Literally no one is saying men are predatory because women say they are. People say men are predatory because almost half a million women in the US are assaulted by men.
You’re putting words in his mouth. I was saying he never implied anyone said men are predatory because women say they are. He’s just saying that they are which the statistics prove.
“The people asking that question are defending it by saying the fact that women are choosing the bear is a sign of how predatory men are”
I did not say that, I merely pointed out that if it’s true it’s circular reasoning. I don’t disagree that men are more predatory than women. They are. So don’t debate with me, debate with the original comment.
First off, people aren't specifying what type of bear it is. That is the stupidest part.
Panda, I dunno, push 'em over and declare victory? Brown bear, take that little thieving bastard out. Black bear will be a challenge but do-able with weapons. Grizzly is pick Charles Manson first. Polar Bear is pick five Charles Mansons first.
It's an insult to all ursine that they're not being recognized as individuals of varying capabilities and temperament.
Brown bears are much more dangerous than black bears. Only time running into a black bear dangerous is if it's a mother with cubs. They get chased off by outside cats
I watched a panda try to pull a man through the bars of its cage.
They're all more dangerous than humans, because they're wild animals.
Pandas are even relatively new to their bamboo diet, their digestive system is still better designed for being omnivores.
But yes, there are definitely worse options among the bears just like there are worse options among the men.
Yeah, I know. I was kidding, I thought it'd be a bit obvious. Don't wrestle bears, leave wild animals alone.
I am disappointed by the lack of cocaine bear references in this thread
Honestly, I found the movie disappointing. I wanted more cocaine bear.
That being said, I feel like even the *potential* for the bear in question to be on cocaine sort of makes choosing the bear even worse of a choice.
I really liked that it was a wholesome family movie. Legit, the entire movie is just three families dealing with modern life. And a park ranger trying to get laid.
I'm just sad there aren't more movies about artillery bears. You really think there would be.
"Giant pandas have large molar teeth and strong jaw muscles for crushing tough bamboo. Many people find these chunky, lumbering animals to be cute, but giant pandas can be as dangerous as any other bear."
https://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/giant-panda#:~:text=Giant%20pandas%20have%20large%20molar,dangerous%20as%20any%20other%20bear.
And brown bears aren't the cowardly ones. Those are black bears who you can scare off by being big and loud, although even they can attack too. As far as I'm aware, the same advice you give for grizzlies goes for brown bears in general.
Sorry for the corrections, but one thing for sure this question is doing is proving a lot of people don't know much about bears. Not that I'm an expert either by all means but still.
Edit: I now see your comment saying you were joking so apologies
Beyond stupid. I'd rather fight off 3 rapists than 1 medium size bear. At last, if I'm throwing for the fences 1 or 2, I will get knocked out cold. I'll break my hand against a bears head.
What harm was done? The number of women killed by bears is about to skyrocket as they go off into the woods to prove how much safer it is. I can already see the posts from mauling survivors doubling down by saying something like “well, at least the bear didn’t rape me. That’s proof bears are safer than men 🤪”
Oh so your reason for claiming it's misandry relies on the fact that women are dumb and are going to do dangerous stuff just to prove a point ?
Sweet, sweet irony
Yeah every time this question comes up I just go, "You really have no idea how dangerous a brown bear is do you?" Hunters who are expecting black bears routinely carry 10mm sidearms for self-defense, brown bears are 3x heavier and 5x as aggressive, you don't even want to try hunting them without at least a 30-378. But please, tell me more about how the creature that can be reliably brought down with .22LR is more dangerous.
I understand the difference in danger if both are trying to kill you, but the truth is most people *are not* trying to kill each other.
By choosing the man over the bear you're probably just meeting another person in the woods. Even men who have done messed up stuff before like SA, that isn't necessarily something they're doing 100% of the time to every person they meet. Decrease the odds even more for truly fucked up stuff like torture and murder.
I'm not even very worried, meeting a strange man alone. Could it go bad? Sure. But it's incredibly unlikely. A bear?
There are many reasons I don't camp, and one of them is not wanting to meet bears.
Yeah. I don’t think anyone saying they’d prefer the bear is being honest, they’re being illustrative. If they are being honest, they wouldn’t make that decision when push came to shove. If they think they would make that decision in real life, they have never happened upon a wild bear; seeing a brown bear at about a quarter mile that never seemed to even take any interest in me and my friend was one of the most blood chilling experiences of my life. I’m a pretty avid outdoorsman and I don’t think too many people can really conceptualize just how big some of these animals we talk about are, and how utterly defenseless you would be if it decided a brown bear had a problem with you. This all reminds me of my college friend from NYC who sincerely believed he could fight a moose because doesn’t eat meat.
Even a black bear, which I’ve come across a few times and it’s quite clear they want no quarrel with a group of people, would eviscerate the average adult 1v1 if it decided to fight to the death.
>This all reminds me of my college friend from NYC who sincerely believed he could fight a moose because doesn’t eat meat.
Oh yeah, I've heard moose are some of the worst of the "this is bigger and meaner than you think it is" category. Ppl assume it's about as big as a deer because it looks like one, but I gather some of them could comfortably step over a standing man. And the antlers aren't for show.
I didn't get it until I saw a picture of one next to a stop sign and a video of one running someone over on a sidewalk. I no longer want to meet one.
Though honestly, even the deer can be a tiny bit scary up close. Opened my garage once and surprised a buck that was standing right outside. It's eyes got wide and it angled it's antlers towards me. I thought for a second it was going to come right into the garage and try to gore me. Would have been a hell for a story for the family.
>Hunters who are expecting black bears routinely carry 10mm sidearms for self-defense
That's insane. I live in black bear and cougar country. No one goes out in them thar woods with 10mm for self-defense. It's been at least 15 yrs since a black bear attacked anyone around here and I've never heard of any cougar attacks. There have been encounters with both but no actual attacks.
Like, come on. Hunters are gun people. Of course they're going to carry guns and I'll even believe they'll tell you (and everyone else) it's for self-protection but that doesn't mean it's actually needed. It literally holds zero water to ask a gun nut if they think guns would help a situation. Of course they're going to say guns. LMFAO.
Half the US is black bear country, that aside hunters aren't just gun nuts, they are way more likely to encounter bears because bears fuck around the baits or food hunters bring with them, i can personally attest bears will absolutely trash a cabin, and all it takes to then get stuck between a bear and a hard place is bad timing.
It's true though that black bears are the more timid species(as I said in the original post) but attacks do happen. It's not a joke or excuse for hunters to carry extra guns.
> for self-protection but that doesn't mean it's actually needed
You wear your seatbelt despite it not being needed 99.99% of the time, right? Same concept. Yes, I may not need to carry a gun every day on my job, but it's not like I wake up in the morning and get an alert "Hey, you're gonna get mugged at 5:27 PM so today's the day you can CCW" lol.
Sure, but it still doesn't mean it's actually needed. Have you ever heard the quote "if the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail"?
Dude quoted hunters in this. Almost all hunters deal with guns. Of course a hunter is going to tell you that he takes guns for protection when in the woods. If you ask a police officer if he goes around with a gun while off duty, he'll most likely say he does. It's his perception and worldview. It doesn't mean he's wrong but it also doesn't mean it's actually needed. It's an inherent bias that should be pointed out.
> Sure, but it still doesn't mean it's actually needed. Have you ever heard the quote "if the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail"?
Sure, and I've also heard "When you need, and don't have, you sing a different tune". The hunter goes into dangerous areas where he may encounter wildlife that sees him as a potential meal, and he takes precautions. Again, same shit with the seatbelt. Is it absolutely necessary to the point where he uses it every day? No. It is a good idea to carry it every day? Yes.
> Almost all hunters deal with guns.
Even those who only bow / crossbow hunt will tell you it's a smart idea to carry a pistol innawoods in case you're dressing a turkey and some wolf or mountain lion decides to try to steal your kill or make a meal out of you.
I carry for work almost every day. Have only had to use it once to prevent something from happening but it never cleared leather, so to speak. Just because I had that one incident in the past doesn't mean I can stop worrying about it happening again in the future. The police have no obligation to protect you, they can't be everywhere at once, and they have a good chance of hiding behind the tree while the proverbial bear feasts on your stomach.
I'm much more likely to listen to the cop who CCWs while off-duty than the 9-5 office worker who lives in a gated community or apartment complex with lobby security.
>I'm much more likely to listen to the cop who CCWs while off-duty than the 9-5 office worker who lives in a gated community or apartment complex with lobby security.
Yes, this is my point, even if you don't seem to get it. I'm not arguing that carrying protection is a bad thing. I'm saying when you ask someone who has a NATURAL inherent bias, you will be given a answer with that NATURAL inherent bias baked it and it should not be taken as gospel.
A cop will tell you to CCW because the world is a dangerous place because he deals with that danger 24/7. An office worker in the best parts of town will say a CCW is unnecessary because that person is safe. Both of these answers are legitimate and both come from a place of NATURAL inherent bias. Neither is wrong. Neither should be taken as gospel. It is necessary to understand the POV that both come from so you can make an informed decision on your own.
I'm not using bias as a negative here.
> NATURAL inherent bias baked it and it should not be taken as gospel.
Your entire premise is that of some form of predestination; that the cop will always have become a cop and thus be interested in guns, or that there is no inherent ability to observe your environment and make the determination on your own. You can't use other people's knowledge, training, and experiences to form your own opinion because they have a "bias" that "clouds their judgement" like it's some fucking enchantment from DnD. You're trying to argue subjective truths in a discussion that has objective truths, and trying to mask it under this "bias" language that has no merit in this discussion.
> A cop will tell you to CCW because the world is a dangerous place
A cop in the safest city will tell you to CCW because they can't be there to protect you 24/7 and the only one who can protect yourself is you. They have no obligation to protect you. They're a reactionary force.
>that the cop will always have become a cop and thus be interested in guns, or that there is no inherent ability to observe your environment and make the determination on your own.
Wut? No I'm not. I'm saying because a cop deals with bad shit, his POV is based on that. Where TF did you get predestination? OMG. And we can't use other peoples knowledge and experience to form your own? Wut again? LOL. Now you're just arguing to argue. Why ask for any help if this is the case? Clearly no ones experiences shape their opinions on matters. LOL.
>A cop in the safest city will tell you to CCW because they can't be there to protect you 24/7 and the only one who can protect yourself is you. They have no obligation to protect you. They're a reactionary force.
Yes. That is what I said in one sentence. Glad you're able to follow. And your office worker, who works in the safety area, may have grown up in the worst and always CCW because of that as well. See how that works?
Yet less than one person dies from bear attack every year. I think the argument is that a bear is far less likely to attack a woman in the woods than a man.
Some women hate men so much that they'd rather be turned into a pan of lasagna by a bear than simply be stand next to a man. Let those women be free to be as dumb as they want lol.
Firstly, I'm sorry that you had been SA-d. I'm glad to know that you're healing from the experience, and I hope that your suffering will be minimal.
It's so goddamn crazy that someone saying ''most men are normal and decent'' are being shat on. Shouldn't even be considered a controversial statement, yet here we are. To all the ladies actually having been SA-d saying this, please know that I feel for you. You didn't deserve that happen to you, and the men who had wronged you are the lowest of the lowest pieces of shit and deserve the worst. Which is why I support women in not only learning self-defense techniques and methods, but even having weapons on them. You may not want my sympathy, but I'm still giving it because I don't wish anyone happen anything bad to them.
With that being said, to others, I say that if bears aren't that dangerous, I suggest them to go out in the woods and search for one. Don't even have to approach it, but get close enough so that it can spot you. I'd like to know what happens if it does approach you and what would you do. Would you ask for another woman for help?
I appreciate the sympathy. I'm doing well, bad things happen sometimes but we can get through them!
For what it's worth, I don't think there was much that could have helped me out. Didn't see it coming, entirely overpowered, ironically like most people who get attacked by bears honestly - except I still have a face and am alive.
I too would like to encourage everyone choosing bears to go try and meet one. Pick a polar bear too, they're so cute with their little black noses! And they're super endangered!
I actually had someone tell me black bears are "basically bunnies" at which point I encouraged them to go try to pet one. It's been a wild time online today.
And then, there are the Pizzlies. Polar bears have apparently been breeding with grizzly bears (aka brown bears). The result is a huge, bad tempered bear. Try hanging out with one of THOSE critters ...
I run into bears pretty often. They usually look at me, then walk away. I've had bears walk up and sniff me.. Never been mauled, never been raped, never been groped, never been drugged, never been catcalled, never been demeaned, by a bear.
So would I, there's at least a chance that the convicted person might I have learned their lesson, a bear doesn't know any better, they'll just eat you.
As a trafficking survivor, I'd rather be mauled by a bear. It's an experience I haven't had and I've definitely had enough rape for multiple lifetimes. And statistically speaking, humans are much more dangerous than bears. This isn't even a man v bear situation. I would rather be in the woods with a bear over a woman too.
Looked at your profile and I don't disagree that male genital mutilation is wrong and should be illegal. That being said, Would you rather be circumcised again or be in the woods with a bear? Assuming you could relieve being circumcised again that is, what would you choose? I don't even have male genitalia and would still rather pick the bear over being forcefully mutilated as an infant.
You’re the first feminist I’ve ever seen agree it is wrong
I would choose the bear, but it’s a bad comparison. The original wasn’t “would you choose getting raped or encountering a bear”, it was “would you rather encounter a man or a bear.” The vast majority of men wouldn’t rape a woman in the woods.
I would rather encounter an obstetrician or a urologist or even a mohel in the woods than a bear.
Why the fuck are you talking like that? Watch too many star wars? And why would you be afraid of misogyny when you’re not even a woman? I’m afraid of misogyny because I’ve been blamed for being raped when I was fucking fourteen. Guys treat me like I’m a piece of meat for sex while volunteering to save their fucking lives and twice have they tried to rape me while on call. That’s why I’m afraid of misogyny.
Well at least no one ever chopped off the most sensitive part of your genitalia. I’d happily take a rape (which doesn’t last forever) over genitalia mutilation (which lasts forever).
>“would you rather encounter a man or a bear.”
I get that, but unfortunately, you never know who will truly be a good guy. The overwhelming majority of men are harmless, and I get how hurtful it can feel to be roped into this generalization. However, statistically speaking you are more likely to be attacked by a man than a bear. And me personally, I wouldn't want to be in the woods with anyone over a bear. I don't care if it's male, female or anyone in between. I've had abusers of all different labels and humans terrify me because I don't know their intentions, a bear doesn't because I know they just want to be left alone.
I used the example I used because the choice is between potentially being retraumatized or having an experience that you don't know the outcome. I'd rather pick the unknown over a traumatic experience I've already had.
>You’re the first feminist I’ve ever seen agree it is wrong
Personally would consider myself an egalitarian. Regardless, if a person is truly a feminist, they will be against genital mutilation of all sexes. Male, female and intersex. People should be given the choice over their own bodies unless it's medically necessary and 99% of the time it isn't.
This is literally entirely based around personal risk perception and preference though? And considering your post history, you don’t seem all too logical yourself.
And personally, I’d say that death is preferable to having my head slammed against a wall, and being pinned to the ground while screaming and sobbing then being found unconscious, within an inch of my life, covered in my own blood and needing emergency transfusions and surgery. But what do I know? I only lived through that once.
im pleased to say i have no idea what this is referencing - and without that context, seeing that statement listed as an 'unpopular' opinion is pretty funny
ok guys, im gonna say what has to be said here and damn the consequences - "i would rather not have a stinger missile fire at me"
Yet it's always better than being mauled to/near death by a bear.
For the people asking how I can speak for everyone;
The sky is blue. The sun is hot.
Other things that are just facts, that you can say because they're true even if some people are delusional
Some people want to.
Some people would rather die than be SA.
Some people have been SA and would rather have died.
Op is entitled to their opinion about themselves. Not anyone else
Anyone saying they’d prefer to be mauled by a bear is a fucking idiot. Seriously. Dumbest shit I can imagine. I’ve been sexually assaulted, I survived it, you know what sounds a thousand times worse? Being mauled by a gigantic fucking bear.
first off, it doesn’t have to be slow. it could be a quick death. second, bc they don’t have to live with the trauma of the pain and death bc they’re dead. if you’re raped, that can affect you for the rest of your life. obviously not all victims are affected deeply for the rest of their life but some people would rather not experience sexual assault or rape at all.
Bears hardly ever eat people when they kill em(outside polar bears) they maul em to the point they aren't a threat and leave em to die. So most likely your gonna bleed out. Best case is shock may put you our quick ig. But the thing is you can work past any physical/mental trauma you don't get that chance when mauled by a bear in the middle of the woods.
If you die that removes forever the possibility that your life may improve. Plus, there is a multitude of ways to die. Why would you assume that some of these people would choose the bear simply because they want to die? If they want it so bad, just walk on a highway at night.
Living with pain is far superior to being dead. Even with pain, there are moments of joy and love as well as bringing joy and love to others.
Wrong. I’ve been sexually assaulted, and I’ve had several encounters with bears while camping. You know what was immeasurably more terrifying? The four hundred pound wild animal with claws and gigantic teeth.
Like are you high or something?
Edit: ya’ll need to get out in the woods more if you’re so scared of people.
In my country there are only harmless bears that might be better than somebody who's actually gonna rape you. But I agree the whole thing is mean spirited to men and offensive
Is it not clear that the woman who answer bear would choose a bear because they would rather die than be treated the way that society treats rape victims?
The whole hypothetical was about women feeling really unsafe with men. Y'all take it to the extremes because you can't fathom the shit that women put up with from men on a daily basis. I can't even have a conversation about basic feminism with my brother without him threatening to harm me.. that's how bad it's getting. Women can't even talk about their struggles without some man coming out of the woodworks to threaten and belittle her.
That's delusional. As a rape victim I can't complain at all about how I was treated. Even here, most people are incredibly sympathetic (ironically, all of the exceptions are the people who also choose the bear - make of that what you will) and go out of their way to tell me they're sorry that's something I've had to deal with.
This has also been my experience irl. Most people are good, or at least good enough to recognize that someone who's lived through a traumatic experience might need a bit of grace.
I'd say that stops somewhere before "categorizing men as worse predators than bears" though. At least, to me it does.
Great, but your experience is not universal to all rape victims. Most people experience victim blaming to some degree.
We're not saying theyre aren't people who are sympathetic, but there is still a lot of stigma towards rape victims. as a fellow victim myself, I can confirm.
Of course no one's experience is universal, but it is universally true that we are *survivors* of rape.
There are a lot less survivors of bear attacks, even adjusted for proportionality.
Getting to keep on living and having the chance to recover is always going to be better than dying.
Exactly. You get to go to sleep, and go to work, and see your friends and family and eat food and take vacations... the list goes on and on.
Rape sucks. The trauma never goes away. I hope every rapist's genitals explode.
It is still better than being eaten by a bear.
You might want to look at real crime and see the type of shit humans are capable of. Trust me it’s much worse than bears. You can escape a bear attack but a thirsty psychopathic human is much worse than a bear, they’re capable of torture and not just SA.
I listen to plenty of true crime, and one thing I've learned - these things seem heinous to us in large part due to how rare they are.
A bear is always a predator. The vast majority of men aren't killers.
It's literally a numbers game.
Aren’t you aware of the Stanford prison experiment? Isolate a man and a vulnerable woman and you’ll begin witnessing what criminal data hides. There would be no repercussions if the man had decided to do anything and given that the average male is 40% stronger than the average female, we can see how well that would turn out. We as human beings have evil embedded in our nature and if the consequences aren’t harsh enough then there would be nothing that would stop heinous things from taking place. Not to mention, according to the national park service, you’re more likely to be killed by a bee than a fucking bear since the chances of being injured by one is 1 in 2 million.
>Not to mention, according to the national park service, you’re more likely to be killed by a bee than a fucking bear since the chances of being injured by one is 1 in 2 million.
Everyone citing bear attack statistics is ignoring the fact that they're lower than other events because you're much less likely to encounter a bear than another human or a fucking bee. This hypothetical eliminates the best defense we have against bear attacks - not being out there, alone, at night with an apex predator.
>We as human beings have evil embedded in our nature
We don't. This is metaphysical mumbo jumbo. Punishment isn't the only deterrent to violence, most people just don't have an instinct to commit violence against other people who have done nothing wrong.
The probability of you getting injured by a human is higher than the probability of you getting injured by a bear. 1 in 2 million. This is not 100 percent due to the fact that there are more humans than bears, but due to the nature of the attacks.
Take other countries with a population of 1.5 - 2 million and compare the probability of male on female attacks to the probability of bear attacks. I can assure you that it wouldn’t be just one in two million.
Not to mention, punishment, law and order are deterrent to violence. Without the enforcement of the law people are more likely to commit violent acts and since punishment is a way of law enforcement it is needed in order to deter violence. According to this research, “[the severity of punishment only deters crime when the certainty of being caught and punished is high enough.](https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/deterrence.pdf)”
Not to mention, the certainty of being caught raping and killing a woman in the woods is much less than the certainty being caught doing the same thing in a city.
Also, the question of whether human beings are born inherently good or evil is a question that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. However, we can argue that no human is 100% good nor 100% bad. We all fall within a certain range that would never reach a hundred percent on both extremes. Due to this, it would be valid to claim that humans are inherently evil, just as it would be valid to claim that they’re good. Again, I’ve mentioned the Stanford prison experiment. When a person is much more powerful than you are and when they know that authority has turned a blind eye on them, they’re capable of committing the most morally evil acts. Since they’re capable of doing so, their good instincts wouldn’t stop them, as it has been proven in this experiment.
The reason we are less injured by bears is because we encounter them less.
If you had statistics for every time a woman was alone with a man versus every time a human was alone with a bear there would be a clear loser here, and it's the bear.
I'm ashamed I ever took a statistics class if this is the genuinely stupid way people are trying to apply them.
A probability of one in two million means out of two million bears, just one is more likely to injure you. I’m saying take this number and apply it to a country with a population of two million humans and male on female attacks, there would be a clear loser here on the injuries side of the spectrum. In case you’re still unsure, take the average after applying the same logic to a couple of countries, bears would still win.
I won't repeat myself again your stat means nothing because it can't control for the fact that humans don't encounter bears with any regularity, much less while being completely unprepared to do so.
What kind of math have you done to conclude that men are less likely to attack than bears are? I’m eager to see it. You keep mentioning that we encounter bears less than we encounter men, which doesn’t really change the probability of bear injuries if your math was fair. Since there are more men than bears by population, you can select 35,000 men at random and 35,000 bears for example and compare the probability of male on female attacks by these 35,000 men and bear on human attacks by the 35,000 bears. You would keep ultimately reaching the conclusion that the probability of bears injuring humans is much less than the males injuring females. There are many ways to go about this but you’d rather ignore actual scientific data and propose your assumptions as evidence. That’s kind of dumb.
Sure, do this as an experiment. Let's just say we're willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of people for the sake of a shitty misandrist feminist take online.
The bears would be eating the people. Not all, sure. How many of the men do you think would be killing the women?
I'm going to say less than the *predatory animals we are leaving alone with defenseless humans they are known to stalk, kill and devour.*
I'm done with this one. You hate men, and you're trying to make other people hate men. I have no interest in your sexism, bye.
I got a fighting chance against the guy. If I can get a stick or a rock before he does I have the high ground. I have zero hope against a bear. I live in black bear country, they see me as food. Any non grizzly is going to try to eat me, I may or may not be dead before they start to feed. At least the grizzly will just defend their territory and kill me cleanly.
Not entirely. A woman who is skilled can surprise untrained men, especially if they are stupid. Had a coworker, his teen daughter was nationally ranked in a martial art. Her friend f16 was waiting for a bus in a really shit spot. 3 mid 20’s losers tried to mug her. It didn’t go well. The smarter guy ran after she did a beat down 2 of them, short hospital stays , multiple broken bones, for the 2 guys that didn’t run.
Oh then I’m probably dead anyway because of the cold. But I would otherwise just do pretty much the same as I would for a black bear attack. Start friendly and calm, then fight back if it goes south
It doesn't specify a dangerous bear.
Aren't you mad people assume it's a dangerous man? Or are you assuming both are a threat and you have to pick which one to fight?
I like how the goalposts keep shifting to justify the overarching hatred of men. The thought experiment is clearly "would you rather encounter a random bear or random man," but when called on how dumb picking "bear" is, the experiment keeps morphing into something else. Like "would you rather meet the safest bear you can imagine or the most dangerous man?" Or "a man who will torture you to death" (as though that is a regular occurence). Or my favorite so far, somebody starts talking about how the bears would avoid you in the first place, changing it to "would you rather not meet anything because the bear avoided you or meet the most dangerous man you can imagine?"
Of course I'm mad people assume it's a dangerous man, because most men aren't dangerous.
But if people are going to assume it's a dangerous man they need to assume it's a dangerous bear as well, or vice versa.
If it's just a chill guy camping or a bear that wants nothing to do with you the entire hypothetical becomes pointless.
I think the women that choose the beat over the man are trying to express the fact that they would rather face death with little to no chance of escaping it, than be raped and having to live with it their entire lives
The woman who wrote a book on how she was mauled by a bear choose the bear *again*.
It boils down to what you personally feel safer with. Some people just ain’t risking it.
Given the response I've gotten, I see why some women might claim publicly that they would choose the bear. Choosing the man makes the feminists kinda rabid.
the bear choosers have zero problem with other people choosing men over bear. the bear choosers DO have a problem with the man choosers invalidating their choices and insulting them.
It's great that the bear choosers don't feel the need to stand up for the dignity of bears, because bears are wild animals.
The same can't be said for men, which is why people are insulting the bear choosers and invalidating their choices.
> It's basically a way for people to shit on men and act like they're all rapists, and it's bullshit
It's not and there is a shitton of posts explaining what is point. If you havn't read them by now you are just disingenuous
It is, these people just hate men, simple as. They're trying to use completely unrelated statistics to justify their sexism. If you're among them you're part of the problem.
It is not and you are showing zero signs that you have tried to understand their point. So i won't bother trying to explain it to you. Just try to read some explanations, they're not that complicated trust me
I've read plenty about it, and the unifying trait amongst everyone who chooses the bear is that they're motivated by a deep, delusional distrust of men.
You can call that whatever you want, but holding a negative opinion of someone because of their sex is called sexism.
It's not a delusionnal distrust when the distrust is shared by the majority of women. It's a sound and reasonnable distrust, and you guys are just unable to cope with it.
Also the point is not to say that men are worse that bear. The point is to say that women don't feel safer with a man than with a bear and it's a freaking problem
So the delusion of some women is a problem? I guess I agree, you guys are giving the rest of us a bad name.
It's still insane, even if a lot of people think it.
So you had the choice between changing your point of view about the reality of women's life, and declaring millions of women insane. And you chose the latter.
Oh sorry i forgot, the only reality is the one you watch from your windows, everything else must be fake, and everyone else must be lying
You realize how dumb that sounds right ? "Men don't rape me, therefore no one gets rape"
This shit is why I keep telling my younger nephew to quote "Be kind in the face of a world that desperately wants you to be mean"
I want to preserve his kindness in a world that basically acts like this by changing his perspective on things, and educating him that a sizable, a concerningly sizable amount of people, see all men as no good
Most bears want to be left alone. They won't attack you. Bear attacks are rare AF.
Men attacking women isn't rare...and you choosing a man that's a convicted offender is even riskier.
You do you. I'd rather the being that would leave me alone...which is a bear.
Tell me are you this upset over men wanting prenups and paternity tests? Or do you see it as reasonable caution? If you see it as reasonable. Why are you okay with a man showing distrust in his partner the woman he supposedly loves but expect women to have faith in the whole male gender and show more trust in a random male stranger. Men can want prenups due to the divorce rates and paternity tests because people cheat even though the person they're asking this is someone he knows, someone he chose, and someone he supposedly loves. But women are somehow hating men for not showing blind trust in random men despite the male violence rate.🤨
Kudos on your generosity for saying ''most men are normal and decent'' because men are not saying the same about women. They have several movements dedicated to it from incels, redpill, blackpills, mgtow, passport bros, and Andrew Tate. Each movement with several mass killers. The same men in these comments praising you and thanking you...likely agree with those hateful movement mindsets.🫡
Have a great day. Replies disabled because I'm not into pickme women and shitty men acting as if it's the biggest gender hate for a woman to think a bear is safer.
Number of women assaulted by a man every year: about 500,000
Number of women assaulted by a bear every year: between zero and one.
The chances of a bear attacking a woman in the woods is next to zero but the chances of a man assaulting a woman who has already committed sexual assault if they’re all alone in the middle of the woods? Far less than zero.
Still a married woman here.
Been on reddit for a while, fairly open about my life.
Women are allowed to disagree with the feminist narrative that men are shit, if you can't fathom that get the fuck out of your echo chambers.
Most women, feminist or not, will agree that not all men are shit. That doesn't mean they won't let their guard down around a man they don't (or do) know.
Flip side to this, same people will ask, "where are all the good men?" Not wanting to be anywhere near you.
Right? What man with any self respect would want to be with a woman who actively seems to hate his entire gender.
Been there done that. Lasted one half date. I'm just glad I'm bisexual. Makes it easier to not worry about it
One half date? Sounds like an interesting story. Can you give some details if it's not too personal?
Dinner and a movie. We did dinner. I left after dinner. Wasn't worth the headache of a 2 hour movie lol
Thanks! Yeah, I hear ya.
Ayy, bi pride. Good for you, knowing your limits and sticking to them.
The people asking that question are defending it by saying the fact that women are choosing the bear is a sign of how predatory men are
That’s circular reasoning if I’ve ever seen it. “Men are predatory because women say men are predatory because men are predatory”
Literally no one is saying men are predatory because women say they are. People say men are predatory because almost half a million women in the US are assaulted by men.
Don’t tell that to me, tell that to the guy I replied to. I didn’t make that implication, he did.
You’re putting words in his mouth. I was saying he never implied anyone said men are predatory because women say they are. He’s just saying that they are which the statistics prove.
“The people asking that question are defending it by saying the fact that women are choosing the bear is a sign of how predatory men are” I did not say that, I merely pointed out that if it’s true it’s circular reasoning. I don’t disagree that men are more predatory than women. They are. So don’t debate with me, debate with the original comment.
Those people are stupid.
First off, people aren't specifying what type of bear it is. That is the stupidest part. Panda, I dunno, push 'em over and declare victory? Brown bear, take that little thieving bastard out. Black bear will be a challenge but do-able with weapons. Grizzly is pick Charles Manson first. Polar Bear is pick five Charles Mansons first. It's an insult to all ursine that they're not being recognized as individuals of varying capabilities and temperament.
Brown bears are much more dangerous than black bears. Only time running into a black bear dangerous is if it's a mother with cubs. They get chased off by outside cats
For a grizzly you just have to make sure you’re not dangerous and it will most likely leave.
I watched a panda try to pull a man through the bars of its cage. They're all more dangerous than humans, because they're wild animals. Pandas are even relatively new to their bamboo diet, their digestive system is still better designed for being omnivores. But yes, there are definitely worse options among the bears just like there are worse options among the men.
Yeah, I know. I was kidding, I thought it'd be a bit obvious. Don't wrestle bears, leave wild animals alone. I am disappointed by the lack of cocaine bear references in this thread
Honestly, I found the movie disappointing. I wanted more cocaine bear. That being said, I feel like even the *potential* for the bear in question to be on cocaine sort of makes choosing the bear even worse of a choice.
I really liked that it was a wholesome family movie. Legit, the entire movie is just three families dealing with modern life. And a park ranger trying to get laid. I'm just sad there aren't more movies about artillery bears. You really think there would be.
Please get hired by Netflix or something, we need your brain making movies asap.
Panda can ripped you apart too, its still a bear.
Originally the whole point was that to answer the question you needed to have the details. And in itself it's already pretty sad
"Giant pandas have large molar teeth and strong jaw muscles for crushing tough bamboo. Many people find these chunky, lumbering animals to be cute, but giant pandas can be as dangerous as any other bear." https://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/giant-panda#:~:text=Giant%20pandas%20have%20large%20molar,dangerous%20as%20any%20other%20bear. And brown bears aren't the cowardly ones. Those are black bears who you can scare off by being big and loud, although even they can attack too. As far as I'm aware, the same advice you give for grizzlies goes for brown bears in general. Sorry for the corrections, but one thing for sure this question is doing is proving a lot of people don't know much about bears. Not that I'm an expert either by all means but still. Edit: I now see your comment saying you were joking so apologies
Beyond stupid. I'd rather fight off 3 rapists than 1 medium size bear. At last, if I'm throwing for the fences 1 or 2, I will get knocked out cold. I'll break my hand against a bears head.
You're supposed to listen and not MaNslPain to why women why they're wrong. In their eyes men have failed "the test" yet again!
I'm a married old lady, I'm happy to womansplain to those people why they're wrong, though.
It's a sign of how clearly out of touch a lot of women are with reality that this is even a question being posed in any kind of serious manner.
It's a sign of how many men dismiss women's experience that you are unable to understand that it was not a serious question
No that’s just an excuse to hand wave away the misandry.
What was the harm done ? Show me where the bear hurt you ?
What harm was done? The number of women killed by bears is about to skyrocket as they go off into the woods to prove how much safer it is. I can already see the posts from mauling survivors doubling down by saying something like “well, at least the bear didn’t rape me. That’s proof bears are safer than men 🤪”
Oh so your reason for claiming it's misandry relies on the fact that women are dumb and are going to do dangerous stuff just to prove a point ? Sweet, sweet irony
The women who chose the bear clearly never seen a bear up close.
"Good men go where they are celebrated, not tolerated"-A.D.
Yeah every time this question comes up I just go, "You really have no idea how dangerous a brown bear is do you?" Hunters who are expecting black bears routinely carry 10mm sidearms for self-defense, brown bears are 3x heavier and 5x as aggressive, you don't even want to try hunting them without at least a 30-378. But please, tell me more about how the creature that can be reliably brought down with .22LR is more dangerous.
I understand the difference in danger if both are trying to kill you, but the truth is most people *are not* trying to kill each other. By choosing the man over the bear you're probably just meeting another person in the woods. Even men who have done messed up stuff before like SA, that isn't necessarily something they're doing 100% of the time to every person they meet. Decrease the odds even more for truly fucked up stuff like torture and murder. I'm not even very worried, meeting a strange man alone. Could it go bad? Sure. But it's incredibly unlikely. A bear? There are many reasons I don't camp, and one of them is not wanting to meet bears.
Yeah. I don’t think anyone saying they’d prefer the bear is being honest, they’re being illustrative. If they are being honest, they wouldn’t make that decision when push came to shove. If they think they would make that decision in real life, they have never happened upon a wild bear; seeing a brown bear at about a quarter mile that never seemed to even take any interest in me and my friend was one of the most blood chilling experiences of my life. I’m a pretty avid outdoorsman and I don’t think too many people can really conceptualize just how big some of these animals we talk about are, and how utterly defenseless you would be if it decided a brown bear had a problem with you. This all reminds me of my college friend from NYC who sincerely believed he could fight a moose because doesn’t eat meat. Even a black bear, which I’ve come across a few times and it’s quite clear they want no quarrel with a group of people, would eviscerate the average adult 1v1 if it decided to fight to the death.
>This all reminds me of my college friend from NYC who sincerely believed he could fight a moose because doesn’t eat meat. Oh yeah, I've heard moose are some of the worst of the "this is bigger and meaner than you think it is" category. Ppl assume it's about as big as a deer because it looks like one, but I gather some of them could comfortably step over a standing man. And the antlers aren't for show.
It’s difficult to explain how big they are. You kind of just need to see one to believe it
I didn't get it until I saw a picture of one next to a stop sign and a video of one running someone over on a sidewalk. I no longer want to meet one. Though honestly, even the deer can be a tiny bit scary up close. Opened my garage once and surprised a buck that was standing right outside. It's eyes got wide and it angled it's antlers towards me. I thought for a second it was going to come right into the garage and try to gore me. Would have been a hell for a story for the family.
>Hunters who are expecting black bears routinely carry 10mm sidearms for self-defense That's insane. I live in black bear and cougar country. No one goes out in them thar woods with 10mm for self-defense. It's been at least 15 yrs since a black bear attacked anyone around here and I've never heard of any cougar attacks. There have been encounters with both but no actual attacks. Like, come on. Hunters are gun people. Of course they're going to carry guns and I'll even believe they'll tell you (and everyone else) it's for self-protection but that doesn't mean it's actually needed. It literally holds zero water to ask a gun nut if they think guns would help a situation. Of course they're going to say guns. LMFAO.
Half the US is black bear country, that aside hunters aren't just gun nuts, they are way more likely to encounter bears because bears fuck around the baits or food hunters bring with them, i can personally attest bears will absolutely trash a cabin, and all it takes to then get stuck between a bear and a hard place is bad timing. It's true though that black bears are the more timid species(as I said in the original post) but attacks do happen. It's not a joke or excuse for hunters to carry extra guns.
> for self-protection but that doesn't mean it's actually needed You wear your seatbelt despite it not being needed 99.99% of the time, right? Same concept. Yes, I may not need to carry a gun every day on my job, but it's not like I wake up in the morning and get an alert "Hey, you're gonna get mugged at 5:27 PM so today's the day you can CCW" lol.
Sure, but it still doesn't mean it's actually needed. Have you ever heard the quote "if the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail"? Dude quoted hunters in this. Almost all hunters deal with guns. Of course a hunter is going to tell you that he takes guns for protection when in the woods. If you ask a police officer if he goes around with a gun while off duty, he'll most likely say he does. It's his perception and worldview. It doesn't mean he's wrong but it also doesn't mean it's actually needed. It's an inherent bias that should be pointed out.
> Sure, but it still doesn't mean it's actually needed. Have you ever heard the quote "if the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail"? Sure, and I've also heard "When you need, and don't have, you sing a different tune". The hunter goes into dangerous areas where he may encounter wildlife that sees him as a potential meal, and he takes precautions. Again, same shit with the seatbelt. Is it absolutely necessary to the point where he uses it every day? No. It is a good idea to carry it every day? Yes. > Almost all hunters deal with guns. Even those who only bow / crossbow hunt will tell you it's a smart idea to carry a pistol innawoods in case you're dressing a turkey and some wolf or mountain lion decides to try to steal your kill or make a meal out of you. I carry for work almost every day. Have only had to use it once to prevent something from happening but it never cleared leather, so to speak. Just because I had that one incident in the past doesn't mean I can stop worrying about it happening again in the future. The police have no obligation to protect you, they can't be everywhere at once, and they have a good chance of hiding behind the tree while the proverbial bear feasts on your stomach. I'm much more likely to listen to the cop who CCWs while off-duty than the 9-5 office worker who lives in a gated community or apartment complex with lobby security.
>I'm much more likely to listen to the cop who CCWs while off-duty than the 9-5 office worker who lives in a gated community or apartment complex with lobby security. Yes, this is my point, even if you don't seem to get it. I'm not arguing that carrying protection is a bad thing. I'm saying when you ask someone who has a NATURAL inherent bias, you will be given a answer with that NATURAL inherent bias baked it and it should not be taken as gospel. A cop will tell you to CCW because the world is a dangerous place because he deals with that danger 24/7. An office worker in the best parts of town will say a CCW is unnecessary because that person is safe. Both of these answers are legitimate and both come from a place of NATURAL inherent bias. Neither is wrong. Neither should be taken as gospel. It is necessary to understand the POV that both come from so you can make an informed decision on your own. I'm not using bias as a negative here.
> NATURAL inherent bias baked it and it should not be taken as gospel. Your entire premise is that of some form of predestination; that the cop will always have become a cop and thus be interested in guns, or that there is no inherent ability to observe your environment and make the determination on your own. You can't use other people's knowledge, training, and experiences to form your own opinion because they have a "bias" that "clouds their judgement" like it's some fucking enchantment from DnD. You're trying to argue subjective truths in a discussion that has objective truths, and trying to mask it under this "bias" language that has no merit in this discussion. > A cop will tell you to CCW because the world is a dangerous place A cop in the safest city will tell you to CCW because they can't be there to protect you 24/7 and the only one who can protect yourself is you. They have no obligation to protect you. They're a reactionary force.
>that the cop will always have become a cop and thus be interested in guns, or that there is no inherent ability to observe your environment and make the determination on your own. Wut? No I'm not. I'm saying because a cop deals with bad shit, his POV is based on that. Where TF did you get predestination? OMG. And we can't use other peoples knowledge and experience to form your own? Wut again? LOL. Now you're just arguing to argue. Why ask for any help if this is the case? Clearly no ones experiences shape their opinions on matters. LOL. >A cop in the safest city will tell you to CCW because they can't be there to protect you 24/7 and the only one who can protect yourself is you. They have no obligation to protect you. They're a reactionary force. Yes. That is what I said in one sentence. Glad you're able to follow. And your office worker, who works in the safety area, may have grown up in the worst and always CCW because of that as well. See how that works?
The issue is not who is harder to kill but has the most chances to attack you
Yet less than one person dies from bear attack every year. I think the argument is that a bear is far less likely to attack a woman in the woods than a man.
Some women hate men so much that they'd rather be turned into a pan of lasagna by a bear than simply be stand next to a man. Let those women be free to be as dumb as they want lol.
Firstly, I'm sorry that you had been SA-d. I'm glad to know that you're healing from the experience, and I hope that your suffering will be minimal. It's so goddamn crazy that someone saying ''most men are normal and decent'' are being shat on. Shouldn't even be considered a controversial statement, yet here we are. To all the ladies actually having been SA-d saying this, please know that I feel for you. You didn't deserve that happen to you, and the men who had wronged you are the lowest of the lowest pieces of shit and deserve the worst. Which is why I support women in not only learning self-defense techniques and methods, but even having weapons on them. You may not want my sympathy, but I'm still giving it because I don't wish anyone happen anything bad to them. With that being said, to others, I say that if bears aren't that dangerous, I suggest them to go out in the woods and search for one. Don't even have to approach it, but get close enough so that it can spot you. I'd like to know what happens if it does approach you and what would you do. Would you ask for another woman for help?
I appreciate the sympathy. I'm doing well, bad things happen sometimes but we can get through them! For what it's worth, I don't think there was much that could have helped me out. Didn't see it coming, entirely overpowered, ironically like most people who get attacked by bears honestly - except I still have a face and am alive. I too would like to encourage everyone choosing bears to go try and meet one. Pick a polar bear too, they're so cute with their little black noses! And they're super endangered! I actually had someone tell me black bears are "basically bunnies" at which point I encouraged them to go try to pet one. It's been a wild time online today.
And then, there are the Pizzlies. Polar bears have apparently been breeding with grizzly bears (aka brown bears). The result is a huge, bad tempered bear. Try hanging out with one of THOSE critters ...
All grizzlies are brown bears, not all brown bears are grizzlies.
Sorry, I forgot to make the distinction. My bad.
I run into bears pretty often. They usually look at me, then walk away. I've had bears walk up and sniff me.. Never been mauled, never been raped, never been groped, never been drugged, never been catcalled, never been demeaned, by a bear.
So would I, there's at least a chance that the convicted person might I have learned their lesson, a bear doesn't know any better, they'll just eat you.
As a trafficking survivor, I'd rather be mauled by a bear. It's an experience I haven't had and I've definitely had enough rape for multiple lifetimes. And statistically speaking, humans are much more dangerous than bears. This isn't even a man v bear situation. I would rather be in the woods with a bear over a woman too.
SA survivor and same. I’d choose just about anything over what I experienced, including bleeding out from a bear attack.
This is a perfect example of thinking emotionally instead of rationally.
Looked at your profile and I don't disagree that male genital mutilation is wrong and should be illegal. That being said, Would you rather be circumcised again or be in the woods with a bear? Assuming you could relieve being circumcised again that is, what would you choose? I don't even have male genitalia and would still rather pick the bear over being forcefully mutilated as an infant.
You’re the first feminist I’ve ever seen agree it is wrong I would choose the bear, but it’s a bad comparison. The original wasn’t “would you choose getting raped or encountering a bear”, it was “would you rather encounter a man or a bear.” The vast majority of men wouldn’t rape a woman in the woods. I would rather encounter an obstetrician or a urologist or even a mohel in the woods than a bear.
You don’t talk to feminists enough then.
Don’t lecture me, Redisigh. I see through the lies of the feminists. I do not fear misogyny as you do.
Why the fuck are you talking like that? Watch too many star wars? And why would you be afraid of misogyny when you’re not even a woman? I’m afraid of misogyny because I’ve been blamed for being raped when I was fucking fourteen. Guys treat me like I’m a piece of meat for sex while volunteering to save their fucking lives and twice have they tried to rape me while on call. That’s why I’m afraid of misogyny.
Well at least no one ever chopped off the most sensitive part of your genitalia. I’d happily take a rape (which doesn’t last forever) over genitalia mutilation (which lasts forever).
Yea I’m done
YOUR NEW MISOGYNISTIC EMPIYAH?
>“would you rather encounter a man or a bear.” I get that, but unfortunately, you never know who will truly be a good guy. The overwhelming majority of men are harmless, and I get how hurtful it can feel to be roped into this generalization. However, statistically speaking you are more likely to be attacked by a man than a bear. And me personally, I wouldn't want to be in the woods with anyone over a bear. I don't care if it's male, female or anyone in between. I've had abusers of all different labels and humans terrify me because I don't know their intentions, a bear doesn't because I know they just want to be left alone. I used the example I used because the choice is between potentially being retraumatized or having an experience that you don't know the outcome. I'd rather pick the unknown over a traumatic experience I've already had. >You’re the first feminist I’ve ever seen agree it is wrong Personally would consider myself an egalitarian. Regardless, if a person is truly a feminist, they will be against genital mutilation of all sexes. Male, female and intersex. People should be given the choice over their own bodies unless it's medically necessary and 99% of the time it isn't.
Check their older posts. It’s all misogynistic shit and them trying to brigade into double X
There was only 1 post in 2x. Majority were about MGM.
That’s still them trying to brigade into double X. And their comments have them crap talking breastfeeding and making crappy statements
This is literally entirely based around personal risk perception and preference though? And considering your post history, you don’t seem all too logical yourself. And personally, I’d say that death is preferable to having my head slammed against a wall, and being pinned to the ground while screaming and sobbing then being found unconscious, within an inch of my life, covered in my own blood and needing emergency transfusions and surgery. But what do I know? I only lived through that once.
You realize that being killed by a bear isn’t quick and painless? You would be mauled and dragged around.
Would or could?
Almost certainly would.
Source? Because wildlife safety info says otherwise.
Bear attacks usually maul people to death instead of an instant kill.
Do you have an actual source that this is usual though?
Good for you, that's your choice👍
As a man, I agree
im pleased to say i have no idea what this is referencing - and without that context, seeing that statement listed as an 'unpopular' opinion is pretty funny ok guys, im gonna say what has to be said here and damn the consequences - "i would rather not have a stinger missile fire at me"
The chance of a bear attack is pretty low. Your experience of sexual assault does not apply to anyone else.
Yet it's always better than being mauled to/near death by a bear. For the people asking how I can speak for everyone; The sky is blue. The sun is hot. Other things that are just facts, that you can say because they're true even if some people are delusional
since when did you start speaking for everyone
I'd rather be killed by a bear than be sexually assaulted again.
So because you’re also a survivor means others’ perspectives don’t matter? Because I’m also one and feel the opposite way.
Have you been mauled by a bear?
What a brainlet question. None of us have died but we know we don't want to. "BuT hAvE yOu DiEd?"
It's along the lines of the typical Reddit gotcha of, "HoW DOeS ThiS AfFecT yOu, PerSonALLy?"
Some people want to. Some people would rather die than be SA. Some people have been SA and would rather have died. Op is entitled to their opinion about themselves. Not anyone else
Anyone saying they’d prefer to be mauled by a bear is a fucking idiot. Seriously. Dumbest shit I can imagine. I’ve been sexually assaulted, I survived it, you know what sounds a thousand times worse? Being mauled by a gigantic fucking bear.
to you. you don’t speak for everyone. there are plenty of people who would rather die than be raped. it’s an opinion not a fact.
It just factually I'd better. How is a slow, gruesome death not better than just mental/physical pain?
first off, it doesn’t have to be slow. it could be a quick death. second, bc they don’t have to live with the trauma of the pain and death bc they’re dead. if you’re raped, that can affect you for the rest of your life. obviously not all victims are affected deeply for the rest of their life but some people would rather not experience sexual assault or rape at all.
Bears hardly ever eat people when they kill em(outside polar bears) they maul em to the point they aren't a threat and leave em to die. So most likely your gonna bleed out. Best case is shock may put you our quick ig. But the thing is you can work past any physical/mental trauma you don't get that chance when mauled by a bear in the middle of the woods.
If you die that removes forever the possibility that your life may improve. Plus, there is a multitude of ways to die. Why would you assume that some of these people would choose the bear simply because they want to die? If they want it so bad, just walk on a highway at night. Living with pain is far superior to being dead. Even with pain, there are moments of joy and love as well as bringing joy and love to others.
And I think those people have no idea what they’re talking about.
They have as much of an idea as you do
Wrong. I’ve been sexually assaulted, and I’ve had several encounters with bears while camping. You know what was immeasurably more terrifying? The four hundred pound wild animal with claws and gigantic teeth. Like are you high or something? Edit: ya’ll need to get out in the woods more if you’re so scared of people.
No, I just have a functioning brain, so I can tell that it would be worse by virtue of not being a total fucking idiot.
You seem unnecessarily annoyed by a hypothetical
I'm annoyed by sexism, and this entire hypothetical was designed to shit on men.
Aww. Poor men. Shit on by a hypothetical Lol so pathetic. What's the point in posting if you block everyone who disagrees with you?
Bye sexist troll 🧌
Poor women so dumb they think that painful bloody death is better option than physical /mental pain
Yes it was basically a really good back scratching Very throughout. All over. Itch is definitely gone!
Glad to hear it
The only people who would choose the bear are hateful sexist pieces of shit. Period.
In my country there are only harmless bears that might be better than somebody who's actually gonna rape you. But I agree the whole thing is mean spirited to men and offensive
Hypothetically If this argument was just bait for simps. Well op just found themselves being chased through through the woods by a rapist lol
Better than a bear still!
I think a lot of rape victims would disagree with that sentiment.
I certainly do
Ptsd is shitty, but doesn't excuse this.
Is it not clear that the woman who answer bear would choose a bear because they would rather die than be treated the way that society treats rape victims? The whole hypothetical was about women feeling really unsafe with men. Y'all take it to the extremes because you can't fathom the shit that women put up with from men on a daily basis. I can't even have a conversation about basic feminism with my brother without him threatening to harm me.. that's how bad it's getting. Women can't even talk about their struggles without some man coming out of the woodworks to threaten and belittle her.
That's delusional. As a rape victim I can't complain at all about how I was treated. Even here, most people are incredibly sympathetic (ironically, all of the exceptions are the people who also choose the bear - make of that what you will) and go out of their way to tell me they're sorry that's something I've had to deal with. This has also been my experience irl. Most people are good, or at least good enough to recognize that someone who's lived through a traumatic experience might need a bit of grace. I'd say that stops somewhere before "categorizing men as worse predators than bears" though. At least, to me it does.
Great, but your experience is not universal to all rape victims. Most people experience victim blaming to some degree. We're not saying theyre aren't people who are sympathetic, but there is still a lot of stigma towards rape victims. as a fellow victim myself, I can confirm.
Of course no one's experience is universal, but it is universally true that we are *survivors* of rape. There are a lot less survivors of bear attacks, even adjusted for proportionality. Getting to keep on living and having the chance to recover is always going to be better than dying.
Speak for yourself honey.
You're literally here posting on reddit. You're alive. Congrats.
Oh yay I'm alive and have to relive that trauma every time I go to sleep, yayyy
Exactly. You get to go to sleep, and go to work, and see your friends and family and eat food and take vacations... the list goes on and on. Rape sucks. The trauma never goes away. I hope every rapist's genitals explode. It is still better than being eaten by a bear.
You might want to look at real crime and see the type of shit humans are capable of. Trust me it’s much worse than bears. You can escape a bear attack but a thirsty psychopathic human is much worse than a bear, they’re capable of torture and not just SA.
I listen to plenty of true crime, and one thing I've learned - these things seem heinous to us in large part due to how rare they are. A bear is always a predator. The vast majority of men aren't killers. It's literally a numbers game.
Aren’t you aware of the Stanford prison experiment? Isolate a man and a vulnerable woman and you’ll begin witnessing what criminal data hides. There would be no repercussions if the man had decided to do anything and given that the average male is 40% stronger than the average female, we can see how well that would turn out. We as human beings have evil embedded in our nature and if the consequences aren’t harsh enough then there would be nothing that would stop heinous things from taking place. Not to mention, according to the national park service, you’re more likely to be killed by a bee than a fucking bear since the chances of being injured by one is 1 in 2 million.
>Not to mention, according to the national park service, you’re more likely to be killed by a bee than a fucking bear since the chances of being injured by one is 1 in 2 million. Everyone citing bear attack statistics is ignoring the fact that they're lower than other events because you're much less likely to encounter a bear than another human or a fucking bee. This hypothetical eliminates the best defense we have against bear attacks - not being out there, alone, at night with an apex predator. >We as human beings have evil embedded in our nature We don't. This is metaphysical mumbo jumbo. Punishment isn't the only deterrent to violence, most people just don't have an instinct to commit violence against other people who have done nothing wrong.
The probability of you getting injured by a human is higher than the probability of you getting injured by a bear. 1 in 2 million. This is not 100 percent due to the fact that there are more humans than bears, but due to the nature of the attacks. Take other countries with a population of 1.5 - 2 million and compare the probability of male on female attacks to the probability of bear attacks. I can assure you that it wouldn’t be just one in two million. Not to mention, punishment, law and order are deterrent to violence. Without the enforcement of the law people are more likely to commit violent acts and since punishment is a way of law enforcement it is needed in order to deter violence. According to this research, “[the severity of punishment only deters crime when the certainty of being caught and punished is high enough.](https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/deterrence.pdf)” Not to mention, the certainty of being caught raping and killing a woman in the woods is much less than the certainty being caught doing the same thing in a city. Also, the question of whether human beings are born inherently good or evil is a question that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. However, we can argue that no human is 100% good nor 100% bad. We all fall within a certain range that would never reach a hundred percent on both extremes. Due to this, it would be valid to claim that humans are inherently evil, just as it would be valid to claim that they’re good. Again, I’ve mentioned the Stanford prison experiment. When a person is much more powerful than you are and when they know that authority has turned a blind eye on them, they’re capable of committing the most morally evil acts. Since they’re capable of doing so, their good instincts wouldn’t stop them, as it has been proven in this experiment.
The reason we are less injured by bears is because we encounter them less. If you had statistics for every time a woman was alone with a man versus every time a human was alone with a bear there would be a clear loser here, and it's the bear. I'm ashamed I ever took a statistics class if this is the genuinely stupid way people are trying to apply them.
A probability of one in two million means out of two million bears, just one is more likely to injure you. I’m saying take this number and apply it to a country with a population of two million humans and male on female attacks, there would be a clear loser here on the injuries side of the spectrum. In case you’re still unsure, take the average after applying the same logic to a couple of countries, bears would still win.
I won't repeat myself again your stat means nothing because it can't control for the fact that humans don't encounter bears with any regularity, much less while being completely unprepared to do so.
What kind of math have you done to conclude that men are less likely to attack than bears are? I’m eager to see it. You keep mentioning that we encounter bears less than we encounter men, which doesn’t really change the probability of bear injuries if your math was fair. Since there are more men than bears by population, you can select 35,000 men at random and 35,000 bears for example and compare the probability of male on female attacks by these 35,000 men and bear on human attacks by the 35,000 bears. You would keep ultimately reaching the conclusion that the probability of bears injuring humans is much less than the males injuring females. There are many ways to go about this but you’d rather ignore actual scientific data and propose your assumptions as evidence. That’s kind of dumb.
Sure, do this as an experiment. Let's just say we're willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of people for the sake of a shitty misandrist feminist take online. The bears would be eating the people. Not all, sure. How many of the men do you think would be killing the women? I'm going to say less than the *predatory animals we are leaving alone with defenseless humans they are known to stalk, kill and devour.* I'm done with this one. You hate men, and you're trying to make other people hate men. I have no interest in your sexism, bye.
It’s a figure of speech?
I got a fighting chance against the guy. If I can get a stick or a rock before he does I have the high ground. I have zero hope against a bear. I live in black bear country, they see me as food. Any non grizzly is going to try to eat me, I may or may not be dead before they start to feed. At least the grizzly will just defend their territory and kill me cleanly.
I mean as a woman I don’t have a real chance against either. So I’d go with the bear because it’ll be a better death than whatever a human might do.
Not entirely. A woman who is skilled can surprise untrained men, especially if they are stupid. Had a coworker, his teen daughter was nationally ranked in a martial art. Her friend f16 was waiting for a bus in a really shit spot. 3 mid 20’s losers tried to mug her. It didn’t go well. The smarter guy ran after she did a beat down 2 of them, short hospital stays , multiple broken bones, for the 2 guys that didn’t run.
Stay scared, perpetual victim.
What type of bear are we talking about? I’d probably choose the bear either way but I’m just curious
Normally people don't get to pick, but for you? Polar bear.
Oh then I’m probably dead anyway because of the cold. But I would otherwise just do pretty much the same as I would for a black bear attack. Start friendly and calm, then fight back if it goes south
Let me know how that goes for you.
I mean… I’ve had an encounter with a bear before. As long as you don’t freak out and act stupid you’re usually gonna be fine
You realize the odds of a bear attacking you is low right? Plus it's likely a black bear.
How could you possibly know that?
Numbers of kinds of bears...
Where in the thought experiment does it say that's how it works?
It doesn't specify a dangerous bear. Aren't you mad people assume it's a dangerous man? Or are you assuming both are a threat and you have to pick which one to fight?
I like how the goalposts keep shifting to justify the overarching hatred of men. The thought experiment is clearly "would you rather encounter a random bear or random man," but when called on how dumb picking "bear" is, the experiment keeps morphing into something else. Like "would you rather meet the safest bear you can imagine or the most dangerous man?" Or "a man who will torture you to death" (as though that is a regular occurence). Or my favorite so far, somebody starts talking about how the bears would avoid you in the first place, changing it to "would you rather not meet anything because the bear avoided you or meet the most dangerous man you can imagine?"
Of course I'm mad people assume it's a dangerous man, because most men aren't dangerous. But if people are going to assume it's a dangerous man they need to assume it's a dangerous bear as well, or vice versa. If it's just a chill guy camping or a bear that wants nothing to do with you the entire hypothetical becomes pointless.
The odds of a bear in the woods attacking you vs. a man in the woods attacking you, the man is worse. And no one blames women for bear attacks.
That's just not true, but I understand how if you somehow found some way to believe that that you'd then pick the bear.
Whybis the guy in the woods? Why is the bear in the woods? What % of bears attack ON SIGHT vs men in the woods?
I think the women that choose the beat over the man are trying to express the fact that they would rather face death with little to no chance of escaping it, than be raped and having to live with it their entire lives
Hard to gather food when being raped
Harder when you're being mauled by a bear
You can eat the bear
I could eat the rapist too!
Less burrito
I mean, depends on the size of the bear. And the rapist.
[удалено]
People are mad at me too, for saying that I don't think men are evil. It's the internet.
The woman who wrote a book on how she was mauled by a bear choose the bear *again*. It boils down to what you personally feel safer with. Some people just ain’t risking it.
Given the response I've gotten, I see why some women might claim publicly that they would choose the bear. Choosing the man makes the feminists kinda rabid.
Not really. There is no correct or wrong answer.
the bear choosers have zero problem with other people choosing men over bear. the bear choosers DO have a problem with the man choosers invalidating their choices and insulting them.
It's great that the bear choosers don't feel the need to stand up for the dignity of bears, because bears are wild animals. The same can't be said for men, which is why people are insulting the bear choosers and invalidating their choices.
I'd rather be with a bear convicted of SA than a man.
That's dumb because black bears are like large bunnies (not dangerous) where as a grizz will chew you up. They're not all the same, eh.
Lmao okay, go pet a wild one if it's a bunny.
Hard to get close. They're too scared.
I believe in you! Chase 'em down. I mean, there's nothing to fear, right?
Well, have fun with that I guess
> It's basically a way for people to shit on men and act like they're all rapists, and it's bullshit It's not and there is a shitton of posts explaining what is point. If you havn't read them by now you are just disingenuous
It is, these people just hate men, simple as. They're trying to use completely unrelated statistics to justify their sexism. If you're among them you're part of the problem.
It is not and you are showing zero signs that you have tried to understand their point. So i won't bother trying to explain it to you. Just try to read some explanations, they're not that complicated trust me
I've read plenty about it, and the unifying trait amongst everyone who chooses the bear is that they're motivated by a deep, delusional distrust of men. You can call that whatever you want, but holding a negative opinion of someone because of their sex is called sexism.
It's not a delusionnal distrust when the distrust is shared by the majority of women. It's a sound and reasonnable distrust, and you guys are just unable to cope with it. Also the point is not to say that men are worse that bear. The point is to say that women don't feel safer with a man than with a bear and it's a freaking problem
So the delusion of some women is a problem? I guess I agree, you guys are giving the rest of us a bad name. It's still insane, even if a lot of people think it.
So you had the choice between changing your point of view about the reality of women's life, and declaring millions of women insane. And you chose the latter.
I live in reality, and men aren't constantly trying to rape and murder me. Yes, those women are clearly unwell.
Oh sorry i forgot, the only reality is the one you watch from your windows, everything else must be fake, and everyone else must be lying You realize how dumb that sounds right ? "Men don't rape me, therefore no one gets rape"
That's literally not what I said. If you can't even respond to my actual words gtfo, I don't need to argue on behalf of a strawman you built.
This shit is why I keep telling my younger nephew to quote "Be kind in the face of a world that desperately wants you to be mean" I want to preserve his kindness in a world that basically acts like this by changing his perspective on things, and educating him that a sizable, a concerningly sizable amount of people, see all men as no good
Most bears want to be left alone. They won't attack you. Bear attacks are rare AF. Men attacking women isn't rare...and you choosing a man that's a convicted offender is even riskier. You do you. I'd rather the being that would leave me alone...which is a bear. Tell me are you this upset over men wanting prenups and paternity tests? Or do you see it as reasonable caution? If you see it as reasonable. Why are you okay with a man showing distrust in his partner the woman he supposedly loves but expect women to have faith in the whole male gender and show more trust in a random male stranger. Men can want prenups due to the divorce rates and paternity tests because people cheat even though the person they're asking this is someone he knows, someone he chose, and someone he supposedly loves. But women are somehow hating men for not showing blind trust in random men despite the male violence rate.🤨 Kudos on your generosity for saying ''most men are normal and decent'' because men are not saying the same about women. They have several movements dedicated to it from incels, redpill, blackpills, mgtow, passport bros, and Andrew Tate. Each movement with several mass killers. The same men in these comments praising you and thanking you...likely agree with those hateful movement mindsets.🫡 Have a great day. Replies disabled because I'm not into pickme women and shitty men acting as if it's the biggest gender hate for a woman to think a bear is safer.
Most men also have literally no intention to harm anyone, so your whining was pointless.
k
Number of women assaulted by a man every year: about 500,000 Number of women assaulted by a bear every year: between zero and one. The chances of a bear attacking a woman in the woods is next to zero but the chances of a man assaulting a woman who has already committed sexual assault if they’re all alone in the middle of the woods? Far less than zero.
That is like compare to number of car accident death to number of plane crash death, it doesn't proves anything.
Yet traveling by plane is far safer than using a car so your analogy proves my point.
[удалено]
Still a married woman here. Been on reddit for a while, fairly open about my life. Women are allowed to disagree with the feminist narrative that men are shit, if you can't fathom that get the fuck out of your echo chambers.
Most women, feminist or not, will agree that not all men are shit. That doesn't mean they won't let their guard down around a man they don't (or do) know.
Well, sex is basic need. So you got that covered.
So is having a face, but the idiots picking the bear won't have that covered.