This literally came up two days ago and was locked.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1cgcw31/peter\_please\_help\_what\_are\_women\_choosing\_bears/](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1cgcw31/peter_please_help_what_are_women_choosing_bears/)
Mods probably want to lock this one too before the same thing happens over again.
There's a trending topic on Know Your Meme about this: https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/why-do-women-choose-to-be-stuck-with-a-bear-over-a-man-in-the-woods-debate-over-hypothetical-question-explained
Hypothetical noting how many woman are uncomfortable around certain men
**This comment was fact checked by real bear patriots**
https://preview.redd.it/pm4dxwzgxwxc1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=69c016b20c6b69595e0d5e7794e2ef8288611cf1
That's because, statistically, women spend a lot of time around men and very little time around bears. If we equalize the exposure, I promise you, a bear is going to be much more dangerous than an adult male human.
Vague "research" means nothing. I can easily say "i saw research done that 98% of males have admitted to never raping someone". And 4-16 is a very large difference in terms of percent. Give an accurate answer or none at all, especially for a claim that serious
Well no shit. The gist of it is that vast majority of men arent rapists. Saying a man is more scary than a bear has to be the most extremist, misandrist shit ive ever heard. I hate Andrew Tate, but people who say shit like this are why he is popular.
Here is the article listing the studies used. The 4-16% was due to there being multiple studies being conducted. https://jimhopper.com/topics/sexual-assault-and-the-brain/repeat-rape-by-college-men/
99% of men aren't rapists? probably pretty close to accurate, but the percent of the male population who has stalked someone is probably much higher that 1%.
You act like women have never stalked men. The thing with stalking is that if the stalker didn't get caught, then we never know and can't add it to a crime stat.
I dont act like that, and yes, we do have data on stalking it just requires estimation by experts on the subject. All I'm saying is that in the age of social media stalking is really easy, and it's incorrect to say that 99% of men haven't stalked someone. Heck, it's not even illegal most of the time, I stalked someone for a final project for a class one time.
"only a minority of men AREN'T rapists or stalkers" is what your original comment says which implies the majority ARE. Am I the one having trouble understanding grammar or is it you?
Edit: Dumbass blocked me over incorrect grammar lol
Man can also leave you alone. Just saying. And if we're talking a random guy... odds are it's just a regular guy who's gonna be focused on getting the hell out the woods. But hey, go ahead and choose the bear if you want to...
*Grabs popcorn*
Edit: Just for the record, choosing the bear is just blatant misandry. Folks are literally saying they see every man as a potential rapist first and a regular person *maybe* second. If someone were to say they see a black person as a potential thief for murderer first and foremost... that wouldn't really fly. And rightly so.
Lol, "men are more dangerous than bears." I literally burst out laughing! Thank you, holy shit!
Ok, if you actually end up with the choice between being alone with a man or a bear... just make sure there's a camera around for posterity sake. Don't worry, I'll call the cops and the paramedics but I can't make you any promises. Hahahaha holy shit. At least we can use the footage as a cautionary tale or something LOL
The absolute best part of your denial is that instead of listening to women explain why you’re more dangerous to them than a bear, you’re just proving us all correct 🤣🤣🤣
Sorry that pushing back on people spewing literally bigoted viewpoints is an issue for you, but it's not something that I or anyone should just 'listen' to or 'accept'.
You are being bigoted. And I can confidently say that YOU are likely a bigot because you actually said that "*you* are more dangerous to women than a bear."
Sir or madam that's a fucked up idea to hold of someone you have never met. You don't know me at all. But that is the literal discussion at hand!
The issue is that YOU and people like you see men, all men as dangerous. As rapists, as murderers, etc. That's fucked up.
I'll say again: most men are just *people* trying to live their lives, figure out how to pay rent, maybe get a girlfriend, get a promotion, etc. They're not ghouls on the prowl for the next woman to victimize. The fact that you need to be told that is... well, honestly, it's really sad. Sad because your view of the world is warped. Sad because of whatever happened to you that made you end up that way. It sucks.
But the good news is that there are a lot of good people out in the world.
And half of them are men.
How many women have been attacked by bears in America in that last year? How many have been raped and which do you think is more. Yes not every man is a rapist but not every bear is also not aggressive. At least the bear is going to want to be rewarded for not mauling you.
Cmon. How many people are even within 100 feet of a bear on a random Wednesday? I'm not sure if you don't understand statistics or are being intellectually dishonest, but this is a reason why crime studies, for example, are done on a "per capita" basis. Sigh.
I'll say again: if you believe that a bear is less dangerous to you than a random man taken from a random sampling of men, you just view all men as dangerous or rapists or fill in the blank. That is on its face, a bigoted viewpoint. It just is.
The fact that I have to insist that most men are just regular people going about their lives relatively well adjusted and not dangerous is super problematic.
If there were as many bears in the US as there were men I feel like we'd see a huge spike in bear attacks. There's less than 1 million bears in the US vs 150+ million men.
This works both ways, though. Women can act coy and coquettish, yet emotionally manipulate and destroy men who are naive and trust them, and gaslight them for even querying if they're cheating or using them for money. Women are capable of all the same things men are, for good or bad. That said, in terms of violence, women have a lot more to fear and be cautious of. Too bad so many of them love the "bad boys"
The probability of a random man having bad intentions isn't comparable to the probability of a bear In close proximity attacking you, and if you think they are you are delusional
I get men seeming more dangerous now, but really, hopefully, the average woman meets many more men then bears in her daily life
Let’s be fair. Any time you’re in the woods, you’re in the woods with a bear. They kinda just hang out. I’ve personally seen bears thirty feet from me in the woods. They leave me alone, I leave them alone. There is not a guarantee that either one of them will attack you. Bears are not hugely vicious or prone to attacking people. Black and non-grizzly brown bears tend to really want to get away from people. The set of circumstances that would lead to me being in the woods with a bear is basically the same as the set of circumstances that would lead me to be in the woods in general. The amount of people in the woods is a lot less than the amount of bears. If there’s a bear near me in the woods, I will slightly adjust my path to gtfo, but if there’s a guy near me in the woods, I’m going to be worried about why he’s near me. If there’s a bear, I’m literally in its house lmao, it’s hardly shocking that there’s a bear at any given location in the woods. I would certainly grab my bear spray and prep it either way, but bears in the woods is something I have handled via smacking pots together. Men in the woods is something that, were it to go south, I am not confident I’d be able to.
Kinda shitty to reduce it to “people who say bear are bad at statistics” lol.
It really depends. If you take account reason, then I'd depends on the daytime. A man during the day? It's a hiker, enjoying the same hobby. A man during the night? Then that basically selects only men with bad intentions. But that's not the hypothetical. It's not a man with bad intentions or a bear. It's a man. A random one, is reasonable to assume, injecting extra context that isn't there is going to change the result. What if the bear is a polar bear? Ignoring how a polar bear got in the woods with me, thar greatly changes the answer. It's also reasonable to assume that the "bear in the woods I'm hypothetically with" is in close proximity as would be the man, and not just generally in the same forest.
If you were in the woods with a man, chosen at random from all america, or a bear, chosen at random (50% brown 50% black for added variance) and assuming you became aware of them both at a very close 5m distance, which would you be more comfortable with?
I mean, the bear spray technically would work on both
And I hope they don’t have to meet you, because you were real quick to dismiss their concerns about the dangerous men. Be part of the solution or stand aside, the adults have real work to do here
I don't think fueling delusion and paranoia is any part of the solution. The only men that are listening are the ones that already know what's right to do. Blaming them won't help your message come across, it will help you sound insane and unreasonable, and the complains of the insane and unreasonable rarely get taken seriously.
But if the "real work" you are doing is fueling pointless gender division you are doing a great job
Nah, you’re doing a bang up job at that yourself starting with the fact you already think you know “the real answer” and “the real facts”.
Like everyone else, I’d be worried for any women you encounter, but I see you life revolves around Yu-Gi-Oh now so thankfully that won’t be an issue.
Cheers, twat.
What's really funny is if you found yourself in a situation getting handled by aforementioned bear, you'd likely be calling for the guy to come to your aid... which he shouldn't cuz you've just called him a rapist. Also, he'd just be putting himself at risk anyhow cu, what the hell is he gonna do to stop a bear?
Honestly, this whole thing is hilarious.
Nobody called the man a rapist. This did not happen. It seems you feel personally attacked by the experiences of women and the factual statistics supporting them. Why defend men you don't know, and aren't you, so vehemently while discarding the worries of women as irrational?
Oh. My. Goodness. Sigh. OK. By choosing the bear one is, by implication, saying that the man is more dangerous. Based on other discourse surrounding this thought experiment, rape is a central topic in this discussion. Therefore, it's not a stretch to say by choosing the bear, you are implicitly calling the hypothetical man a rapist.
I do not feel *personally attacked*, and my previous comments have been tounge in cheek, in fact. *HOWEVER* my contention with this premise is implying that every man is a potential rapist is problematic AF. I would go so far as to say *bigoted.*
If someone sees all men as potential rapists as opposed to... regular people, how is that different than someone who sees black people as potential criminals or thugs rather than... regular people?
That is the point I am *really* trying to get across.
The number of people killed by cows is far greater than that of white sharks. Would you rather swim with a big white one or be with a cow? Thats whats is meant with bad risk assessment.
**This meme was fact checked by real bear patriots**
https://preview.redd.it/iqm4n2n4ywxc1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=28f3634ab1e5e1adefc12db3db266e851ac3de49
A stupid question on tiktok is would you rather leave your daughter in the forest with a man or a bear. Women try to argue the bear would be the best choice. Men say they rather the man cause you know. The fucking bear will eat the kid.
I believe it originated just from women in the hiking community giving advice about "Hey bears probably aren't a problem. Other people are. Regular pepper spray/small pistol is fine if you're going alone. Don't freak out about bears all day."
Then it got... TikTokized
Right? Great community out there.
Talking out of my ass here, but violence against women in the woods is probably proportional if not lower than violence against women in the suburbs/city.
Also notable bear attacks/deaths are very rare. Especially outside of grizzly/polar bear country.
Hiking's great. It's the best community I've ever experienced. Most people are willing to help if you need it but trying to mind their business and pretend they're alone in the woods and not somewhat surrounded by 10-40 people from the same city.
This argument is a nothing burger to sew more negativity.
pepper spray and small pistols also work on creepy men. in fact, if i had to shoot at one, id much rather be holding a gun at a creepy man than a wild animal. men know and choose to be evil, the bear is just a bear, acting on instinct.
I may be too optimistic for my own good, but I think most strangers are kind enough people. I would rather be with someone in the woods to avoid bears because I’ve seen what victims of their attacks look like afterwards. Then again, I’m a dude myself. I can see why women would be more afraid of strangers, but a bear being safer? Don’t think so. Especially if it’s a grizzly or polar bear
I'm sorry in advance since asking for this is mostly not well received in my experience but I'm honestly just curious to see that study or the source(s) of those stats. Thanks.
Btw sorry if my English isn't great I'm still learning it.
About 3% of American men—or **1 in 33**—have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. 1 out of every 10 rape victims are male.
And all of those victims, whether males I listed or females you listed, were potentially around hundreds or thousands of men and women each YEAR depending on where they lived but never got raped until they did. Do you know how many bears the people who died to bears are typically around in their ENTIRE LIFE? Less than a hundred. Usually less than ten. Oftentimes only one.
There's also one thing to point out. You die if the bear gets to you.
Death.
The end.
Story Over.
If a man gets to you... well... you might still have a chance to gut him later.
Do you know what a bear does to a human? It eats them alive. They beg for death. Beg for someone to kill them as it rips strips of their flesh off their body. It isn't a fast death. It can take hours for them to finally die.
Its just so crazy that this logic is not applied to men. The overwhelming majority (far more than for bears) would not harm a woman in any way. But for some people (and I wholeheartedly believe this is only a vocal minority) if you are a man, you are already a predator.
This is easily explained by encounter rate. The average human is going to encounter many more humans than bears each day. Obviously, the odds of one of those encounters being negative will be higher if you have a higher number.
By your logic here, the mortality rate between humans is higher than black holes and humans. Thus, you should choose to chuck yourself into one rather than encounter a human again, it's clearly the safer option.
That seems like a weird stance. Also if you encounter a bear in the wild you’re far more likely to scare it away than you are to be attacked by it. Youre far likelier to be raved by a man than attacked by a bear, even when normalized for encounter frequency.
True... it might not be hungry. At first. But a couple hours later it becomes an eating machine. So the reality is that there's a 100% chance of a bear attack occurring if a bear and human are forced to stay in the woods together.
Whereas the man will either be rapist/murderer or not. And statistically speaking the human race would be dead if all men were murderers and rapists. I do think there are far to many men who are murderers and rapists. But men still win against a bear that WILL Eventually get hungry.
Statistical speaking yeah. You are more likely to be assaulted by men compared to being hurt by bears. But tbh this is a dumb question both are pretty bad outcomes.
Shark attack stats are pretty low, too-- as long as you include people who live in places like Iowa and Siberia in those stats as well rather than calculating them based solely on the people who spend any amount of time in shark ridden waters or figure in how comparatively little time even those people spend in the ocean.
And for bears, you gotta ignore that the dangerous species like grizzlies are nearly endangered (est. 60,000 in all of North America with half being in Alaska), and that most people don't wander around in Grizzly country alone.
Let's see what happens if someone camps out at Glacier National Park alone and doesn't take any precautionswith their food storage. It's only a 1 in 2,000,000 chance of a bear attack. The drive out there was statistically more dangerous. They'll be fine.
Generalizations are fine for making a point, but this one has really hit the zeitgeist so hard that people are taking it literally.
More likely ≠ 100% firstly, second, bear attacks would be much more common if there were more people just wandering around bear country. Your odds of getting killed by a moose in Texas are also pretty low. That doesn’t mean I’d choose to hang out with a moose over a HUMAN MALE. One can be reasoned with. One is a moose.
Well, see it's a little more nuanced than that. Let me explain why. List every known woman or girl murdered by a man since the 1780s. "Basically fucking IMPOSSIBLE!" right? [Well here's all of the fatal bear attacks in North America during that time frame.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America) I'm sure there were some mysterious deaths that weren't recorded, or were reordered incorrectly, but I'm pretty sure we're not even talking about the same order of magnitude of danger.
Neat. When you factored that into the stats, how many murders was it? Was it still thousands of times greater? How narrow do you have to make the uprights of the goal before you're down to 16 total since 2020?
edit:
How about the [Appalachian Trail?](https://thetrek.co/appalachian-trail/examining-real-numbers-behind-violent-instances-appalachian-trail/) It's certainly [bear territory!](https://appalachiantrail.org/explore/plan-and-prepare/hiking-basics/safety/bears/) 10 murders since 1974 listed [here](https://www.greenbelly.co/pages/appalachian-trail-murders). Can you find more than 10 bear attacks in those regions? We're literally talking a hiking trail through bear territory stretching across multiple states.
My apologies: I meant FATAL attacks. Yes, they absolutely track them. So far [the one source I found](https://appalachiantrailhistory.org/exhibits/show/danger/blackbears) listed 2 attacks on the Appalachian trail out of 23 confirmed fatal attacks nationwide between 2000-2016 so the data overlap isn't perfect.
Of course you should be wary of bears. The original thing was "would you rather be dropped alone in the woods with a man or a bear" right? So the answer is 'it kinda depends on the bear" statistically speaking. even in high bear traffic areas like hiking trails, human beings more likely to off you than a black bear. Humans are kinda shitheads that way. To give you an idea of why the gender bias (which really upsets me as a man, let me tell you) check [this article out](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/26/femicide-us-silent-epidemic)
almost 3 women a day, statistically speaking, murdered by their partner in 2018.
> This puts confirmed American female intimate gendered killings happening at a staggering rate of almost three women every day. Those circumstances are drastically different to men’s, who are killed by other men in three quarters of cases, and in over a quarter of cases by strangers.
Well, see it’s a little more nuanced that that. Let me explain why. List the total number of bears in North America. Now list the total number of human Males in North America. I’m sure there are some undocumented ones but it really is all about statistics. It’s simple when you look at percentages your DRASTICALLY safer on average.
Yeah but you can't be certain. You at least know what the bear will do to you. A womans' corpse isn't even guaranteed to be safe. It's why Egyptian queens had to rot for a little while before they could be mummified.
Edit:
I'll just eat more downvotes while I'm at it. If you don't approve of my comment, then it's highly likely you're part of the problem. When I was younger, I would've been on your side, 100%. But then I became a part of the problem and had to learn to recognize my biases then strip or reassess them. A quick litmus test is: "Has a woman ever told me about a time she was sexually assaulted?" If the answer is no, then you either live in heaven or the women in your life don't trust you with that kind of information. I encourage every person who disagrees to have an open-minded, honest conversation with the women in your lives. I promise it'll make it hard to disagree with choosing a bear.
It’s sad to me that so many people have the stance of “can never be too safe” when talking about a wild animal that has killer instincts and men as a whole… I’m not even mad I’m genuinely sad that so many women are being told that men are this dangerous when in reality the average man would help a stranger lost in the woods… actually the average HUMAN would help someone in the woods, men included. We are all in this together
Women aren't told men are dangerous, they experience the danger themselves and warn other women about their experiences. If we lived in a matriarchy and women were not only larger but more aggressive as well, you and I would have similar opinions of them as they do of us.
So, rather than feeling sad that women are told to fear men, feel sad that they fear men and aim to be a man they don't fear.
Sure! How about the [Appalachian Trail?](https://thetrek.co/appalachian-trail/examining-real-numbers-behind-violent-instances-appalachian-trail/) It's certainly [bear territory!](https://appalachiantrail.org/explore/plan-and-prepare/hiking-basics/safety/bears/) 10 murders since 1974 listed [here](https://www.greenbelly.co/pages/appalachian-trail-murders). Can you find more than 10 bear attacks in those regions?
Oh absolutely. Grizzlies and Polar Bears are a whole different can of worms. I do see how people in black bear territory might be like "yeah the bear is way safer than the man." They're not wrong. humans are kinda murdery. We give animals a bad rap, but it's us. We're the real killers.
Men are dangerous. There's a percentage chance they'll hurt you and a very small chance they'll kill you if they're the type of man who does that sort of thing.
But a hungry bear will kill you every time. You're just slow and easy to chase. I mean... bears will eat their own children if they feel like it. Why not a human? And a bear WILL get hungry eventually. So it's just a matter of time before they kill you.
You're basically saying "oh... take this thing that rarely happens because people are usually smart enough not to put themselves in that situation" and then saying "now take this thing that happens most often to women who trusted someone they shouldn't or doing something they shouldn't".
You can't blame the women who were hurt by men because they shouldn't need to be careful about doing certain things or trusting their own family and friends or... coworkers... (though I feel it's a bit stupid to trust someone just because they are coworker). But you can blame the women in this farce of a comment for thinking that forcing a rare occurrence with a 100% chance of death is better than a rare occurrence with a 0-100% (depending on which man it is) chance of rape and a 0-100% chance of death (depending on which man it is).
That said... women are also dangerous. Like that woman who killed an entire family and put the baby in the oven before shooting herself.
So really the world is just a topsy-turvy sh!tshoM.
I don't like online debates as not a lot will change their views of the subject because someone told them to, I feel like it's pretty useless. So Instead I present to you this : 🐢
You're welcome.
What is in fact being communicated by all these women who opt to encounter a bear is that they have a particular fear that surpasses what is justified by reality. That’s the takeaway. Bears are objectively more dangerous to stumble upon in the woods than a randomly selected human male. Full stop. To conclude otherwise requires a hearty dose of intellectual dishonesty or an irrational assessment of risk.
Here’s an adjacent experiment. Thousands or perhaps even millions of women in the world go hiking each day, and they encounter men _all the time_. Ask any one of them: remember that man that you passed on the trail today? Would you have preferred to have encountered a bear on the trail instead? I suspect you’d suddenly get a very different response, or at least you should get one from anyone who values their life and limb.
Honestly, I think if as many women watched shows called “When Bears Attack” as they did Forensic Files, Cold Case Files, Dahmer, Making a Murderer, Unsolved Mysteries, Night Stalker, and the hundreds of other TV shows and podcasts that they love to consume and scare themselves with, they’d be a lot less likely to choose the bear.
the implication is would you pick the dangerous animal that can and will kill you or a man and they choose the the instant killer rather then the man. that’s the joke. i’m a girl, that was always the inherent “it goes without saying” yeah they’re picking instant death 90% chance of death than a man. that’s what they’re saying and choosing.
yeah i’m under thee impression most animals on planet earth do that. the bear is still being chosen, ladies would u prefer being mauled to death or raped? that’s the underline basis of the question. feel free to tell me why the former is a horrible option.
i hate to say it but a monitor lizard would pick a bear too and thumbs up to you if you understood that reference peter!
good to know the shoe apparently doesn’t fit and you didn’t take a hypothetical so personally *not all men* did that when it comes to this question which is kinda funny since all of them are so mad and saying *not all of them* are dangerous and would do such things
This seems like a philosophical question for how one chooses between two undesirable situations that has randomly been framed on gender lines for maximum controversy.
Women generalizing men as rapists and abusers because of a few creeps is in principle akin to generalizing all members of a minority group as criminals because of a few criminals that happen to be part of that minority group 🚬🥃
Surface level analysis. It only works if your minority group has more social power than those who aren't in that group. Women and black people are an oppressed class.
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol, I laugh hard at this because every single one of these women, if they found themselves alone in the woods with a bear, would *immediately* rethink their position. However, it would be too late. Maybe I'm a dick but that's funny as hell.
Is what it is, though. Way I see it, it ain't really my problem.
Women: “we’d pick the bear!”
Random guy: “ha, that’s kinda funny”
Reddit: “omg! You’re basically the rapists they’re afraid of 😔”
Man, I wonder if the people on this site are even real sometimes.
Lol well, I don't have as low of an opinion of women in general as you seem to, but I do find that people generally have a hard time dealing with being told they're wrong.
Right. The irony being your complete lack of self-awareness. Alright, I'll bite here:
Do you not realize that choosing the bear in this thought experiment is a very bigoted stance to take? Do you actually not realize this, or do you just not care?
The choice is between a bear and a random man. A random man pulled from a sample is most likely to be a regular, well-adjusted dude. Just a regular guy. Not a threat. This is based on statistics. The majority of people *are regular people, not criminals or rapists*, or anything like that.
This means that anyone choosing the bear sees men, all men essentially as potentially dangerous rapists. This is the same as harboring the view of black people as potential "criminals" or "thugs." Which is a fucked up view to hold, is it not?
Now yeah, I wasn't making an eloquent point on this thread cuz I was having fun and trolling, cuz I knew folks would get riled up. But real talk, this is a fuckes up thing to say about half the population.
And the fact anyone who says: Hey maybe saying that all men are potential rapists is fucked up, hurtful, hateful, reductionist, dehumanizing, etc; is an example of WHY women would chose the bear is just, well, misandric. Plain and simple.
It's *BIGOTED*. It sucks to hear, but it's true. You're being a bigot.
You’re overthinking fear. Yes, *logically*, the bear is objectively the more lethal choice. However, I can also tell you that statistically, you’re far more likely to be killed in a car than a plane; of course, you could find more people who’re afraid of flights than of car rides.
The question is being answered with the context of fear, and fear tends to be irrational. In the post’s case, it’s pretty clear when a bear wants to maul you or wants to avoid you. When it’s another human being, irrationality kicks in.
Most guys wouldn’t be comfortable with their girlfriend being out in the wilderness with an entirely random dude, and it’s for the same reason.
Okay so like it’s not as bad as you weirdos like to make it out to be. It’s not like women can’t even step outside without being sexual assaulted. There’s 350 million people living in the United States and roughly 5 million women a year are sexually assaulted, which is terrible it should be at 0, but 5 million women a year isn’t even 2% of the entire US population..
So by this logic, 98% of women aren’t going to be sexually assaulted by a man. That’s 98%. I’m sure the odds of the bear is like 50/50 but hey, I’m not a zoologist or anything, apparently just a terrible evil man who is far more dangerous than any bear🙀
Sexism isn't cool. If you see it, report it. Getting into long arguments about how women = bad or men = bad will land you with a BAN. Cut it out.
This literally came up two days ago and was locked. [https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1cgcw31/peter\_please\_help\_what\_are\_women\_choosing\_bears/](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1cgcw31/peter_please_help_what_are_women_choosing_bears/) Mods probably want to lock this one too before the same thing happens over again.
how dare you call big hairy gay men dangerous
If big hairy gay men are dangerous then I like to live on the edge
There's a trending topic on Know Your Meme about this: https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/why-do-women-choose-to-be-stuck-with-a-bear-over-a-man-in-the-woods-debate-over-hypothetical-question-explained Hypothetical noting how many woman are uncomfortable around certain men
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**This comment was fact checked by real bear patriots** https://preview.redd.it/pm4dxwzgxwxc1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=69c016b20c6b69595e0d5e7794e2ef8288611cf1
“A lot of cases” is a bit to much
I don't think I have *ever* met a woman who has never had a problem with a creep harassing them.
It only takes a single creep to harass hundreds or even thousands of women
That sure sounds like a lot of cases to me.
Yes but if theres only one creep then your odds of the random man you are in the woods with are pretty low.
[удалено]
That's because, statistically, women spend a lot of time around men and very little time around bears. If we equalize the exposure, I promise you, a bear is going to be much more dangerous than an adult male human.
But that’s not what’s happening.
Once you get attacked by the bear you will be so happy that it has clear intentions
I know it may be shocking to hear, but 99% of men arent rapists or stalkers.
[удалено]
Vague "research" means nothing. I can easily say "i saw research done that 98% of males have admitted to never raping someone". And 4-16 is a very large difference in terms of percent. Give an accurate answer or none at all, especially for a claim that serious
Seems to me that should apply to your 99% statistic as well.
My man has zero comprehension of the concept of comparisons
Well no shit. The gist of it is that vast majority of men arent rapists. Saying a man is more scary than a bear has to be the most extremist, misandrist shit ive ever heard. I hate Andrew Tate, but people who say shit like this are why he is popular.
Here is the article listing the studies used. The 4-16% was due to there being multiple studies being conducted. https://jimhopper.com/topics/sexual-assault-and-the-brain/repeat-rape-by-college-men/
99% of men aren't rapists? probably pretty close to accurate, but the percent of the male population who has stalked someone is probably much higher that 1%.
You act like women have never stalked men. The thing with stalking is that if the stalker didn't get caught, then we never know and can't add it to a crime stat.
I dont act like that, and yes, we do have data on stalking it just requires estimation by experts on the subject. All I'm saying is that in the age of social media stalking is really easy, and it's incorrect to say that 99% of men haven't stalked someone. Heck, it's not even illegal most of the time, I stalked someone for a final project for a class one time.
[удалено]
So you are saying a majority of men are rapists or stalkers? How tf is this blatant misandry upvoted?
Did you know that majority and minority are different
You said "aren't" not "are"
Ooooh you’re so close
"only a minority of men AREN'T rapists or stalkers" is what your original comment says which implies the majority ARE. Am I the one having trouble understanding grammar or is it you? Edit: Dumbass blocked me over incorrect grammar lol
As a trans woman, I feel like I’d still pick the man because even though he could be dangerous I feel like the chance of being mauled is too high
Man can also leave you alone. Just saying. And if we're talking a random guy... odds are it's just a regular guy who's gonna be focused on getting the hell out the woods. But hey, go ahead and choose the bear if you want to... *Grabs popcorn* Edit: Just for the record, choosing the bear is just blatant misandry. Folks are literally saying they see every man as a potential rapist first and a regular person *maybe* second. If someone were to say they see a black person as a potential thief for murderer first and foremost... that wouldn't really fly. And rightly so.
[удалено]
Lol, "men are more dangerous than bears." I literally burst out laughing! Thank you, holy shit! Ok, if you actually end up with the choice between being alone with a man or a bear... just make sure there's a camera around for posterity sake. Don't worry, I'll call the cops and the paramedics but I can't make you any promises. Hahahaha holy shit. At least we can use the footage as a cautionary tale or something LOL
The absolute best part of your denial is that instead of listening to women explain why you’re more dangerous to them than a bear, you’re just proving us all correct 🤣🤣🤣
Sorry that pushing back on people spewing literally bigoted viewpoints is an issue for you, but it's not something that I or anyone should just 'listen' to or 'accept'. You are being bigoted. And I can confidently say that YOU are likely a bigot because you actually said that "*you* are more dangerous to women than a bear." Sir or madam that's a fucked up idea to hold of someone you have never met. You don't know me at all. But that is the literal discussion at hand! The issue is that YOU and people like you see men, all men as dangerous. As rapists, as murderers, etc. That's fucked up. I'll say again: most men are just *people* trying to live their lives, figure out how to pay rent, maybe get a girlfriend, get a promotion, etc. They're not ghouls on the prowl for the next woman to victimize. The fact that you need to be told that is... well, honestly, it's really sad. Sad because your view of the world is warped. Sad because of whatever happened to you that made you end up that way. It sucks. But the good news is that there are a lot of good people out in the world. And half of them are men.
How many women have been attacked by bears in America in that last year? How many have been raped and which do you think is more. Yes not every man is a rapist but not every bear is also not aggressive. At least the bear is going to want to be rewarded for not mauling you.
Cmon. How many people are even within 100 feet of a bear on a random Wednesday? I'm not sure if you don't understand statistics or are being intellectually dishonest, but this is a reason why crime studies, for example, are done on a "per capita" basis. Sigh. I'll say again: if you believe that a bear is less dangerous to you than a random man taken from a random sampling of men, you just view all men as dangerous or rapists or fill in the blank. That is on its face, a bigoted viewpoint. It just is. The fact that I have to insist that most men are just regular people going about their lives relatively well adjusted and not dangerous is super problematic.
If there were as many bears in the US as there were men I feel like we'd see a huge spike in bear attacks. There's less than 1 million bears in the US vs 150+ million men.
Misandrist much?
This works both ways, though. Women can act coy and coquettish, yet emotionally manipulate and destroy men who are naive and trust them, and gaslight them for even querying if they're cheating or using them for money. Women are capable of all the same things men are, for good or bad. That said, in terms of violence, women have a lot more to fear and be cautious of. Too bad so many of them love the "bad boys"
>Hypothetical noting how many *redditors are bad at risk-assessment AND understanding statistics
Statistics don’t do jack shit when you’re a woman getting raped by a random man in the woods. Use your head
The probability of a random man having bad intentions isn't comparable to the probability of a bear In close proximity attacking you, and if you think they are you are delusional I get men seeming more dangerous now, but really, hopefully, the average woman meets many more men then bears in her daily life
Let’s be fair. Any time you’re in the woods, you’re in the woods with a bear. They kinda just hang out. I’ve personally seen bears thirty feet from me in the woods. They leave me alone, I leave them alone. There is not a guarantee that either one of them will attack you. Bears are not hugely vicious or prone to attacking people. Black and non-grizzly brown bears tend to really want to get away from people. The set of circumstances that would lead to me being in the woods with a bear is basically the same as the set of circumstances that would lead me to be in the woods in general. The amount of people in the woods is a lot less than the amount of bears. If there’s a bear near me in the woods, I will slightly adjust my path to gtfo, but if there’s a guy near me in the woods, I’m going to be worried about why he’s near me. If there’s a bear, I’m literally in its house lmao, it’s hardly shocking that there’s a bear at any given location in the woods. I would certainly grab my bear spray and prep it either way, but bears in the woods is something I have handled via smacking pots together. Men in the woods is something that, were it to go south, I am not confident I’d be able to. Kinda shitty to reduce it to “people who say bear are bad at statistics” lol.
It really depends. If you take account reason, then I'd depends on the daytime. A man during the day? It's a hiker, enjoying the same hobby. A man during the night? Then that basically selects only men with bad intentions. But that's not the hypothetical. It's not a man with bad intentions or a bear. It's a man. A random one, is reasonable to assume, injecting extra context that isn't there is going to change the result. What if the bear is a polar bear? Ignoring how a polar bear got in the woods with me, thar greatly changes the answer. It's also reasonable to assume that the "bear in the woods I'm hypothetically with" is in close proximity as would be the man, and not just generally in the same forest. If you were in the woods with a man, chosen at random from all america, or a bear, chosen at random (50% brown 50% black for added variance) and assuming you became aware of them both at a very close 5m distance, which would you be more comfortable with? I mean, the bear spray technically would work on both
And I hope they don’t have to meet you, because you were real quick to dismiss their concerns about the dangerous men. Be part of the solution or stand aside, the adults have real work to do here
I don't think fueling delusion and paranoia is any part of the solution. The only men that are listening are the ones that already know what's right to do. Blaming them won't help your message come across, it will help you sound insane and unreasonable, and the complains of the insane and unreasonable rarely get taken seriously. But if the "real work" you are doing is fueling pointless gender division you are doing a great job
Nah, you’re doing a bang up job at that yourself starting with the fact you already think you know “the real answer” and “the real facts”. Like everyone else, I’d be worried for any women you encounter, but I see you life revolves around Yu-Gi-Oh now so thankfully that won’t be an issue. Cheers, twat.
What's really funny is if you found yourself in a situation getting handled by aforementioned bear, you'd likely be calling for the guy to come to your aid... which he shouldn't cuz you've just called him a rapist. Also, he'd just be putting himself at risk anyhow cu, what the hell is he gonna do to stop a bear? Honestly, this whole thing is hilarious.
Facts
Nobody called the man a rapist. This did not happen. It seems you feel personally attacked by the experiences of women and the factual statistics supporting them. Why defend men you don't know, and aren't you, so vehemently while discarding the worries of women as irrational?
Oh. My. Goodness. Sigh. OK. By choosing the bear one is, by implication, saying that the man is more dangerous. Based on other discourse surrounding this thought experiment, rape is a central topic in this discussion. Therefore, it's not a stretch to say by choosing the bear, you are implicitly calling the hypothetical man a rapist. I do not feel *personally attacked*, and my previous comments have been tounge in cheek, in fact. *HOWEVER* my contention with this premise is implying that every man is a potential rapist is problematic AF. I would go so far as to say *bigoted.* If someone sees all men as potential rapists as opposed to... regular people, how is that different than someone who sees black people as potential criminals or thugs rather than... regular people? That is the point I am *really* trying to get across.
They’re actually really good at risk assessment. How many women were injured or killed by bears last year vs male humans?
The number of people killed by cows is far greater than that of white sharks. Would you rather swim with a big white one or be with a cow? Thats whats is meant with bad risk assessment.
[удалено]
We actually don’t know that But thanks for admitting I’m right
[удалено]
Absolutely brain dead take. Switch the number and placement of men and bears on the planet, you think your stats would stay the same?
God I love just how fucking *bonkers* yall men get when you find out we all correctly know you’re more dangerous than bears 🤣🤣🤣
lol you’re literally eating shit and saying people are mad that you’re eating shit. No one is mad, we’re informing you you’re an idiot.
Why this man getting down voted like this, damn
I don't care how many people say it, but hairy gay men are not dangerous
But how about the BG3 bear?
He’s both not dangerous and incredibly sexy
He wasn't my lover, but damn if he wasn't the tank I relied on.
You know who little that narrow the answer Like the chances of a bear druid mauling a baby its low but not 0
We just like to take you out for nice dinners and drinks and the occasional Tina Turner singalong. :)
i found another one (solid color person)
I thought this was talking about the human urge to hug all fluffy animals
But why not friend if friend shaped?
Bears are a friend shape that will eat its own children. O\_o that's a problem.
[удалено]
Nah, a mama bear will eat the corpses of her children.
Can we just make one post about the bear thing for this week and not approve the rest
**This meme was fact checked by real bear patriots** https://preview.redd.it/iqm4n2n4ywxc1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=28f3634ab1e5e1adefc12db3db266e851ac3de49
Bait
A stupid question on tiktok is would you rather leave your daughter in the forest with a man or a bear. Women try to argue the bear would be the best choice. Men say they rather the man cause you know. The fucking bear will eat the kid.
I believe it originated just from women in the hiking community giving advice about "Hey bears probably aren't a problem. Other people are. Regular pepper spray/small pistol is fine if you're going alone. Don't freak out about bears all day." Then it got... TikTokized
Other people you randomly run into on a hike probably aren’t a problem either.
Right? Great community out there. Talking out of my ass here, but violence against women in the woods is probably proportional if not lower than violence against women in the suburbs/city. Also notable bear attacks/deaths are very rare. Especially outside of grizzly/polar bear country. Hiking's great. It's the best community I've ever experienced. Most people are willing to help if you need it but trying to mind their business and pretend they're alone in the woods and not somewhat surrounded by 10-40 people from the same city. This argument is a nothing burger to sew more negativity.
pepper spray and small pistols also work on creepy men. in fact, if i had to shoot at one, id much rather be holding a gun at a creepy man than a wild animal. men know and choose to be evil, the bear is just a bear, acting on instinct.
I also find it laughable how TikTok culture is supposed to be super inclusive and tolerant, but the question itself is super transphobic.
Transphobic how? You could say misadrist, but unless you believe trans women are men, I don't know how this relates to trans people
But what if it’s a sun bear?
I may be too optimistic for my own good, but I think most strangers are kind enough people. I would rather be with someone in the woods to avoid bears because I’ve seen what victims of their attacks look like afterwards. Then again, I’m a dude myself. I can see why women would be more afraid of strangers, but a bear being safer? Don’t think so. Especially if it’s a grizzly or polar bear
I don't think it's optimistic to think most men who find a child lost in the woods would help her.
I think most men aren’t literal psychopaths.
[удалено]
I'm sorry in advance since asking for this is mostly not well received in my experience but I'm honestly just curious to see that study or the source(s) of those stats. Thanks. Btw sorry if my English isn't great I'm still learning it.
It is because one man that ignores the consent of a woman will also do so with other women.
About 3% of American men—or **1 in 33**—have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. 1 out of every 10 rape victims are male. And all of those victims, whether males I listed or females you listed, were potentially around hundreds or thousands of men and women each YEAR depending on where they lived but never got raped until they did. Do you know how many bears the people who died to bears are typically around in their ENTIRE LIFE? Less than a hundred. Usually less than ten. Oftentimes only one. There's also one thing to point out. You die if the bear gets to you. Death. The end. Story Over. If a man gets to you... well... you might still have a chance to gut him later.
And most bears will ignore a person too.
Is the man on his phone? He'll probably ignore a person as well. But the bear will get hungry faster than the person will get off their phone.
[удалено]
Do you know what a bear does to a human? It eats them alive. They beg for death. Beg for someone to kill them as it rips strips of their flesh off their body. It isn't a fast death. It can take hours for them to finally die.
Bears don’t generally eat humans. Most bears tend to leave humans alone
Most men tend to leave women alone.
Its just so crazy that this logic is not applied to men. The overwhelming majority (far more than for bears) would not harm a woman in any way. But for some people (and I wholeheartedly believe this is only a vocal minority) if you are a man, you are already a predator.
I mean, the mortality rate between humans is much higher than humans and bears. So the women are right, if not for the reason they think.
The mortality for cows is magnitudes higher than for white sharks.
This is easily explained by encounter rate. The average human is going to encounter many more humans than bears each day. Obviously, the odds of one of those encounters being negative will be higher if you have a higher number. By your logic here, the mortality rate between humans is higher than black holes and humans. Thus, you should choose to chuck yourself into one rather than encounter a human again, it's clearly the safer option.
And a man will assault and rape a woman.
Yes, 100% of men would just rape any women they see. Honestly I hope this is ragebait.
mf just generalized more than HALF of earth's population
In the exact same way the comment above generalized (incorrectly) the entire population of bears.
I suppose its worse to generalize and stigmatise half the human population then some wild animals.
That seems like a weird stance. Also if you encounter a bear in the wild you’re far more likely to scare it away than you are to be attacked by it. Youre far likelier to be raved by a man than attacked by a bear, even when normalized for encounter frequency.
Bro WHAT? You think there’s a 100% guarantee a man would see a child and that would be his first thought?
There’s also no guarantee that the bear will attack anyone
True... it might not be hungry. At first. But a couple hours later it becomes an eating machine. So the reality is that there's a 100% chance of a bear attack occurring if a bear and human are forced to stay in the woods together. Whereas the man will either be rapist/murderer or not. And statistically speaking the human race would be dead if all men were murderers and rapists. I do think there are far to many men who are murderers and rapists. But men still win against a bear that WILL Eventually get hungry.
True, but to say that there is a guarantee a man will is delusional.
Dude it’s purely based on the bears stomach content. 100%.
Statistical speaking yeah. You are more likely to be assaulted by men compared to being hurt by bears. But tbh this is a dumb question both are pretty bad outcomes.
Shark attack stats are pretty low, too-- as long as you include people who live in places like Iowa and Siberia in those stats as well rather than calculating them based solely on the people who spend any amount of time in shark ridden waters or figure in how comparatively little time even those people spend in the ocean. And for bears, you gotta ignore that the dangerous species like grizzlies are nearly endangered (est. 60,000 in all of North America with half being in Alaska), and that most people don't wander around in Grizzly country alone. Let's see what happens if someone camps out at Glacier National Park alone and doesn't take any precautionswith their food storage. It's only a 1 in 2,000,000 chance of a bear attack. The drive out there was statistically more dangerous. They'll be fine. Generalizations are fine for making a point, but this one has really hit the zeitgeist so hard that people are taking it literally.
More likely ≠ 100% firstly, second, bear attacks would be much more common if there were more people just wandering around bear country. Your odds of getting killed by a moose in Texas are also pretty low. That doesn’t mean I’d choose to hang out with a moose over a HUMAN MALE. One can be reasoned with. One is a moose.
I haven’t done anything like that. Are you saying I will someday?
[удалено]
Gotchya. You have your finger on the pulse of humanity for sure.
Well, see it's a little more nuanced than that. Let me explain why. List every known woman or girl murdered by a man since the 1780s. "Basically fucking IMPOSSIBLE!" right? [Well here's all of the fatal bear attacks in North America during that time frame.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America) I'm sure there were some mysterious deaths that weren't recorded, or were reordered incorrectly, but I'm pretty sure we're not even talking about the same order of magnitude of danger.
You also have to take into account where bears live. Most people don’t live in rural or forested areas, so of course the number is lower
Neat. When you factored that into the stats, how many murders was it? Was it still thousands of times greater? How narrow do you have to make the uprights of the goal before you're down to 16 total since 2020? edit: How about the [Appalachian Trail?](https://thetrek.co/appalachian-trail/examining-real-numbers-behind-violent-instances-appalachian-trail/) It's certainly [bear territory!](https://appalachiantrail.org/explore/plan-and-prepare/hiking-basics/safety/bears/) 10 murders since 1974 listed [here](https://www.greenbelly.co/pages/appalachian-trail-murders). Can you find more than 10 bear attacks in those regions? We're literally talking a hiking trail through bear territory stretching across multiple states.
[удалено]
My apologies: I meant FATAL attacks. Yes, they absolutely track them. So far [the one source I found](https://appalachiantrailhistory.org/exhibits/show/danger/blackbears) listed 2 attacks on the Appalachian trail out of 23 confirmed fatal attacks nationwide between 2000-2016 so the data overlap isn't perfect. Of course you should be wary of bears. The original thing was "would you rather be dropped alone in the woods with a man or a bear" right? So the answer is 'it kinda depends on the bear" statistically speaking. even in high bear traffic areas like hiking trails, human beings more likely to off you than a black bear. Humans are kinda shitheads that way. To give you an idea of why the gender bias (which really upsets me as a man, let me tell you) check [this article out](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/26/femicide-us-silent-epidemic) almost 3 women a day, statistically speaking, murdered by their partner in 2018. > This puts confirmed American female intimate gendered killings happening at a staggering rate of almost three women every day. Those circumstances are drastically different to men’s, who are killed by other men in three quarters of cases, and in over a quarter of cases by strangers.
Well, see it’s a little more nuanced that that. Let me explain why. List the total number of bears in North America. Now list the total number of human Males in North America. I’m sure there are some undocumented ones but it really is all about statistics. It’s simple when you look at percentages your DRASTICALLY safer on average.
Yeah but you can't be certain. You at least know what the bear will do to you. A womans' corpse isn't even guaranteed to be safe. It's why Egyptian queens had to rot for a little while before they could be mummified. Edit: I'll just eat more downvotes while I'm at it. If you don't approve of my comment, then it's highly likely you're part of the problem. When I was younger, I would've been on your side, 100%. But then I became a part of the problem and had to learn to recognize my biases then strip or reassess them. A quick litmus test is: "Has a woman ever told me about a time she was sexually assaulted?" If the answer is no, then you either live in heaven or the women in your life don't trust you with that kind of information. I encourage every person who disagrees to have an open-minded, honest conversation with the women in your lives. I promise it'll make it hard to disagree with choosing a bear.
It’s sad to me that so many people have the stance of “can never be too safe” when talking about a wild animal that has killer instincts and men as a whole… I’m not even mad I’m genuinely sad that so many women are being told that men are this dangerous when in reality the average man would help a stranger lost in the woods… actually the average HUMAN would help someone in the woods, men included. We are all in this together
Women aren't told men are dangerous, they experience the danger themselves and warn other women about their experiences. If we lived in a matriarchy and women were not only larger but more aggressive as well, you and I would have similar opinions of them as they do of us. So, rather than feeling sad that women are told to fear men, feel sad that they fear men and aim to be a man they don't fear.
Yeah, you know the bear will kill you. That's why you dont choose the bear.
Now check all the murders that happened in a national park (the most common place people get killed by bears)
Sure! How about the [Appalachian Trail?](https://thetrek.co/appalachian-trail/examining-real-numbers-behind-violent-instances-appalachian-trail/) It's certainly [bear territory!](https://appalachiantrail.org/explore/plan-and-prepare/hiking-basics/safety/bears/) 10 murders since 1974 listed [here](https://www.greenbelly.co/pages/appalachian-trail-murders). Can you find more than 10 bear attacks in those regions?
Those are black bears so I guess you got me there, if you look at Grizzly Bear territory its a different story.
Oh absolutely. Grizzlies and Polar Bears are a whole different can of worms. I do see how people in black bear territory might be like "yeah the bear is way safer than the man." They're not wrong. humans are kinda murdery. We give animals a bad rap, but it's us. We're the real killers.
But it population density probably if bears didn’t get open seasoned before it was illegal and urban development bears probably be deadly still.
Men are dangerous. There's a percentage chance they'll hurt you and a very small chance they'll kill you if they're the type of man who does that sort of thing. But a hungry bear will kill you every time. You're just slow and easy to chase. I mean... bears will eat their own children if they feel like it. Why not a human? And a bear WILL get hungry eventually. So it's just a matter of time before they kill you. You're basically saying "oh... take this thing that rarely happens because people are usually smart enough not to put themselves in that situation" and then saying "now take this thing that happens most often to women who trusted someone they shouldn't or doing something they shouldn't". You can't blame the women who were hurt by men because they shouldn't need to be careful about doing certain things or trusting their own family and friends or... coworkers... (though I feel it's a bit stupid to trust someone just because they are coworker). But you can blame the women in this farce of a comment for thinking that forcing a rare occurrence with a 100% chance of death is better than a rare occurrence with a 0-100% (depending on which man it is) chance of rape and a 0-100% chance of death (depending on which man it is). That said... women are also dangerous. Like that woman who killed an entire family and put the baby in the oven before shooting herself. So really the world is just a topsy-turvy sh!tshoM.
I don't like online debates as not a lot will change their views of the subject because someone told them to, I feel like it's pretty useless. So Instead I present to you this : 🐢 You're welcome.
What is in fact being communicated by all these women who opt to encounter a bear is that they have a particular fear that surpasses what is justified by reality. That’s the takeaway. Bears are objectively more dangerous to stumble upon in the woods than a randomly selected human male. Full stop. To conclude otherwise requires a hearty dose of intellectual dishonesty or an irrational assessment of risk. Here’s an adjacent experiment. Thousands or perhaps even millions of women in the world go hiking each day, and they encounter men _all the time_. Ask any one of them: remember that man that you passed on the trail today? Would you have preferred to have encountered a bear on the trail instead? I suspect you’d suddenly get a very different response, or at least you should get one from anyone who values their life and limb. Honestly, I think if as many women watched shows called “When Bears Attack” as they did Forensic Files, Cold Case Files, Dahmer, Making a Murderer, Unsolved Mysteries, Night Stalker, and the hundreds of other TV shows and podcasts that they love to consume and scare themselves with, they’d be a lot less likely to choose the bear.
Facts
the implication is would you pick the dangerous animal that can and will kill you or a man and they choose the the instant killer rather then the man. that’s the joke. i’m a girl, that was always the inherent “it goes without saying” yeah they’re picking instant death 90% chance of death than a man. that’s what they’re saying and choosing.
FYI bears don't wait for you to die before eating. They will start biting chunks off you while you're fully conscious.
yeah i’m under thee impression most animals on planet earth do that. the bear is still being chosen, ladies would u prefer being mauled to death or raped? that’s the underline basis of the question. feel free to tell me why the former is a horrible option. i hate to say it but a monitor lizard would pick a bear too and thumbs up to you if you understood that reference peter!
[удалено]
indian *men*
[удалено]
Fuck you racist
Bloody fuck you bloody do not redeem
I'm Indonesian, not Indian. But still, fuck you
good to know the shoe apparently doesn’t fit and you didn’t take a hypothetical so personally *not all men* did that when it comes to this question which is kinda funny since all of them are so mad and saying *not all of them* are dangerous and would do such things
Not all men are Indian 💅
also so many ppl in this comment section not realIing they’re lining up and juxtaposing themself as the guy in the pic, pose and all
but they’re still men 🚶🏽♀️
This seems like a philosophical question for how one chooses between two undesirable situations that has randomly been framed on gender lines for maximum controversy.
Wait, people don't actually care about this shit, right? They do get that it's a meme, don't they?
Its just tiktok controversy. Doesnt have anything to do with real life. Dont pay attention to it.
"Bears, Beets, Battlestar Galactica"
Women generalizing men as rapists and abusers because of a few creeps is in principle akin to generalizing all members of a minority group as criminals because of a few criminals that happen to be part of that minority group 🚬🥃
Surface level analysis. It only works if your minority group has more social power than those who aren't in that group. Women and black people are an oppressed class.
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol, I laugh hard at this because every single one of these women, if they found themselves alone in the woods with a bear, would *immediately* rethink their position. However, it would be too late. Maybe I'm a dick but that's funny as hell. Is what it is, though. Way I see it, it ain't really my problem.
This shit is why women pick the bear
Women: “we’d pick the bear!” Random guy: “ha, that’s kinda funny” Reddit: “omg! You’re basically the rapists they’re afraid of 😔” Man, I wonder if the people on this site are even real sometimes.
Lol well, I don't have as low of an opinion of women in general as you seem to, but I do find that people generally have a hard time dealing with being told they're wrong.
The irony
Right. The irony being your complete lack of self-awareness. Alright, I'll bite here: Do you not realize that choosing the bear in this thought experiment is a very bigoted stance to take? Do you actually not realize this, or do you just not care? The choice is between a bear and a random man. A random man pulled from a sample is most likely to be a regular, well-adjusted dude. Just a regular guy. Not a threat. This is based on statistics. The majority of people *are regular people, not criminals or rapists*, or anything like that. This means that anyone choosing the bear sees men, all men essentially as potentially dangerous rapists. This is the same as harboring the view of black people as potential "criminals" or "thugs." Which is a fucked up view to hold, is it not? Now yeah, I wasn't making an eloquent point on this thread cuz I was having fun and trolling, cuz I knew folks would get riled up. But real talk, this is a fuckes up thing to say about half the population. And the fact anyone who says: Hey maybe saying that all men are potential rapists is fucked up, hurtful, hateful, reductionist, dehumanizing, etc; is an example of WHY women would chose the bear is just, well, misandric. Plain and simple. It's *BIGOTED*. It sucks to hear, but it's true. You're being a bigot.
You’re overthinking fear. Yes, *logically*, the bear is objectively the more lethal choice. However, I can also tell you that statistically, you’re far more likely to be killed in a car than a plane; of course, you could find more people who’re afraid of flights than of car rides. The question is being answered with the context of fear, and fear tends to be irrational. In the post’s case, it’s pretty clear when a bear wants to maul you or wants to avoid you. When it’s another human being, irrationality kicks in. Most guys wouldn’t be comfortable with their girlfriend being out in the wilderness with an entirely random dude, and it’s for the same reason.
Okay so like it’s not as bad as you weirdos like to make it out to be. It’s not like women can’t even step outside without being sexual assaulted. There’s 350 million people living in the United States and roughly 5 million women a year are sexually assaulted, which is terrible it should be at 0, but 5 million women a year isn’t even 2% of the entire US population.. So by this logic, 98% of women aren’t going to be sexually assaulted by a man. That’s 98%. I’m sure the odds of the bear is like 50/50 but hey, I’m not a zoologist or anything, apparently just a terrible evil man who is far more dangerous than any bear🙀