe. The only option left as a young male is essentially to have never existed in the first place. I didn't ask to be born a monster.
If that's how you feel, you aren't the target of the bear vs. man discourse. The target would be people that treat women like they're being irrational because they're scared to walk alone at night. The target is people who don't believe women have a reason to be afraid. The message isn't for you, and that's okay. You're not a monster friend, and I'm sincerely sorry you feel that you are. For what it's worth, even when I'm alone with a guy at night and cross the street to avoid him, I rationally recognize that he's probably a stand-up dude and I feel guilty for maybe making him feel bad. We're just doing the risk mitigation that has been taught to us our whole lives.
While this message is addressed towards someone else, I just wanted to say it's nice to see someone say this. It just gets a bit difficult to handle sometimes, when most of the people you know also think this way and most of the time the response isn't what you said. Usually it's "because it's usually true" or "It's good you think that, then you won't be bad". Sorry if this seemed a bit out of left field, just thought it was nice to see "You're not a monster" for once and worth a reponse.
I think the discussion gets so heated on both sides that it hurts all of us. Some compassion goes a long way. There are so many amazing men in my life and the world is brighter because they're in it. The world is brighter because of you too ❤️
I want to just say that I am trying to communicate something here, not just feel victimized. If this is supposed to be about discourse then I think we should pay attention to what it is we are trying to communicate. If we don't understand each other then there will never be peace, regardless of who the parties are. Intrinsically i AM the subject of this discourse, and that's what I think people are missing here. The question relates to random men vs a bear. To everyone that doesn't know me, I am random. And as previously discussed people agreeing aren't just women, it is also men. The immediate assumption is that the man is a murderer, rapist, or just generally a threat. Not that we think he is, but must act as though he is in this scenario. The bear however is essentially guaranteed death with no way to avoid it. So the question interprets, would you rather be anywhere with a man alone, or die. Again not only did women take the bear, but men when asked by women did too. As a thought experiment instead of hearing this as what it is presented as, I just want to invite people to try reading it by replacing the subject "men" in the sentence, to "me". Or that is to say, imagine instead of a generalization, they are talking about you specifically. I invite you to read it that way, because that is the way every young boy and old man will hear it, including your father, brothers, and sons. I'm not even saying anything about the answers either way, but what I am asking is what is there to be done with this information. If the entire world can only see a threat first and your humanity only once deemed safe on a case by case basis, what then. What are we really trying to say here? What are we actually trying to do with this? I'm not trying to be snarky either, I am genuinely asking, because what we are dealing with here is something that I'm not even sure is solvable, because it is about risk aversion which isn't wrong, but those risks will always be there. In a time with the world being so divided and angry at everything, I think it's important for all of us individually to live with intention and compassion.
I don't really think it would bother me honestly. Children are taught stranger danger. I am a stranger to children. If a child avoids me because I'm a stranger and strangers might be dangerous, good. It doesn't hurt my feelings, because I understand that it is valid for them to be careful and I want them to be safe. I've come across bears hiking, and the ones here leave you alone if they don't have cubs and you don't startle them. They go along their merry way. Bears definitely are not guaranteed death. The reason this discourse is happening so aggressively is because so many of us have been told our fears are unfounded. Every woman who has been attacked has also been told that the precautions she takes are ridiculous. I don't think it's supposed to be actionable. It's just people seeking acknowledgement that their lived experience is real and that it can be scary.
I appreciate your response, and I want to say thank you for being willing to take the time to meaningfully think about and discuss this. I do genuinely want this to be about understanding and sharing perceived experience rather than some sort of meaningless competition of suffering. I think the first point is fundamentally a difference in men's and women's lived experience. As someone that lives it, it's isolating and hurtful in a fairly existential way when it extends out from just children to everyone. Maybe it's a lived experience that just can't be communicated without firsthand experience. As someone who works in healthcare it's very noticeable, but not in the way you might first guess. As a student in clinicals when I first put my scrubs on and worked with patients I was treated with such a warmth and acceptance by total strangers, and I had never felt that before in my life. I love working in healthcare because the people I work with know I'm there to help them and that I'm not a threat and it's honestly near euphoric compared to being in public with street clothes on. I can deeply understand that last point, but it also troubles me at the same time. None of that has effectively reached the conversation at large and I feel like the point of it has been lost to the screaming. I don't know. It just makes me feel sick that my existence makes people around me feel unsafe. I just want a path forward to an open and accepting community where people feel safe but I legitimately don't know how I am supposed to help other than just stay inside and never interact with anyone. Honestly I think I'm stuck on it because I hate making people uncomfortable at all. Thank you again. I really do appreciate your efforts here.
You know what a woman’s greatest fear is? Rape, murder, etc. You know what a man’s greatest fear is? Being *accused* of that. Not even comparable. Sorry you feel burdened, but we feel hunted.
I want to clarify first that I appreciate the response, and I hear you. My favorite person on this earth is my sister and the runner up is my grandmother, and they are the basis for a lot of how I try to conduct myself in general, and I try to always have them in mind when I am doing generally anything. I also want to take a moment to say this isn't coming from a place of victimhood competition, but from a place of attempting to better understand the suffering of humanity as a whole so we can try to better everyone's conditions. Without understanding, there can be no peace or love, no matter the parties involved. I work in physical therapy as a man, and the odds are actually pretty inverted in our field with SA, though the field is largely female dominated. I won't say specifics but it's happened to me twice. The first was my first patient ever. When I brought it up to my female co workers and female boss they laughed at me. I had to go through a lot of higher ups and documentation to make sure it couldn't get ME in trouble. It was only later on that day one of my co workers pulled me aside and asked me how I was doing that I noticed I was kinda just in shock and wanted to cry. I bring that up so i can frame my issues here. This conversation itself makes us think of each other in generalizations. My issue with this whole discussion is that it inherently removes humanity from the discussion, and reveals that we are content in dehumanizing others if it promotes safety. My issue with this conversation is that all it tells us as men is that we will always be a threat first in everyone's eyes. But more than that my biggest issue is that this doesn't teach young men and boys anything new, and instead reinforces the perceived idea that the world would rather we just weren't here. I'm not saying this conversation is even for young boys and men, but what I am saying is that they will hear it anyway. When they hear this, including your fathers brothers and sons, what do we want them to do with this information? What do we want them to actualize to be accepted by a community. There must be something better to this than "women will always be scared and men will always be unsafe". How do we plan to actualize this discussion to benefit humanity? The reason men see this and get upset is because all it has done so far has irritated the wounds from being dehumanized but hasn't told us anything about how to heal society.
[удалено]
Lmao what? I never said that men cant be hunted, assaulted, murdered, or in any other way mistreated. I am anti ALL rape. Crazy that needs to be said. But in the comment I was replying to, that person was specifically lamenting how he felt the burden of proving that he was “safe” to women, and how the thought of a woman keeping up her guard around him, and that made him feel like a monster. I acknowledged he felt burdened and that sucks, but the fear of being hunted is worse than the fear of being misunderstood. I think you just took this opportunity to purposefully misinterpret my message so you could trauma dump. I apologize those things happened to you, they have ALL happened to me too. But it’s not the trauma Olympics.
If you encounter a bear, you’re usually already pretty fucked. Most animals will avoid you, so if you encounter a bear then it’s not avoiding you for a reason. Either it didn’t notice you (in which case you’re fucked because you’ve startled it), or it is actively coming to harm you for some reason (like it’s cubs are near or it’s hungry). If you encounter a man in the woods, then chances are you’re going to be perfectly fine. The average solo hiker is just going to completely ignore you, with the majority of the rest simply saying “hi” and then moving on.
Bears don’t usually kill their prey before they eat it, just to be clear lol
Seriously, where does this narrative come from? Bears definitely kill their prey before they eat them. Hell ever seen a bear sumo slam a salmon
The narrative comes from a ton of first hand accounts of bear attacks and watching their behavior. They’re opportunistic omnivores, they don’t have a strong evolutionary drive to kill their prey, they can, but they often don’t if they can just hold it down and eat it anyways.
That's bullshit, an alive prey is one that can run or hurt you. They definitely have a drive to kill it as soon as possible. Animals like hyaenas don't kill first eat later because they're pack hunters, so first come first serve. Killing takes time so hyaenas start eating the second they get the chance. Bears are apex, solitairy predators so they have no competition. So it's more worthwhile for them to kill their prey to prevent their prey fleeing or hurting them.
Well National Geographic and the internet at large seems to disagree with you so idk what to tell you dude, got test out the theory yourself.
Fine, give me a national geographic source if they claim this
Because apparently all men are horrible rapists and murderers instead of just being some guy in the woods
Not all men are horrible. Hell 99% of men are stand up people. but enough aren't that it's a significant enough risk if a woman meets a new man
Right because every man is Ted bunny
i think the meme isnt asking what youd pick and its saying all the women picked the bear like how all the women outside of his sister picked sokka
Fuck all reasoning stuff, I *might* be able to outrun a human, I am **not** outrunning a bear.
Depends on the bear. Most bears you can scare off.
Most bears aren’t risky to be around (pandas are bears and are pretty no confrontational). Most bears can be scared off. Sure a polar bear or a grizzly is going to be dicey, but the premise is a *random* bear. And out of all the bears that exist in the world, I’m confident I can scare off a majority of them. I own bear repellent for a reason. A man though? Most men also don’t pose a danger. But on the chance I do get a dangerous one, I likely won’t be able to scare or fight him off. Best I can do is run. But humans are the most dangerous species on earth for a reason, and I’m not as strong or as fast or have as much stamina as most men. And let’s not pretend we don’t know how truly evil and horrific humans can be. The worst a bear can do is eat me alive. That pales in comparison to the worst an evil human can do to me.
Fr
Might also kidnap me for 18 years
It’s this argument and the fallout vault 68 and 69 debate that are getting old already.
Those eyes did things to my 13 year old self 🤣
hehehe *content sigh*🙂↔️
Ty Lee giving them bedroom eyes
I read somewhere women's periods attract bears. Bears can smell the menstruation.
BG3 moment
Jesus fucking Christ not this sub now too
Cant escape sexism even on the avatar reddit lol
The entire bear or man topic is sexist towards men. Making a meme about it that's poking fun at it is perfectly fine.
It’s not sexist towards men
Yep, way to make a serious, very real and scary societal statement "funny".
Fr smh
For those asking what does this meme mean, women were asked (by one of those video interviewers for clicks) what would they rather be alone with in the woods, a bear or a man. The women in the video chose the bear. Some men were offended by this because they don’t understand what that some women fear the possibility of getting a very dangerous man over the bear. While an aggressive bear will kill you, a depraved man can do things far worse than an aggressive bear.
How about a depraved bear
You leave Yogi outta this you sonofabitch!
Bears tend to eat the anus of their prey first...so perhaps that is what those who chose bears wanted...I'm not here to judge...
Wowza bud I think that’s a little wrong
A bear, A 14 year old