I've had my own closest male family members downplay and dismiss my fears and trauma multiple times throughout the course of my life.
My own brother even said I was being a "hater" because he happened to meet the guy I was complaining about at my old job (the man in question kept trying to ask me out and tried to pressure me into giving my number when I didn't want to) because he seemed like such an affable, easygoing guy to *him*.
It's like a mouse trying to explain to the fox and the wolf why she's so scared of the cat, but they don't see the issue because *oh, the cat is great! The cat is a swell guy to* ***us!***
They're aware that women they know are assaulted, what they're really in denial about is that *it's men they know and like doing the assaulting*
So many of them are ready to jump in and defend women and call themselves a feminist, until it's their buddy from kindergarden chatting up a girl in high school because "she's 18, it's legal!". Or until their roommate brings home a girl that can't even stand upright, but "she didn't say no" so it's ok! Never mind that she couldn't...
They're also the same guys that are all about believing women until it's their favorite musician/actor/athlete/whatever getting accused. They'll condemn Cosby and Weinstein while defending someone they actually like until they're blue in the face.
Yeah, I largely agree. Even the lowball estimates of how many women are victims of domestic violence or sexual assault mean that any typical man probably knows at least a couple of women who've been through it. It also means they probably know at least a few men who've been perpetrators.
There's also the fact an animal won't care to psychologically or physically torture you. With things like rape, there is an intention to torture and create fear.
Bear bells work on the principle that bears don’t *want* to be in our vicinity and will avoid us if given the chance. There are no man bells, because when a man attacks it’s because he wants to.
That's a dishonest argument, people do ask bear attack victims whether they were following safety procedures around dangerous wild animals.
Campers/hikers will be asked whether they stored their food properly. Hunters will be asked whether their clothes were clean from blood which could attract bears.
The fact men can't understand that a human being with bad intent is far scarier and more horrifying than an animal that simply wants to eat you really is pretty confounding.
It's not about the bear. It's the feeling of rejection they feel by not being picked. That's it. They keep trying to bash us upside the head to pick them personally. It's sick.
We can't even hypothetically refuse their company without being punished.
I disagree, mostly because i read about that poor russian woman being eaten alive by a bear. I don't get why intent has any relevance here.
To use another example, i think being bitten and dragged to the deep by a white shark is far scarier than a man trying to rape me.
"*i think being bitten and dragged to the deep by a white shark is far scarier than a man trying to rape me."*
It will be over in seconds. No more than a minute.
Rape will go on much -- *much* -- longer.
Death is scary. Painful dying is scary. Not knowing if you're going to die after hours of torture is also scary. Most of us would see the third as the scariest because it feels neverending and *you don't know* what will be the end result.
"*With things like rape, there is an intention to torture and create fear.*"
This can't be emphasized enough.
Rape is about controlling someone through fear and pain.
Killing and eating you is about, well, eating.
I'd rather be eaten alive by a pack of wild dogs than be raped, tortured and killed for no reason by some man. None of us are under any delusions about the realities of nature. We have come to the conclusion that men are worse than nature. Because they on average ***are***.
I’m not arguing the malice on one side (something I truly think animals lack, and miss me with the “what about cats” shit), but many predators will begin eating prey alive, so while the bear isn’t going into this to torture you, arguably it may still do so.
I’d just as soon not be in the woods with humans or bears.
It’s the intention. A bear doesn’t eat you alive for fun or because they enjoy seeing you suffer or because they’re playing some mental power games with you. They just want to put food in their belly. A man will rape/torture/abuse a woman for nothing but their own pleasure or perverse mind game.
The difference? Realistically the torture of the bear is going to be a lot shorter versus the worst case scenario of a human who is stronger than you. The bear isn’t gonna try to keep you alive. You’ve surely heard cases of women and girls (and even men and boys) being kidnapped, held, and tortured for literal years.
For me, it's all about the intention vs level of pain.
I know why a bear is attacking/eating me.
I don't know why the man thinks it okay to treat another human being like that.
> The bear isn’t gonna try to keep you alive.
Bears will partially eat prey in order to maximize the amount of fresh meat they can get. That's what being at the top of the food chain means.
Men are far more adept at torture than a bear could ever dream of and they can draw it out for actual decades for their victims. There is no contest. There never was. Keep swinging for those fences though. It's really making a difference!
If you're being eaten alive, I don't think you're thinking about whether the animal wants to hurt you so much as the fact that you're being torn limb from limb.
I'd rather die than be raped. That's the point of the question. A lot of us would rather die than be forced into a position like that.
I'd also rather die by an animal that can't do it out of evil than a person. I would never want to give some perverted freak that satisfaction.
Ok but there's a problem with that formulation which is it doesn't take into account probability.
Yes a 100% chance of death is preferable than a 100% chance of rape. But say it's a 40% chance of the former and a 5% chance of the latter? Or some other distribution of probability.
The question isn't who you'd rather get attacked by, it's who you would rather encounter. The dude is more likely to be a hunter, hiker, or camper than some creep looking for a victim. Because a creep looking for a female victim would go somewhere where he's likely to find women who are alone, and that's not the woods.
Plus I didn't say you would die. Hungry bears don't just kill you and eat you. They often don't bother to kill you and literally start eating you, tearing chunks of flesh off with their teeth, while you're completely alive and conscious.
I think you're missing the point. You're being way too literal over an experiment of thought and theory.
I gave you a bowl of grapes and told you to eat 5 out of the 100. 5 of the grapes are poisoned. There's only a five percent chance you'll die so why would you worry when eating them? You have a much higher chance of surviving so logically you shouldn't care, right?
It isn't all about probability and logic, and I think that's the reason many men struggle with this, especially when they haven't had to go through any type of sexual assault or rape themselves. One little thing that happened to me in high-school is still affecting me drastically as a result despite it happening 10 years ago.
You'd be surprised at how many things can happen to solo female hikers or campers in the woods.
Maybe it would help if I explained it simply to you? A lot of women would rather face the possibility of death than the possibility of being raped, tortured, sold, or mutilated. Myself included.
Ok that's fair, and as a thought experiment I get it, women being physically vulnerable to men and being aware of that especially when alone with us is something I sympathize with and think is worth discussing. And the point about rape, torture, etc, being worse than death is a fair one too (although to be fair a bear can do even worse than just killing). Insofar as you're making that point I get it.
The problem I have is that I do see some women going to the point of not even taking it as a thought experiment to that point, but actually defending it as if the bear is literally the better option. And when you take it literally I do think probability becomes relevant.
"I gave you a bowl of grapes and told you to eat 5 out of the 100. 5 of the grapes are poisoned. There's only a five percent chance you'll die so why would you worry when eating them?" I'm not saying a woman in the woods with a man shouldn't worry. I'm saying she should worry even more if it's a bear. So that would be like "one bowl with 5 poisoned grapes" vs "one bowl with 25", which would you pick? Of course both options are risky in a terrible way, and to say that
"One thing that happened to me in high-school is still affecting me drastically as a result despite it happening 10 years ago." I'm very sorry that happened to you and genuinely wish you all the best in coping with it and leading a maximally positive life. And I can see how that sort of experience can deeply change a person and why that man vs bear scenario as a thought experiment can be an effective way to express the perspective you're talking about.
On one hand, my friend was r\*ped and m\*rdered in her apt. by a strange man who had been stalking her & her female housemates for weeks and her male landlord decided not to mention it (after finding stalker peeping & telling him to leave) and the landlord also decided not to repair the lock on the building's door that provided the murderer entry to the building via the laundry room (it was a duplex and tenants had no idea the laundry room was not secured to the outside.)
On the other hand, I have run across many bears hiking and camping and we leave each other alone and go on our way.
Edit: additional details
White cis male dude here. I’ve hiked thousands of miles through the backcountry across the US. I’ve come across plenty of random men in the woods and have had more than my fair share of bear encounters. I choose the bear. Anyone who doesn’t choose the bear has neither encountered a bear nor a random man in the woods. 9 times out of 10 the guy is fine, we don’t interact much and nothing happens. 10 times out of 10 I know how a bear is going to react based on the circumstances and how I need to respond to keep myself safe. It’s the 1 time in 10 with the man that makes all of the difference.
A bear has never tried to rob me. A bear has never tried to separate the smallest women from the group in the backcountry. A bear has never cornered me in a shelter and tried to force me to buy his drugs under implied threat of violence. A random crazed man in the woods has done all 3 (more than once in the case of the first one). I will reiterate, anyone who feels safer choosing the man hasn’t had either encounter in real life.
Bears are definitely scary but there’s a good chance you’ll survive. On the other hand, meeting a random man out in the forest sounds like the start of a horror movie.
Most bears are more curious than dangerous. Except for mama bears where you’re between them and their babies. Those bears are dangerous.
Source: plenty of camping in back country areas where bear bags are required.
Speaking as someone born and raised in bear country Alaska,
ABSOLUTELY agree! Pick the bear every time; animals make sense, and if it's not VERY hungry or crazy, it'll likely leave you alone.
I've encountered 14 or 15 Griz in the mountains, sometimes with guns and sometimes without.
I've never had to kill one.
I've also been roofied multiple times and will be dealing with that forever.
TAKE THE BEAR
Bears are dangerous, but they arent really... prone to attacking, if i met a wild bear id be fairly confident i could just walk away.
Unless its a mommy bear with cubs they dont really get violent or defensive.
Another fun thing to note, you know who else is afraid of men in the woods? BEARS! Bears are terrified of men in the woods because they’re smart enough to know that men are super dangerous.
Where I am from you’re allowed to shoot the man too. In fact I encourage it because if more of them got real consequences maybe it would stop being so common.
The men who make fun of this argument are the men who know all the way to the depths of their soul, that they are the exact men women are thinking of when they choose the bear.
Men make fun of this argument because they dont understand its an emotional response question , not survival quiz, that's how many men are wired to think.
Women use that as a further hint that men who criticise this question are personally offended by it, as they dont understand it's not an emotional response for men, just problem solvy one
Some women entertain the idea that men who make fun of this question automatically fall into category of the bear problem, I have no idea why
Some men recklessly call women who ask this question "psychos", i have no idea why
Some people of the above show emotional inteligence of early teenagers, could it be .. everyone?
I hunt. I've spent WEEKS in the woods completely alone. Survival, yes? Still picking the fucking bear. I know if I use the very least amount of common sense that bear and me won't have a single problem. A man? I can do absolutely everything right...personal security, cover head to toe, not flirt or be friendly...and I could still EASILY fall prey to a stalker, rapist, or serial killer. There...happy?
Alright, fine: Even as a survival thing, choosing the bear is, at the very least, understandable. A bear is predictable. If it isn‘t hungry, it‘ll leave you alone. If it is, it MIGHT kill you, though you might scare him off by making noise before it gets too close. Almost all bears work this way.
You have absolutely no clue what the man‘s intentions are. Sure, most men are not evil. But what about this one, who is alone with you? Far away from any help you could call for. Screaming isn‘t gonna scare him off if he does try something, and he is absolutely aware of the fact that he‘d win a fight with you if it comes to one, something you might even trick a bear into not realising. And if he does decide to harm you, you have no idea what he actually wants to do. Rape, murder, torture, all of the above are all on the table with the man.
The uncertainty of the man makes the bear a solid choice even from a pure survival stand-point.
>Even as a survival thing, choosing the bear is, at the very least, understandable. A bear is predictable. If it isn‘t hungry, it‘ll leave you alone. If it is, it MIGHT kill you, though you might scare him off by making noise before it gets too close.
>The uncertainty of the man makes the bear a solid choice even from a pure survival stand-point.
The issue with the question is that there is massive selection bias so I don't think this is true. You aren't just picking a random bear and a random man and dropping them into the situation. Bears really don't want to deal with people and will avoid you given any opportunity which means any bear you actually make contact with is far more likely to be hungry or protective than average (as they didn't just avoid you). Same filter doesn't really apply to men, they are unlikely to actively avoid you whether they are just passing by or seek to do you harm.
And as for potentially scaring it off, the pistol I carry when alone in the woods is going to be a much more effective deterrent for a man than an aggressive bear.
It would really help the discussion if people quantified their answers. I feel like conservatively 1/5 bears are dangerous in this situation while around 1/10 men are potential threat. So the obvious choice is the man; Maybe your chances are different. The binary choice between the two just doesn't make for good discussion.
>Sure, most men are not evil. But what about this one, who is alone with you? Far away from any help you could call for.
And there is the survival adjacent argument which is what you are kind of making here that what the man could possibly do to you is worse than the bear so the higher chance of being killed or crippled by the bear is superior but the odds of encountering a sadist like that rather than just someone that wants to do you harm is vanishingly low. So much so that basing your decision on that is really a pascal's wager.
I fully support the message behind the argument and I am not one bit ashamed of my behaviour towards women. I have never in my life touched a women in a sexual way without consent.
EDIT: removed personal story, since people telling me "my abuser should have done more, maybe then I would get it." after finding my discord on this profile. Don't bother it's gone.
However I still feel attacked because it is a generalizing statement about me as a man. Anybody that does not have the empathy to realize that telling somebody "I would choose a wild animal over someone from your group of people" is incredibly dehumanizing needs to wake up. Telling me "You are the problem" because I am offended by a generalization is exactly the problem I have with the statement.
I get the anger that somebody feels towards people that abuse them. Actually more so than ever since the first situation happened to me. Condoning throwing more hate out into the world with a firehose like that is still incredibly disgusting human behavior.
Again: I am not against woman saying they are fearful of men and want a better society. If they are they NEED to tell the world and we all have to work on that. But this thing is pure ragebait and nobody calling out the hateful trolls is appaling to me.
Men feeling they have to be the star of every single movie is so fucking tiresome.
You are not the victim here and you are not the star. Get the fuck over it.
Simply stop comparing people to animals. There is nothing to be gained from that but hate. As somebody living in germany I know.
To quote "The Many Roles of Dehumanization in Genocide" (https://academic.oup.com/book/37362/chapter-abstract/331335701?redirectedFrom=fulltext)
> In genocide studies, dehumanization is commonly understood as a preparatory step on the path to mass killing. On this understanding, the perpetrator’s propaganda explicitly likens victims to animals, and these dehumanizing metaphors enable violence.
Subtle forms of dehumanization precede the tactical use of explicit animal metaphors, and dehumanizing metaphors are not always expressed in language or invariably animalistic in content. Dehumanization not only is a prelude to violence but also facilitates violent acts in the present and justifies and minimizes violence after it has been committed.
In the case of this "movie" here, it is not a likening to animals. It is actually putting men below animals. I do not believe this is on purpose here but rhetoric like this was very popular in my country about 100 years ago. To quote my 7th grade Teacher: "Wehret den Anfängen".
TLDR: I will never get over it.
Do you seriously think a hypothetical question about women’s safety is comparable to a fucking genocide?
Jfc do literally everyone you know a favor and take your victim complex to a therapist
I'm sorry, I do not believe my point is actually coming across.
My point is allowing dehumanization or objectification in discourse and in general is a bad idea. I will not stand for that.
If you need a more "womens issues" centric study to understand this how about "Dehumanization in female victims of intimate partner violence"(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10369329/)
> Domestic violence is a major public health issue, a violation of human rights, and a significant risk factor for developing mental and physical diseases. IPV is one of the most common forms of domestic violence and refers to any intentional abuse perpetrated by an intimate partner and can be in the form of physical, sexual, and psychological violence or a combination of them. Like other forms of violence, dehumanization can be involved in IPV. For example, dehumanization may devalue women, which allows any control and physical harm as in physical violence, direct or implied contempt of women and justifying controlling them as a part of men’s property as in psychological violence, and also allows relegating women to a sexual object, lifeless and lacking in humanity, which justifies sexual violence. Rudman and Mescher also showed that sexual harassment of women and raping is more probable in men who implicitly dehumanize women.
Why would you think that dehumanization of men would have a positive outcome for anybody when dehumanization of women is clearly bad for women and society in general?
If you feel AtTaCkED then that’s a sign that you know you are one of the men women are trying to avoid to the point they’d take their chances with the bear. Plenty of men have stood up and said they understand exactly why women are choosing the bear. A few of them are even trying to explain this to men like you.
As a german that was, during my school years, thankfully forced to watch, dissect and analyze german propaganda until 1945 I simply have a moral problem with comparing anybody human to an animal.
For an english explanation of why this might be a Problem I will leave this brief article written by the phenomenal Clara Riggio about the dangers of dehumanization: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201811/the-5-steps-dehumanization
Maybe if men acted like humans around women, we wouldn’t have to dehumanize them. They aren’t doing that right now, so they can deal with it for all I care. Fuck men and fuck their feelings.
I would choose the bear every time and not think twice. I was molested as a child, raped as an adult. I was beaten, lied to, manipulated and abused in every way by males. Only one female abuser. Several male abusers. I'd pick the damn bear and if a man can't understand that then he's part of the problem. Also probably feeling a little called out imo. I know that the bear is either going to eat me or run from me. No guess work there
> I know that the bear is either going to eat me or run from me. No guess work there
Being around WILD ANIMALS is full of guess work, that's what makes it so dangerous. A bear might also open your stomach with its paws and leave you to die.
It's about me because this whole man vs bear issue supports the idea that women are irrational. How could anyone defend such an ill conceived thought experiment?
And it also doesn't help when "bear" is the only socially acceptable answer,
I asked my boyfriend if he was aware of the “bear or man” question and he said yes - and that he’d probably pick the strange man because there was a chance he could fend them off. Fair!
I asked what would he choose if he were me and he said “probably the bear if I’m honest”.
I just saw a video on TT that states it SO well, and it's a man stating it. Maybe we can share this to those men and more of them will get it... or prove they are the reason we choose the bear.
[https://www.tiktok.com/@ryan\_dwire/video/7364561023795252522](https://www.tiktok.com/@ryan_dwire/video/7364561023795252522)
Ugh, I freaking can't man. These reasons always make me so sad. Did you see the video from the guy who initially poised the thought back in March? I didn't even realize it was supposedly started from him and I follow him he's done a ton of videos on it since then. I feel like he always articulates it really well.
[call me bk](https://www.tiktok.com/@callmebkbk/video/7348070989479021855?_t=8mAEFrio9ud&_r=1)
"I wouldn't have to see the bear at family reunions" and "the bear wouldn't clean me up and tell me not to tell mommy" are the two that hit hardest for me.
I know that the scenario is for a random man to be in the woods, not necessarily a family member. But since so much childhood abuse is perpetuated by family, yeah, that point matters. A bear won't actively retraumatize you for years afterward if you survive.
Given the sheer numbers of women assaulted, it statistically CANNOT be few. It must be a fair amount or it is simply not physically possible. It's not few.
Yup. Society is not ready to accept the sheer number of men that shouldn't be here. It's okay for bears to be euthanized after an attack yet these men are still walking among us.
This is the truth. It is absolutely common behavior among men, often when they're young or before they realize the systematic oppression they are continuing. Some stop doing it, others continue for life. Practically none of the admit it.
Sadly, I’m willing to bet every man knows at least 1 woman who has been assaulted in some fashion yet I bet almost no women know of any men who have been similarly assaulted.
I don’t know a single guy that has been sexually assaulted.
I know it happens and I suppose a chance exists it has never come up in convo but I know for a fact that almost every woman I’ve met or known - has at least once — been a victim to a man in some fashion.
Finding one who hasn’t would be like finding a real life unicorn.
Isn't it something like 2 in 3 women are assaulted by a man by the time they're 30?
Every man knows women that have been assaulted. They just might not know it personally. I didn't find out about my own mother's assault until I was 35.
It's an epidemic.
That's probably because most men don't have the emotional knowledge to acknowledge their own sexual assaults.
I bet you've heard plenty of stories from other males about older women hooking up with them when they were underage. That's not hooking up, that's sexual assault.
The crying & foot stomping from these little men is hilarious. They'll take any opportunity to try & mock, make fun of, &/or bully women & girls on social media. I'm here to bully, mock, & make fun of them in return.
I'm so your "point"? Your comment suggests 1 you are completely dismissive of what women have to say about their own experiences, 2 women are too stupid to know how bears work, and 3 women could never possibly experience extreme pain such as having their belly ripped open (say, via c section or the car accident that almost killed me years ago).
My mother told me this story years ago, and I was reminded of it when this trend came up.
When she was young, my mother walked her dog in a pretty big natural park. One day, a man came walking in the opposite direction, stopped her, and said "we're alone here. I could do anything I want with you. No one would hear you".
My mother is big-mouthed, in the good sense of the word. She said "you forgot about my dog." She gave some simple commands, like sit, lie down, etc. Then she said "want me to give the next command? I believe you can guess what it'll be".
She never found out if he wanted to make true on his threat. Seems like he was sensible enough not to take on a massive dog.
So yeah, I prefer the bear too.
The discrepancy between men who realize and fully acknowledge how common emotional and physical abuse by men is and those completely unaware is very high. Culturally, there is so much false information and propoganda that suggests it is highly exaggerated, and somehow, this entirely negates any evidence to the contrary.
Sorry, women. A lot of us guys are very insensitive and lucratively oblivious.
I think most men downplaying this argument are secretly ashamed (or worse, not) of their behavior towards women. Instead of reflecting and attempting to better themselves, they reflexively blame anyone else but themselves. Sure, you can poke logical holes in the argument or nit-pick, but that is *really* besides the point, and not at all what it is attempting to illustrate.
I fully support the message behind the argument and I am not one bit ashamed of my behaviour towards women. I have never in my life touched a women in a sexual way without consent.
EDIT: removed personal story, since people telling me "my abuser should have done more, maybe then I would get it." after finding my discord on this profile. Don't bother it's gone.
However I still feel attacked because it is a generalizing statement. Anybody that does not have the empathy to realize that telling somebody "I would choose a wild animal over someone from your group of people" is incredibly dehumanizing needs to wake up. Even more insidious are the people that tell men that are annoyed at being stereotyped "You are the Problem".
To me that is disgusting hateful human behavior.
Again: I am not against woman saying they are fearful of men and want a better society. This needs to happen and we all have to work on that. But this thing is pure ragebait and nobody calling out the hateful trolls is appaling to me.
Flip the script on them a bit to help folks understand. I’m a large man and I carry a gun when I’m in the woods. Why? Not for bears. It’s for humans. A man is 1000x more dangerous than a bear. A woman is 100x more dangerous than a bear. (These numbers are based on murder rates in the US) of course there are more dangers than murder. The point is this question only has one right answer. Pick the bear.
LOL. I'm not afraid of other women in the woods. Sure women are human and humans are far more dangerous than bears but it's men that skew the violence statistics, not women. That's just historical fact.
Women largely don't scare me. Never have. It's men and goddamn do we need to stress that.
IT'S MEN. MEN ARE THE PROBLEM.
Pretending not to know AND trying to "educate" stupid women who can't possibly have thought of these things yet. It's sickening. And he's upvoted, naturally.
I think men are more dangerous, but it’s a good idea to be wary of any human. Also since the point is about bears it’s interesting. Men have 10 times the murder rate of women. Women have 1000x the kill rate of bears.
MEN ARE THE PROBLEM. It's astonishing how little you think we know, having lived our entire lives as girls and women. We know this shit. We're not stupid and you're not telling us anything we don't already know.
We aren't afraid of each other. We are afraid of YOU. That is what this life is about for us. Stop looking away from the main point.
> it's men that skew the violence statistics
And when you dig into that a bit more, you find that it's mostly right-wing men.
Not sure if the female violence stats have the same skew of "it's mostly right-wing women" as well, but it wouldn't suprise me.
> A man is 1000x more dangerous than a bear. A woman is 100x more dangerous than a bear. (These numbers are based on murder rates in the US)
This is a matter of exposure, not danger. My city has over a million men and women roaming free and maybe a few bears permanently locked up in a zoo.
Not arguing the man v bear psychological aspects, just saying using the stats this way isn't logical. Imagine if you asked someone in the UK "would you rather be attacked by someone with a knife or someone with a gun?". Statistically guns are like 5% of murders and sharp objects are >50%. That doesn't mean knives are more dangerous than guns. It just means access to knives is more common than guns.
Its not a math question and turning it into one is *exactly* why so many men disagree.
>This is a matter of exposure, not danger. My city has over a million men and women roaming free and maybe a few bears permanently locked up in a zoo.
It's also based on how successful bear hunters are. Bears don't usually win that matchup.
Well, I think humans being more clever than animals is pretty much the crux of this whole meta discussion. The narrow spectrum of things a bear can conceive of doing to you is what makes them "less scary" in the scenario.
A lot of people live in deeply rural areas where there are bears who will walk by your door. People still don't die to bears very often in those towns. Even in places with tons of bears you're still not likely to die to a bear, and more likely to die to a human. Statistics STILL support the bear.
Even if you live somewhere that has a higher bear population than human population, that's still not an equal level of exposure. Anyone would always exercise caution around a bear by default. You'd never hang out with one, invite one into your home or go to a place where several bears are. The *caution* associated with wild animal encounters reduces the statistical danger because you would *never* trust a wild animal.
Consider the statistical likelihood of a woman being killed by a stranger compared to being killed by a lover. Its still a matter of access and caution. The raw numbers don't mean boyfriends/husbands are more dangerous than the guy furiously masturbating on the subway. The statistics just express how little time someone would spend with an *obviously* dangerous person.
Again, simply making it a math/statistics question without any context for what situations *cause* those statistics defeats the purpose.
> You'd never hang out with one, invite one into your home or go to a place where several bears are. The caution associated with wild animal encounters reduces the statistical danger because you would never trust a wild animal.
Yes, you are correct. Literally no one is saying they would invite the bear into their home. You are CATASTROPHICALLY missing the point of the thought experiment and aren't acting logically at all. This is just a hyperfixation leading you down a rabbit trail that's about fifty miles away from the point.
It's not about the bear. It's the feeling of rejection they feel by not being picked. That's it. They keep trying to bash us upside the head to pick them personally. It's sick.
We can't even hypothetically refuse their company without being punished.
If you have a suggestion for how I could have asked the initial question more precisely, I'm all for it. But if you say that you didn't say it in good faith, I guess that is an indirect answer.
Thank you for your time, and I hope you have a nice day. Cheers!
Exposure is exactly the point. The reason a person is safe in the woods with a bear is that bears VERY actively avoid exposure to humans. Because BEARS are smart enough to know that humans are WAY more dangerous than bears.
Well said. And this is exactly the kind of 'statistics' that tend to turn racist pretty quick. Not accusing the OP of that, just saying its best to avoid a flat murder rate road of conversation.
They know. Bc all of them get super protective all if a sudden when they have daughters. So why are they notallmen except when it comes to their daughters? Bc they’re liars. They’ve always known.
The discrepancy between men who realize and fully acknowledge how common emotional and physical abuse by men is and those completely unaware is very high. Culturally, there is so much false information and propoganda that suggests it is highly exaggerated, and somehow, this entirely negates any evidence to the contrary.
Sorry, women. A lot of us guys are very insensitive and lucratively oblivious.
I mean that 'type' of man is the lowest type of garbage, which is why the discourse of comparing any random guy to being worse than an animal predator is not very helpful
Nah, you said the quiet part out loud. That women should be thankful when a guy isn't hurting her, because, as you said - we aren't entitled to safety.
You're the guy that's glad there's rapists and abusers so you can get away with doing the bare fucking minimum ie. Not abusing/raping, so you can look like a goddamn hero.
I am ready to defend myself, when I run across men like you that think I'm not entitled to safety.
I personally think everyone is entitled to safety and treat them accordingly. Different strokes for different folks I guess 🤷♀️
I am so serious, you don't need to answer this but like realllllly think about your moral compass if you genuinely believe that no one is entitled to safety.
I'm being so serious, that thought freaks tf out of me. That there's people walking around that think that not everyone is entitled to basic things like not being abused or murdered.
> There is no way to know who will hurt us and who won’t, but one thing you will always know, is a woman who was hurt by a man.
That sounds dismissive to violence between women and men being hurt by women.
How so? When did I ever said people were never assaulted by women LOL. I’ve known both men and women assaulted by other women, and never implied in my post otherwise because I don’t want to invalidate those experiences.
I've had my own closest male family members downplay and dismiss my fears and trauma multiple times throughout the course of my life. My own brother even said I was being a "hater" because he happened to meet the guy I was complaining about at my old job (the man in question kept trying to ask me out and tried to pressure me into giving my number when I didn't want to) because he seemed like such an affable, easygoing guy to *him*. It's like a mouse trying to explain to the fox and the wolf why she's so scared of the cat, but they don't see the issue because *oh, the cat is great! The cat is a swell guy to* ***us!***
Good analogy!
They're aware that women they know are assaulted, what they're really in denial about is that *it's men they know and like doing the assaulting* So many of them are ready to jump in and defend women and call themselves a feminist, until it's their buddy from kindergarden chatting up a girl in high school because "she's 18, it's legal!". Or until their roommate brings home a girl that can't even stand upright, but "she didn't say no" so it's ok! Never mind that she couldn't... They're also the same guys that are all about believing women until it's their favorite musician/actor/athlete/whatever getting accused. They'll condemn Cosby and Weinstein while defending someone they actually like until they're blue in the face.
Yeah, I largely agree. Even the lowball estimates of how many women are victims of domestic violence or sexual assault mean that any typical man probably knows at least a couple of women who've been through it. It also means they probably know at least a few men who've been perpetrators.
There's also the fact an animal won't care to psychologically or physically torture you. With things like rape, there is an intention to torture and create fear.
Bear bells work on the principle that bears don’t *want* to be in our vicinity and will avoid us if given the chance. There are no man bells, because when a man attacks it’s because he wants to.
Man bells would be amazing. Shame the men that we don’t want to encounter would ignore them.
Plus, as I saw one wise woman point out: if she is attacked by the bear, people will believe her when she tells them
And won’t ask what she was wearing
That's a dishonest argument, people do ask bear attack victims whether they were following safety procedures around dangerous wild animals. Campers/hikers will be asked whether they stored their food properly. Hunters will be asked whether their clothes were clean from blood which could attract bears.
That’s interesting. It doesn’t matter what a woman is wearing. Men have reasoning human brains while bears do not.
"*Hunters will be asked whether their clothes were clean from blood which could attract bears.*" 'Scuse the hell outta me for being on my period.
I meant blood stains from the animals they hunt and process on the field.
A woman surviving a bear attack? Impossible! She probably imagined it /s
And if she screams hard enough, the bear might leave her alone
The fact men can't understand that a human being with bad intent is far scarier and more horrifying than an animal that simply wants to eat you really is pretty confounding.
It's not about the bear. It's the feeling of rejection they feel by not being picked. That's it. They keep trying to bash us upside the head to pick them personally. It's sick. We can't even hypothetically refuse their company without being punished.
This is a great point Edit to add: I've been feeling this throughout the discourse but couldn't put the words to it
I disagree, mostly because i read about that poor russian woman being eaten alive by a bear. I don't get why intent has any relevance here. To use another example, i think being bitten and dragged to the deep by a white shark is far scarier than a man trying to rape me.
"*i think being bitten and dragged to the deep by a white shark is far scarier than a man trying to rape me."* It will be over in seconds. No more than a minute. Rape will go on much -- *much* -- longer.
> It will be over in seconds. No more than a minute. That doesn't make any less scary.
Death is scary. Painful dying is scary. Not knowing if you're going to die after hours of torture is also scary. Most of us would see the third as the scariest because it feels neverending and *you don't know* what will be the end result.
"*With things like rape, there is an intention to torture and create fear.*" This can't be emphasized enough. Rape is about controlling someone through fear and pain. Killing and eating you is about, well, eating.
Dolphins would like to know your location
I used to think the people here were joking about how peaceful bears and animals are, but now I feel like they actually see animals like Disney Bambi
I'd rather be eaten alive by a pack of wild dogs than be raped, tortured and killed for no reason by some man. None of us are under any delusions about the realities of nature. We have come to the conclusion that men are worse than nature. Because they on average ***are***.
I’m not arguing the malice on one side (something I truly think animals lack, and miss me with the “what about cats” shit), but many predators will begin eating prey alive, so while the bear isn’t going into this to torture you, arguably it may still do so. I’d just as soon not be in the woods with humans or bears.
It’s the intention. A bear doesn’t eat you alive for fun or because they enjoy seeing you suffer or because they’re playing some mental power games with you. They just want to put food in their belly. A man will rape/torture/abuse a woman for nothing but their own pleasure or perverse mind game.
The difference? Realistically the torture of the bear is going to be a lot shorter versus the worst case scenario of a human who is stronger than you. The bear isn’t gonna try to keep you alive. You’ve surely heard cases of women and girls (and even men and boys) being kidnapped, held, and tortured for literal years.
For me, it's all about the intention vs level of pain. I know why a bear is attacking/eating me. I don't know why the man thinks it okay to treat another human being like that.
> The bear isn’t gonna try to keep you alive. Bears will partially eat prey in order to maximize the amount of fresh meat they can get. That's what being at the top of the food chain means.
Men are far more adept at torture than a bear could ever dream of and they can draw it out for actual decades for their victims. There is no contest. There never was. Keep swinging for those fences though. It's really making a difference!
Charming.
If you're being eaten alive, I don't think you're thinking about whether the animal wants to hurt you so much as the fact that you're being torn limb from limb.
I'd rather die than be raped. That's the point of the question. A lot of us would rather die than be forced into a position like that. I'd also rather die by an animal that can't do it out of evil than a person. I would never want to give some perverted freak that satisfaction.
Ok but there's a problem with that formulation which is it doesn't take into account probability. Yes a 100% chance of death is preferable than a 100% chance of rape. But say it's a 40% chance of the former and a 5% chance of the latter? Or some other distribution of probability. The question isn't who you'd rather get attacked by, it's who you would rather encounter. The dude is more likely to be a hunter, hiker, or camper than some creep looking for a victim. Because a creep looking for a female victim would go somewhere where he's likely to find women who are alone, and that's not the woods. Plus I didn't say you would die. Hungry bears don't just kill you and eat you. They often don't bother to kill you and literally start eating you, tearing chunks of flesh off with their teeth, while you're completely alive and conscious.
I think you're missing the point. You're being way too literal over an experiment of thought and theory. I gave you a bowl of grapes and told you to eat 5 out of the 100. 5 of the grapes are poisoned. There's only a five percent chance you'll die so why would you worry when eating them? You have a much higher chance of surviving so logically you shouldn't care, right? It isn't all about probability and logic, and I think that's the reason many men struggle with this, especially when they haven't had to go through any type of sexual assault or rape themselves. One little thing that happened to me in high-school is still affecting me drastically as a result despite it happening 10 years ago. You'd be surprised at how many things can happen to solo female hikers or campers in the woods. Maybe it would help if I explained it simply to you? A lot of women would rather face the possibility of death than the possibility of being raped, tortured, sold, or mutilated. Myself included.
Ok that's fair, and as a thought experiment I get it, women being physically vulnerable to men and being aware of that especially when alone with us is something I sympathize with and think is worth discussing. And the point about rape, torture, etc, being worse than death is a fair one too (although to be fair a bear can do even worse than just killing). Insofar as you're making that point I get it. The problem I have is that I do see some women going to the point of not even taking it as a thought experiment to that point, but actually defending it as if the bear is literally the better option. And when you take it literally I do think probability becomes relevant. "I gave you a bowl of grapes and told you to eat 5 out of the 100. 5 of the grapes are poisoned. There's only a five percent chance you'll die so why would you worry when eating them?" I'm not saying a woman in the woods with a man shouldn't worry. I'm saying she should worry even more if it's a bear. So that would be like "one bowl with 5 poisoned grapes" vs "one bowl with 25", which would you pick? Of course both options are risky in a terrible way, and to say that "One thing that happened to me in high-school is still affecting me drastically as a result despite it happening 10 years ago." I'm very sorry that happened to you and genuinely wish you all the best in coping with it and leading a maximally positive life. And I can see how that sort of experience can deeply change a person and why that man vs bear scenario as a thought experiment can be an effective way to express the perspective you're talking about.
Someone’s never met cats!
On one hand, my friend was r\*ped and m\*rdered in her apt. by a strange man who had been stalking her & her female housemates for weeks and her male landlord decided not to mention it (after finding stalker peeping & telling him to leave) and the landlord also decided not to repair the lock on the building's door that provided the murderer entry to the building via the laundry room (it was a duplex and tenants had no idea the laundry room was not secured to the outside.) On the other hand, I have run across many bears hiking and camping and we leave each other alone and go on our way. Edit: additional details
I’m so sorry.
Thank you ❤️
Anyone who's confused why people pick bear should look at the choice from bear's perspective...
White cis male dude here. I’ve hiked thousands of miles through the backcountry across the US. I’ve come across plenty of random men in the woods and have had more than my fair share of bear encounters. I choose the bear. Anyone who doesn’t choose the bear has neither encountered a bear nor a random man in the woods. 9 times out of 10 the guy is fine, we don’t interact much and nothing happens. 10 times out of 10 I know how a bear is going to react based on the circumstances and how I need to respond to keep myself safe. It’s the 1 time in 10 with the man that makes all of the difference. A bear has never tried to rob me. A bear has never tried to separate the smallest women from the group in the backcountry. A bear has never cornered me in a shelter and tried to force me to buy his drugs under implied threat of violence. A random crazed man in the woods has done all 3 (more than once in the case of the first one). I will reiterate, anyone who feels safer choosing the man hasn’t had either encounter in real life.
Hearing a guy pick bear because a bear won't rape him will stay with me forever.
A comment I once made on a TikTok post about this: “The bear won’t tell me how many men wish they could be in my position.”
Bears are definitely scary but there’s a good chance you’ll survive. On the other hand, meeting a random man out in the forest sounds like the start of a horror movie.
Most bears are more curious than dangerous. Except for mama bears where you’re between them and their babies. Those bears are dangerous. Source: plenty of camping in back country areas where bear bags are required.
Speaking as someone born and raised in bear country Alaska, ABSOLUTELY agree! Pick the bear every time; animals make sense, and if it's not VERY hungry or crazy, it'll likely leave you alone. I've encountered 14 or 15 Griz in the mountains, sometimes with guns and sometimes without. I've never had to kill one. I've also been roofied multiple times and will be dealing with that forever. TAKE THE BEAR
Bears are dangerous, but they arent really... prone to attacking, if i met a wild bear id be fairly confident i could just walk away. Unless its a mommy bear with cubs they dont really get violent or defensive.
Another fun thing to note, you know who else is afraid of men in the woods? BEARS! Bears are terrified of men in the woods because they’re smart enough to know that men are super dangerous.
I’ve met men. I’ve met bears. So far, I’ve been hurt by many more men than I have bears. And you’re allowed to shoot the bear if it runs after you.
Where I am from you’re allowed to shoot the man too. In fact I encourage it because if more of them got real consequences maybe it would stop being so common.
That's how it is here, too. If I even feel threatened, bang bang, and the law will take my side.
To be fair, I feel like there may be a sample size bias here
The men who make fun of this argument are the men who know all the way to the depths of their soul, that they are the exact men women are thinking of when they choose the bear.
Of course. That's why they're taking it so personally.
Men make fun of this argument because they dont understand its an emotional response question , not survival quiz, that's how many men are wired to think. Women use that as a further hint that men who criticise this question are personally offended by it, as they dont understand it's not an emotional response for men, just problem solvy one Some women entertain the idea that men who make fun of this question automatically fall into category of the bear problem, I have no idea why Some men recklessly call women who ask this question "psychos", i have no idea why Some people of the above show emotional inteligence of early teenagers, could it be .. everyone?
Another post that so beautifully demonstrates why we choose the bear.
I hunt. I've spent WEEKS in the woods completely alone. Survival, yes? Still picking the fucking bear. I know if I use the very least amount of common sense that bear and me won't have a single problem. A man? I can do absolutely everything right...personal security, cover head to toe, not flirt or be friendly...and I could still EASILY fall prey to a stalker, rapist, or serial killer. There...happy?
Alright, fine: Even as a survival thing, choosing the bear is, at the very least, understandable. A bear is predictable. If it isn‘t hungry, it‘ll leave you alone. If it is, it MIGHT kill you, though you might scare him off by making noise before it gets too close. Almost all bears work this way. You have absolutely no clue what the man‘s intentions are. Sure, most men are not evil. But what about this one, who is alone with you? Far away from any help you could call for. Screaming isn‘t gonna scare him off if he does try something, and he is absolutely aware of the fact that he‘d win a fight with you if it comes to one, something you might even trick a bear into not realising. And if he does decide to harm you, you have no idea what he actually wants to do. Rape, murder, torture, all of the above are all on the table with the man. The uncertainty of the man makes the bear a solid choice even from a pure survival stand-point.
>Even as a survival thing, choosing the bear is, at the very least, understandable. A bear is predictable. If it isn‘t hungry, it‘ll leave you alone. If it is, it MIGHT kill you, though you might scare him off by making noise before it gets too close. >The uncertainty of the man makes the bear a solid choice even from a pure survival stand-point. The issue with the question is that there is massive selection bias so I don't think this is true. You aren't just picking a random bear and a random man and dropping them into the situation. Bears really don't want to deal with people and will avoid you given any opportunity which means any bear you actually make contact with is far more likely to be hungry or protective than average (as they didn't just avoid you). Same filter doesn't really apply to men, they are unlikely to actively avoid you whether they are just passing by or seek to do you harm. And as for potentially scaring it off, the pistol I carry when alone in the woods is going to be a much more effective deterrent for a man than an aggressive bear. It would really help the discussion if people quantified their answers. I feel like conservatively 1/5 bears are dangerous in this situation while around 1/10 men are potential threat. So the obvious choice is the man; Maybe your chances are different. The binary choice between the two just doesn't make for good discussion. >Sure, most men are not evil. But what about this one, who is alone with you? Far away from any help you could call for. And there is the survival adjacent argument which is what you are kind of making here that what the man could possibly do to you is worse than the bear so the higher chance of being killed or crippled by the bear is superior but the odds of encountering a sadist like that rather than just someone that wants to do you harm is vanishingly low. So much so that basing your decision on that is really a pascal's wager.
I fully support the message behind the argument and I am not one bit ashamed of my behaviour towards women. I have never in my life touched a women in a sexual way without consent. EDIT: removed personal story, since people telling me "my abuser should have done more, maybe then I would get it." after finding my discord on this profile. Don't bother it's gone. However I still feel attacked because it is a generalizing statement about me as a man. Anybody that does not have the empathy to realize that telling somebody "I would choose a wild animal over someone from your group of people" is incredibly dehumanizing needs to wake up. Telling me "You are the problem" because I am offended by a generalization is exactly the problem I have with the statement. I get the anger that somebody feels towards people that abuse them. Actually more so than ever since the first situation happened to me. Condoning throwing more hate out into the world with a firehose like that is still incredibly disgusting human behavior. Again: I am not against woman saying they are fearful of men and want a better society. If they are they NEED to tell the world and we all have to work on that. But this thing is pure ragebait and nobody calling out the hateful trolls is appaling to me.
Men feeling they have to be the star of every single movie is so fucking tiresome. You are not the victim here and you are not the star. Get the fuck over it.
Simply stop comparing people to animals. There is nothing to be gained from that but hate. As somebody living in germany I know. To quote "The Many Roles of Dehumanization in Genocide" (https://academic.oup.com/book/37362/chapter-abstract/331335701?redirectedFrom=fulltext) > In genocide studies, dehumanization is commonly understood as a preparatory step on the path to mass killing. On this understanding, the perpetrator’s propaganda explicitly likens victims to animals, and these dehumanizing metaphors enable violence. Subtle forms of dehumanization precede the tactical use of explicit animal metaphors, and dehumanizing metaphors are not always expressed in language or invariably animalistic in content. Dehumanization not only is a prelude to violence but also facilitates violent acts in the present and justifies and minimizes violence after it has been committed. In the case of this "movie" here, it is not a likening to animals. It is actually putting men below animals. I do not believe this is on purpose here but rhetoric like this was very popular in my country about 100 years ago. To quote my 7th grade Teacher: "Wehret den Anfängen". TLDR: I will never get over it.
Do you seriously think a hypothetical question about women’s safety is comparable to a fucking genocide? Jfc do literally everyone you know a favor and take your victim complex to a therapist
I'm sorry, I do not believe my point is actually coming across. My point is allowing dehumanization or objectification in discourse and in general is a bad idea. I will not stand for that. If you need a more "womens issues" centric study to understand this how about "Dehumanization in female victims of intimate partner violence"(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10369329/) > Domestic violence is a major public health issue, a violation of human rights, and a significant risk factor for developing mental and physical diseases. IPV is one of the most common forms of domestic violence and refers to any intentional abuse perpetrated by an intimate partner and can be in the form of physical, sexual, and psychological violence or a combination of them. Like other forms of violence, dehumanization can be involved in IPV. For example, dehumanization may devalue women, which allows any control and physical harm as in physical violence, direct or implied contempt of women and justifying controlling them as a part of men’s property as in psychological violence, and also allows relegating women to a sexual object, lifeless and lacking in humanity, which justifies sexual violence. Rudman and Mescher also showed that sexual harassment of women and raping is more probable in men who implicitly dehumanize women. Why would you think that dehumanization of men would have a positive outcome for anybody when dehumanization of women is clearly bad for women and society in general?
If you feel AtTaCkED then that’s a sign that you know you are one of the men women are trying to avoid to the point they’d take their chances with the bear. Plenty of men have stood up and said they understand exactly why women are choosing the bear. A few of them are even trying to explain this to men like you.
As a german that was, during my school years, thankfully forced to watch, dissect and analyze german propaganda until 1945 I simply have a moral problem with comparing anybody human to an animal. For an english explanation of why this might be a Problem I will leave this brief article written by the phenomenal Clara Riggio about the dangers of dehumanization: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201811/the-5-steps-dehumanization
Maybe if men acted like humans around women, we wouldn’t have to dehumanize them. They aren’t doing that right now, so they can deal with it for all I care. Fuck men and fuck their feelings.
I am so sorry for whatever happened to you!
I would choose the bear every time and not think twice. I was molested as a child, raped as an adult. I was beaten, lied to, manipulated and abused in every way by males. Only one female abuser. Several male abusers. I'd pick the damn bear and if a man can't understand that then he's part of the problem. Also probably feeling a little called out imo. I know that the bear is either going to eat me or run from me. No guess work there
> I know that the bear is either going to eat me or run from me. No guess work there Being around WILD ANIMALS is full of guess work, that's what makes it so dangerous. A bear might also open your stomach with its paws and leave you to die.
Even here, even now, you just can't take no for an answer. It's not about you personally.
It's about me because this whole man vs bear issue supports the idea that women are irrational. How could anyone defend such an ill conceived thought experiment? And it also doesn't help when "bear" is the only socially acceptable answer,
> And it also doesn't help when "bear" is the only socially acceptable answer, Eh, truth hurts when you're a bigot.
Hey friend, take a look at the sub whenwomenrefuse and tell me how much less rational it is to choose a bear over a man.
It supports the idea that men can't take no for an answer and feel called out when we choose death over men
Same goes for a man.
Men (and women) are also unpredictable but even the strongest man has nothing on a pissed off bear.
I've been raped and beaten up by a man when I was only 14. And he wasn't even pissed off. I'll take the bear.
I'm going to consider that "eat me" anything where the bear kills me, I'm going to call that eating me. Ya know just to keep it simple
I think it highlights that women fear men, the way men fears bears. And the men are not happy to reflect on why that is.
I asked my boyfriend if he was aware of the “bear or man” question and he said yes - and that he’d probably pick the strange man because there was a chance he could fend them off. Fair! I asked what would he choose if he were me and he said “probably the bear if I’m honest”.
They don’t care. It’s sickening.
You're right. They don't care.
ive never met a woman who hasnt had a bad experience (fearing for her safety) with a man.
I have been drugged zero times by a bear. I can’t say the same about a man.
I just saw a video on TT that states it SO well, and it's a man stating it. Maybe we can share this to those men and more of them will get it... or prove they are the reason we choose the bear. [https://www.tiktok.com/@ryan\_dwire/video/7364561023795252522](https://www.tiktok.com/@ryan_dwire/video/7364561023795252522)
Ugh, I freaking can't man. These reasons always make me so sad. Did you see the video from the guy who initially poised the thought back in March? I didn't even realize it was supposedly started from him and I follow him he's done a ton of videos on it since then. I feel like he always articulates it really well. [call me bk](https://www.tiktok.com/@callmebkbk/video/7348070989479021855?_t=8mAEFrio9ud&_r=1)
Wow...thank you for sharing this.....powerful.
"I wouldn't have to see the bear at family reunions" and "the bear wouldn't clean me up and tell me not to tell mommy" are the two that hit hardest for me. I know that the scenario is for a random man to be in the woods, not necessarily a family member. But since so much childhood abuse is perpetuated by family, yeah, that point matters. A bear won't actively retraumatize you for years afterward if you survive.
As a CSA survivor, that hit hard.
A bear also doesn’t try to gaslight me, try to convince me to have sex when I don’t want to, sort of things.
A bear doesn't try to convince you it's more dangerous than the man. It runs away instead.
Virtually all women have encountered such a man. They may be few in number but they reoffend
Given the sheer numbers of women assaulted, it statistically CANNOT be few. It must be a fair amount or it is simply not physically possible. It's not few.
Yup. Society is not ready to accept the sheer number of men that shouldn't be here. It's okay for bears to be euthanized after an attack yet these men are still walking among us.
This is the truth. It is absolutely common behavior among men, often when they're young or before they realize the systematic oppression they are continuing. Some stop doing it, others continue for life. Practically none of the admit it.
Sadly, I’m willing to bet every man knows at least 1 woman who has been assaulted in some fashion yet I bet almost no women know of any men who have been similarly assaulted. I don’t know a single guy that has been sexually assaulted. I know it happens and I suppose a chance exists it has never come up in convo but I know for a fact that almost every woman I’ve met or known - has at least once — been a victim to a man in some fashion. Finding one who hasn’t would be like finding a real life unicorn.
Isn't it something like 2 in 3 women are assaulted by a man by the time they're 30? Every man knows women that have been assaulted. They just might not know it personally. I didn't find out about my own mother's assault until I was 35. It's an epidemic.
That's probably because most men don't have the emotional knowledge to acknowledge their own sexual assaults. I bet you've heard plenty of stories from other males about older women hooking up with them when they were underage. That's not hooking up, that's sexual assault.
And we're blaming the SA victims for this?
No. I said they can't comprehend that they are victims...
The crying & foot stomping from these little men is hilarious. They'll take any opportunity to try & mock, make fun of, &/or bully women & girls on social media. I'm here to bully, mock, & make fun of them in return.
I think part of it is how few men really understand just how traumatic sexual assault is.
[удалено]
Amazing how you can prove my point while still missing it entirely.
[удалено]
😂😂
[удалено]
I'm so your "point"? Your comment suggests 1 you are completely dismissive of what women have to say about their own experiences, 2 women are too stupid to know how bears work, and 3 women could never possibly experience extreme pain such as having their belly ripped open (say, via c section or the car accident that almost killed me years ago).
My mother told me this story years ago, and I was reminded of it when this trend came up. When she was young, my mother walked her dog in a pretty big natural park. One day, a man came walking in the opposite direction, stopped her, and said "we're alone here. I could do anything I want with you. No one would hear you". My mother is big-mouthed, in the good sense of the word. She said "you forgot about my dog." She gave some simple commands, like sit, lie down, etc. Then she said "want me to give the next command? I believe you can guess what it'll be". She never found out if he wanted to make true on his threat. Seems like he was sensible enough not to take on a massive dog. So yeah, I prefer the bear too.
The discrepancy between men who realize and fully acknowledge how common emotional and physical abuse by men is and those completely unaware is very high. Culturally, there is so much false information and propoganda that suggests it is highly exaggerated, and somehow, this entirely negates any evidence to the contrary. Sorry, women. A lot of us guys are very insensitive and lucratively oblivious.
I think most men downplaying this argument are secretly ashamed (or worse, not) of their behavior towards women. Instead of reflecting and attempting to better themselves, they reflexively blame anyone else but themselves. Sure, you can poke logical holes in the argument or nit-pick, but that is *really* besides the point, and not at all what it is attempting to illustrate.
I fully support the message behind the argument and I am not one bit ashamed of my behaviour towards women. I have never in my life touched a women in a sexual way without consent. EDIT: removed personal story, since people telling me "my abuser should have done more, maybe then I would get it." after finding my discord on this profile. Don't bother it's gone. However I still feel attacked because it is a generalizing statement. Anybody that does not have the empathy to realize that telling somebody "I would choose a wild animal over someone from your group of people" is incredibly dehumanizing needs to wake up. Even more insidious are the people that tell men that are annoyed at being stereotyped "You are the Problem". To me that is disgusting hateful human behavior. Again: I am not against woman saying they are fearful of men and want a better society. This needs to happen and we all have to work on that. But this thing is pure ragebait and nobody calling out the hateful trolls is appaling to me.
Flip the script on them a bit to help folks understand. I’m a large man and I carry a gun when I’m in the woods. Why? Not for bears. It’s for humans. A man is 1000x more dangerous than a bear. A woman is 100x more dangerous than a bear. (These numbers are based on murder rates in the US) of course there are more dangers than murder. The point is this question only has one right answer. Pick the bear.
LOL. I'm not afraid of other women in the woods. Sure women are human and humans are far more dangerous than bears but it's men that skew the violence statistics, not women. That's just historical fact. Women largely don't scare me. Never have. It's men and goddamn do we need to stress that. IT'S MEN. MEN ARE THE PROBLEM.
He knows, he's just pretending. Pretending not to know things is one of men's most frequently used weapons.
Pretending not to know AND trying to "educate" stupid women who can't possibly have thought of these things yet. It's sickening. And he's upvoted, naturally.
I think men are more dangerous, but it’s a good idea to be wary of any human. Also since the point is about bears it’s interesting. Men have 10 times the murder rate of women. Women have 1000x the kill rate of bears.
MEN ARE THE PROBLEM. It's astonishing how little you think we know, having lived our entire lives as girls and women. We know this shit. We're not stupid and you're not telling us anything we don't already know. We aren't afraid of each other. We are afraid of YOU. That is what this life is about for us. Stop looking away from the main point.
I should’ve summed it all up to be more clear. My comment is claiming that men are 10,000x more dangerous than bears.
> it's men that skew the violence statistics And when you dig into that a bit more, you find that it's mostly right-wing men. Not sure if the female violence stats have the same skew of "it's mostly right-wing women" as well, but it wouldn't suprise me.
> A man is 1000x more dangerous than a bear. A woman is 100x more dangerous than a bear. (These numbers are based on murder rates in the US) This is a matter of exposure, not danger. My city has over a million men and women roaming free and maybe a few bears permanently locked up in a zoo. Not arguing the man v bear psychological aspects, just saying using the stats this way isn't logical. Imagine if you asked someone in the UK "would you rather be attacked by someone with a knife or someone with a gun?". Statistically guns are like 5% of murders and sharp objects are >50%. That doesn't mean knives are more dangerous than guns. It just means access to knives is more common than guns. Its not a math question and turning it into one is *exactly* why so many men disagree.
>This is a matter of exposure, not danger. My city has over a million men and women roaming free and maybe a few bears permanently locked up in a zoo. It's also based on how successful bear hunters are. Bears don't usually win that matchup.
Well, I think humans being more clever than animals is pretty much the crux of this whole meta discussion. The narrow spectrum of things a bear can conceive of doing to you is what makes them "less scary" in the scenario.
A lot of people live in deeply rural areas where there are bears who will walk by your door. People still don't die to bears very often in those towns. Even in places with tons of bears you're still not likely to die to a bear, and more likely to die to a human. Statistics STILL support the bear.
Even if you live somewhere that has a higher bear population than human population, that's still not an equal level of exposure. Anyone would always exercise caution around a bear by default. You'd never hang out with one, invite one into your home or go to a place where several bears are. The *caution* associated with wild animal encounters reduces the statistical danger because you would *never* trust a wild animal. Consider the statistical likelihood of a woman being killed by a stranger compared to being killed by a lover. Its still a matter of access and caution. The raw numbers don't mean boyfriends/husbands are more dangerous than the guy furiously masturbating on the subway. The statistics just express how little time someone would spend with an *obviously* dangerous person. Again, simply making it a math/statistics question without any context for what situations *cause* those statistics defeats the purpose.
> You'd never hang out with one, invite one into your home or go to a place where several bears are. The caution associated with wild animal encounters reduces the statistical danger because you would never trust a wild animal. Yes, you are correct. Literally no one is saying they would invite the bear into their home. You are CATASTROPHICALLY missing the point of the thought experiment and aren't acting logically at all. This is just a hyperfixation leading you down a rabbit trail that's about fifty miles away from the point.
No. The men that disagree know they are worse than the bear and are big mad that they've been pre-rejected. That's it. That's the *only* reason.
What is your justification for reducing it down to a single reason? I have a real hard time believing that you actually believe what you just wrote.
It's not about the bear. It's the feeling of rejection they feel by not being picked. That's it. They keep trying to bash us upside the head to pick them personally. It's sick. We can't even hypothetically refuse their company without being punished.
I'm sorry, but that is a motivation for why that reason would be correct for some. It's not a motivation for why that reason is the "only reason".
In your mind, who's the man in the forest? Is it you?
No. It is a man chosen at random from the male population. With intent (malicious or not) reflecting said population.
Sure. I don't believe you've come to have a good faith argument and quite frankly I'm not either. Toodles.
If you have a suggestion for how I could have asked the initial question more precisely, I'm all for it. But if you say that you didn't say it in good faith, I guess that is an indirect answer. Thank you for your time, and I hope you have a nice day. Cheers!
Exposure is exactly the point. The reason a person is safe in the woods with a bear is that bears VERY actively avoid exposure to humans. Because BEARS are smart enough to know that humans are WAY more dangerous than bears.
Well said. And this is exactly the kind of 'statistics' that tend to turn racist pretty quick. Not accusing the OP of that, just saying its best to avoid a flat murder rate road of conversation.
Fewer people are killed on motorcycles than in cars. Clearly this means that a person is much safer on a motorcycle.
Went right over your head, but you didn't have to announce it to the world
A man is 1000 times *more likely* and a woman 100 times *more likely*... Fixed it for ya
More likely to cause harm = danger
The men making fun are that type of man.
Yeah if not themselves personally making a woman they know or have known choose the bear.
All I’m saying is, I live in an area with both men and bears and I’ve never had an issue with bears.
They know. Bc all of them get super protective all if a sudden when they have daughters. So why are they notallmen except when it comes to their daughters? Bc they’re liars. They’ve always known.
There aren't chances are. I don't know a single one that doesn't have a horror story
The what?
All that meme refers to is the fact that men are a huge threat to women. Men just don’t like acknowledging that
It was so frustrating to see r/meme with all of these BS "why women pick bear" memes. Ugh.
Every woman either knows or has been a rape victim. No man seems to know a rapist.
The discrepancy between men who realize and fully acknowledge how common emotional and physical abuse by men is and those completely unaware is very high. Culturally, there is so much false information and propoganda that suggests it is highly exaggerated, and somehow, this entirely negates any evidence to the contrary. Sorry, women. A lot of us guys are very insensitive and lucratively oblivious.
I mean that 'type' of man is the lowest type of garbage, which is why the discourse of comparing any random guy to being worse than an animal predator is not very helpful
Now you know why men don't want men in locker rooms and bathrooms with their daughters. Welcome to the club.
Yeah but the difference is EVERY bear is that type of bear.
so trust but where is this woman?
Why is this now marked "NSFW"? It's a basic, everyday fact of being women--even at work. WTF?
I’ve always had it marked NSFW because of the subtle mention of familial abuse.
[удалено]
Your mindset is disgusting, and that kind of mindset plays a key part in how abusers and predators gain and keep power.
We don't care about your opinion. Edit: woah, hold tf up. What in the fuck do you mean we are not entitled to safety?
[удалено]
What do you mean we aren't entitled to safety? Because the implications in that are rape-y af.
[удалено]
Nah, you said the quiet part out loud. That women should be thankful when a guy isn't hurting her, because, as you said - we aren't entitled to safety. You're the guy that's glad there's rapists and abusers so you can get away with doing the bare fucking minimum ie. Not abusing/raping, so you can look like a goddamn hero.
[удалено]
If no one is entitled to safety, then how do you decide who you offer it to and who doesn't deserve it?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Everyone is entitled to safety, it's one of those basic human rights things. That's why we have laws, to protect the individual's safety.
[удалено]
I am ready to defend myself, when I run across men like you that think I'm not entitled to safety. I personally think everyone is entitled to safety and treat them accordingly. Different strokes for different folks I guess 🤷♀️
[удалено]
I am so serious, you don't need to answer this but like realllllly think about your moral compass if you genuinely believe that no one is entitled to safety. I'm being so serious, that thought freaks tf out of me. That there's people walking around that think that not everyone is entitled to basic things like not being abused or murdered.
[удалено]
That's why women choose bear. Its the safer choice.
> There is no way to know who will hurt us and who won’t, but one thing you will always know, is a woman who was hurt by a man. That sounds dismissive to violence between women and men being hurt by women.
How so? When did I ever said people were never assaulted by women LOL. I’ve known both men and women assaulted by other women, and never implied in my post otherwise because I don’t want to invalidate those experiences.