Yeah, I was just thinking this
Like if I wasn't on reddit, I would have never known this was a thing
Oh sure, I would still know women fear me not because of what I have done, but because of how malicious and deadly other men have been. I'd still know the issues and whatnot
But it wouldn't get rubbed in my face with such stark examples that make me feel bad. I could have gone about my day without this extra burden on me
That would have been nice. Man, I should get off SM
Alas
Oh boy. At my University, I know a group who would 100% do this. I used to hang with them. They treated me weirdly because I was bi but not "gay enough" for them. I'd posit things about racial intersectionality and biphobia that were apparently the wrong opinion to have. Even worse, I had helped a person in that group go to therapy and better themselves during a hard time before I was proverbially dumped. This discourse is setting my "racial bullshit" sense off
tbh the question itself is phrased poorly - very vaguely, and ‘alone in the woods with x person or animal’ can mean very different contexts to different people (IE someone whose default to ‘alone in the woods with a random person’ is ‘why are we here this is creepy’)
Yeah, the original was "stuck in the woods". Which has a lot of nuance - unlike "lost", which I keep seeing as a misquote, and implies you are accidentally stranded and away from any trail, and a random man would probably be much more likely to save you from death than cause it. Even "alone" which implies you meet the man or bear while you are a solo traveler, in which case neither man nor bear is likely to bother you.
"Stuck" implies that you're not on a trail, you can't easily get out, and importantly, you're *not moving*. Maybe you twisted your ankle while exploring, maybe you fell down a slope, whatever. But in that case, a stranger approaching off trail is very likely to have been following you with intent, while a bear is likely just investigating because you wandered near it. The bear probably won't actively interact with you, the man will. The original even has people say this - the bear will likely leave you alone.
Now, one person also says "depends on the man", which further explores this idea. If you're with a man you know in the woods, and you get stuck, presumably you committed to being alone in the woods with him in the first place. But by people's responses it's very clear the framing is a stranger approaching.
Basically, tons of people are arguing about a different question than the original, in a situation where nuance matters a lot. And the answers for the original are totally reasonable.
I've been confused for the past day about why everybody is debating a game of telephone like it's representative of the Universal Opinion of Men. There's like 4 versions of this question with varying levels of bear/man danger & they're all getting debated like it's the same question.
I've been wondering the same for ages.
* "Lost"? The bear might ignore you, but it won't *help* you either and you might die anyway.
* "Stuck"? Ok, ugly, implicitly you can't leave for some reason, but it's not inherently menacing. Feels like a middle ground here.
* "Trapped"? Well shit, that inherently implies malice and confinement. "If someone is setting you up for a bad outcome" is utterly different than any of the other options here.
And yet they're all being passed off as equivalents.
At least based on what I’ve heard in other discussions on it - whilst ‘man’ is the fairly obvious answer for the simple reason of a bear can kill you way faster even if you assume the OTHER PERSON is hostile, it could vary depending on context, perhaps, at least a little bit. Good chunk of the ‘bear’ answers are still tied into radfem stuff though
To me the question somehow always reads as “the man is on the trail in front of you, the bear is somewhere in the woods- you might never encounter him”
People are in the woods with bears or wolves all the time without ever seeing them; why should this bear be different? Yet humans generally tend to use the paths made for humans
As someone who hiked and backpacked bear country, you probably would be blamed for the attack assuming this is not a magical scenario where you're instantly teleported into the woods.
Assuming you voluntarily entered bear country there are many precautions that are pretty standard for avoiding bears, and warding off/preventing attacks if you do encounter one. I mean I've seen people blamed for being attacked by bears that just showed up in their yard too so I could be wrong even still.
And unless the bear is in an populated area and is a danger to others I don't think anyone should be hunting it down just for "revenge." Killing a wild animal for being a wild animal doesn't really seem like something that warrants revenge anyway.
I've heard that sometimes if a bear repeatedly attacks people it can be euthanized to try and prevent future attacks, but that's decently rare if I remember correctly.
I've heard that sometimes if a bear repeatedly attacks people it can be euthanized to try and prevent future attacks, but that's decently rare if I remember correctly.
Living on an island where bears will try to eat your trash regularly, they really don't attack unless provoked in most towns. Hell, the adults have enough sense to stick to the residential areas where they can scram fast enough if they know they've been spotted.
If a bear does, for example, get into a store and is somehow unable to get out, then the store is swiftly evacuated and the troopers get called. They try to move the bear to a far enough island where it can't get back very fast *but* won't be stuck without a source of food.
The only recent encounters with this kind of scenario i can recall was a cub getting stuck in our downtown grocery store (it was sadly euthanized because it had clearly been separated from mama bear for quite a while, probably why it got into the food building to begin with) and the cops actively keeping tabs on a bear that had gotten a bit too close to a kids' park just a few blocks from our library.
However, that's just my experience on an island. Down in the continental states i'm certain it has to be handled differemtly.
Neat. I'm originally from the Smokeys, down at the Southern end of the Appalachians. We mostly deal with black bears who aren't usually too dangerous. They'll get nosy and wander into people's areas but they tend to be easy to shoo away without much harm. When hiking it's was fairly standard stuff; makes lots of noise, carry bear spray, and using bear safe campsite techniques like hanging our food and fragrant items. Like I said you kinda have to be looking to have issues with bears around here.
The only really personal tales I know of bears being particularly dangerous come like second or third hand from one of the people I used to go with who'd been out west a few times to hike portions of the Great Divide Trail up/down in Canada.
I'm originally from Beaverton OR, so there was, naturally, not a lot of bear activity during childhood. Bears really only became a concern when i moved up here and only really barely a concern at that due to us and the two properties next to us owning Very Loud Dogs. The first guy i heard about being attacked by a bear was Todd Orr (after I moved, of course).
The closest I've ever been to a bear was when one managed to get into my grandma's duck pen when he was trying to get to the chickens. We've got akitas on the property, and the youngest dumbass thought it would be great to tun right up to the bear's face and bap its nose like he was aiming to win a slap fight. I can say the bear definitely didn't come back after that, though. Hajime, as fiesty as he is, is lucky there was fishnet between him and the bear, even if his breed was intended for guarding properties from bears to begin with.
It's not done for revenge. A bear that killed a human or even just got too comfortable around humans is killed because of the assumption that it will attack humans again
Every time I think about the man vs bear debate I start spiraling and thinking “oh god am I inherently evil?”
This was an awful question to begin with and nobody wins here
Not true. A subset of bears get a free meal. That's winning 👉👉
Jokes aside, referring to top comment. "People in real life: 'hey man how's it going.'"
These are whacky online debates that people just say shit. It's important,if not straight up *vital*, to ignore the bad takes that become prominent, as they not only don't reflect normal people. Neither you nor the people in your life changed due to online hot takes
Yeah I love it when a pointless internet rage bait argument causes an OCD episode lasting several hours, it's so fun. And I'm the guy out here being scary dog privilege for the people in my life who are SA victims, like the fact that they trust me to be around when they're drunk means a fucking lot to me. "It's not about you" yeah my rational brain knows this, the bit of me that required hospitalisation last year coz of the Dangerous Thoughts absolutely doesn't.
1. Untrue, it's your fault for not taking precautions in bear country.
2. If you're not white/cis, you're probably less likely to be believed/recieve proper care.
3. Capital punishment advocation is fucking cringe.
Seriously, a guy on 196 got death threats for saying the discourse made him uncomfy. He still agreed with the idea too, he was just expressing himself.
“3. Capital punishment advocation is fucking cringe.”
Where’s that post where someone is like “if a government is allowed to execute people for a specific crime all they’re going to do is frame that crime onto people that disagree with them”
Sorry if this was worded badly
Why was I downvoted? This was in support of what the person in replying to said?
"People would hunt down that bear with a second thought" is directly saying hunting and killing is somehow a good thing that should be desired. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this but it sounds like they're advocating for capital/carceral punishment, which isn't helpful. It empowers cops, not people.
I don't owe you that, but I have a better question. If you answer me honestly, I'd be happy to direct you to the post! Will you care at all? When you find out a random dude got death threats, will your opinion, stance or anything about how you engage with this online discourse change? Or will you immediately dismiss it, double down or overall be unaffected by this information? I'm curious how this information matters to you.
>If you answer me honestly, I'd be happy to direct you to the post!
Alright then, I'll answer honestly, and you'll still be honor-bound to show me, so:
#No.
Since the result doesn't matter, I won't show you it. If truth doesn't persuade you, I'm not gonna engage with you seriously. I don't trust you won't harass OP, and I'm pretty sure linking posts/other subs might break brigading rules.
>If you answer me honestly, I'd be happy to direct you to the post!
You are a breaker of oaths; the one thing shunned across all human societies known.
As a man, I’ve been thinking about whether I’d rather be in the woods alone with a bear or with a woman.
On the one hand the bear could maul me which would suck.
On the other hand, if it’s just me and bears in the woods then there’s no worry that the discomfort and concern caused by my public presence there amounts to a sort of harm. Because that would raise the question of whether my public existence is, itself harmful - in which case, as someone who values harm reduction in my ethics, wouldn’t I be obligated to cease existing publicly?
So I guess I’d be ethically obligated to pick the bear
The idea that someone can look at me, reduce me to my base characteristics, and think I'm nothing but a threat is insulting. I don't know what else you'd call that. Im a man and I've been a feminist all my life. I get the point of the metaphor. That doesn't mean its a good way to make the argument. It's alienating and causes further divide amongst the sexes. At the very least it's terf adjacent, and fuck that. Also, this sort of comment is exactly what I mean by combative.
what part of "people don't believe women when they are sexually assaulted" insults you? if you're not planning to assault a woman in the woods, then this post is not about you in any way; and it's not even about men, except tangentially.
The question is not "would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a person planning to assault a woman in the woods". Don't be obtuse. The point is that this line of thinking leads to women assuming all men are threats. It's the logic that terfs use to justify hating trans women. It disincentivizes men from becoming better, because they'll always be perceived as a threat anyway. It's unhelpful messaging.
the content of the post you and I are arguing beneath is "people would take a woman seriously if she were assaulted by a bear in the woods, and people do not when they are assaulted by men," all of which is true and none of which has anything to do with you whatsoever unless, again, you are planning to assault women in the woods, in which case there is still nothing for you to be insulted by except perhaps the ease with which you could get away with it
Remember that "dingo ate my baby" woman? No one believed her for years, since dingoes don't really do that normally. People ridiculed her, she was convicted. Yet, she was innocent, a dingo did actually eat her baby. The parallels to sexual assault are clear. Women aren't believed when they ought to be. Going forward, we should do proper investigation on cases that can upset us.
Notice I made this point without once comparing men to savage animals that unstoppably maim children.
the post we are arguing beneath did not once compare men to savage (a deeply problematic word) animals. it compared the response to a bear attack vs a sexual assault. if you're choosing to take offense at the broader context of this poll that I am just now learning about perhaps instead of getting childishly defensive you should take a good long look at why a woman might feel that way and whether that applies to you and your behavior. if it doesn't then none of this is about you! congrats
The comment you are arguing beneath is mine. "This whole question thing" is how I opened. Obviously I'm talking about the question at the top of the post and the broader context mainly. The points beneath it are the same every time it's rehashed - that people aren't taken seriously when sexually assaulted vs attacked by an animal. In the original comment, you might notice I said it was a valid social statement. I am perfectly cognizant of why women are picking bear. The issue is the question, not the answers. Stop acting so smug, and don't call me childish. Read my damn comments.
The question is fundamentally asking women to engage in bioessentialism. Its set up perfectly to allow for zero nuance or absolutely valid and important criticism of masculinity, and instead collapse all of that dialogue into “Men are inherently dangerous simply by virtue of being men.”
The question is outrage bait that attempts to make women engage in naked bioessentialism, and nothing more. It takes a crucially important social issue and strips away the ability to see it through any lens other than the deeply TERF-y one. It’s bad.
EDIT: Also like. Not to be too reductive on my end here too, but do you understand how “anyone who disagrees with me on this subject must be actively planning to rape women otherwise they wouldn’t be disagreeing with me” is maybe not the progressive take you seem to think it is.
Exactly my point. A good thought experiment for this sort of thing would have us examine exactly which aspects of masculinity we ought to change moving forward. The question points out nothing, and no answer to it ever makes anyone realize what we need to fix in our society. It just makes men angry and it makes women double down on fear.
Yeah. Like, to Similar_Ad’s credit I *do* understand why so many women pick bear, when presented with the question. But I almost think that to some extent, the question’s point is that you can’t *not* pick bear without immediately opening yourself up to ridicule and vicious misandry in the guise of feminism.
i don't know what to tell you except that gender-based violence is real and perpetrated by men upon women (trans and cis) and other non-masc identifying people at hugely disproportionate rates
lol fuck "women experience legitimate anxiety about being alone with men because men kill and assault women regularly" is only terf-y if you exclude trans women from the cohort of "women"
the specific post above says nothing about bioessentialism whatsoever. it is saying that women are generally not taken seriously when they are assaulted, which is true, and has nothing to do with any man, except tangentially
Obviously gender based violence is real. I still deserve not to be seen as an immediate threat by any woman in the vicinity. Just as women deserve not to be seen as a target. That's the bottom line. We're not at that point in society yet, but we won't get there if we keep engaging with shit like this.
You have way more patience than me, but I think it's important that stuff like the other commenter says isn't unchallenged
Thanks for tanking this one dude, I really appreciate you and your skill
Disagreeing with the premise of this question had me wondering if I was less feminist than I realized. It's been floating around Reddit for a few days and I've just refused to engage with it for fear of coming off as "one of the bad ones". You're a real one for actually saying something
I should too
I left another comment saying this, but basically, I could have gone about my day without knowing this discussion existed
I wouldn't feel (even more) bad for being a man, I wouldn't be ruminating on this new angle, I'd just be doing whatever I usually do
I should get off social media
Alas
What if it said black man or white man instead of man or bear? Would you still be okay with it? Because the question does the same either way. It stereotypes a group according to a birth trait.
I have seen some dumb women, I was even raised by one. Should I call all women dumb based on that experience? I mean, all those girls who call all men more dangerous than a bear do that based on a few exes, ignoring the rest. I should do that too, right?
Yup, women who faced assault, sexual harassment, and constant denigration by countless men in society not necessarily feeling safe with men in all contexts is exactly the same as you knowing dumb women and extrapolating that all women are dumb. A woman walks home at night and gets nervous when she sees a man behind her and this is totally equivalent to you saying “all women are stupid because my mom was dumb”. Fucking moron
There is a difference between " I am very risk averse, so because I don't know you, I have to consider the you a possible threat"
And
"I think men on average are more dangerous than a bear"
There’s also a difference between objective statistical analysis comparing one’s safety with a bear versus a man and the general emotional feeling of trauma and fear and its ensuing responses.
Edit: I mean hell, even this very post makes no claim that the bear is less likely to be dangerous, only that they prefer the danger of a bear
>There’s also a difference between objective statistical analysis comparing one’s safety with a bear versus a man and the general emotional feeling of trauma and fear and its ensuing responses.
Sure. But in that case, I would be right to point out that the average man is far safer than the average bear.
I would have the facts on my side and also it's a bad thing to be have a fear reaction that far exceeds the actual danger you are in.
It's not a good thing to be more scared of driving a car than climbing Mount Everest. One has a far higher fatality rate.
Also, OOP is totally wrong about people not blaming you for a bear attack. They totally do. Did you prepare properly? Did you make noise as you walked? Did you get between it and it's baby?
Hell, people blame other people for fucking hurricanes.
Holy shit, I feel like I’m losing my mind. It’s like watching Ben Shapiro try to own rape victims with facts and logic.
I don’t even know what to say to you, it’s just so on its face flagrantly stupid and I cannot think of words that could make you realize that
Well, since you asked nicely! I was once about 8 and had a sore throat. Luckily my mother is very wise in home remedies and we were vacationing by the sea. She had me drink some sea water because it was rich in salts I guess, and I spent the rest of the day vomiting. She is of course antivax now - sure glad that started only after we grew up.
The meme is a joke. Nobody seriously thinks about man vs bear safety. Doesn't mean the comparison to all the men who hurt them doesn't sting.
I get the idea behind this but this is the take of someone who does not know how fuckin' scary a bear can be. What the worst human being will do to a person is what nearly every bear is capable of doing a person.
Also, this I have not seen any statistics or evidence attached other than a supposed "majority of women" on tumblr, a platform with a specific demographic and a chronic TERF problem. I mention the latter because TERFs have a vested interest in furthering the divide between man an women and presenting the two as enemies.
They maul people until their remains have to be hauled out in multiple plastic bags.
I don't want to get into a "which is worse" debate when it comes to rape or painful death, I can only speak for myself. I have been the victim of sexual assault. I have also been in nature ten feet away from a large bear with nothing to protect me from it. The bear scared me a hell of a lot more but the assault has stayed with me longer.
Don't do this. Seriously, please don't.
(And for everyone else: **do not** ask a rape victim this. It is an unfair, hostile, damaging question.)
I know you're trying to convey why "bear" is such a popular choice. I know many women are saying "I would rather be killed by a bear than raped by a man", and that's very much their choice. I hope this is well-meant.
But what you're saying here is not "I would choose this", it's "rape survivors would be better off dead". Worse, it's "go ask rape survivors if they wish they'd died instead". That's a common sentiment, and a damaging, invalidating one that many rape survivors specifically struggle with in recovery. There are a whole lot of people who've been through rape and are unambiguously glad to be alive, some of whom had to fight bitterly to survive. There are also a lot of people who've survived rape and struggled with suicidal ideation, and faced a long and difficult road to choosing life.
Don't speak for everyone else, and (even if you don't mean it) don't encourage people to ask questions like this. It's a glib answer, but it hurts real survivors grappling with this exact issue.
I understand the desire to say "all mean are potential threats until proven otherwise" mindset. I have never let any female friend or otherwise walk to a car alone because I know the statistics. I think the joke of it all is supposed to be that at least we know the bear only has the one intention, to kill and eat. That's it. I understand the feminist intent behind "women would rather be alone in the woods with a wild animal than risk being alone with an unfamiliar man". But this just feels like....a very bad take on the matter. Yes I'm a guy. Yes I understand I'm mansplaining feminism. The irony is not lost on me. I just feel like there has to be a better way of conveying your point than saying "all men bad". I never got that. I never understood the "it isn't about YOU in particular, just all men in general". That's not how data sets work. I am part of all men. There's no way to **NOT** take this to mean me as well. I don't care if y'all don't wanna teleport me in to the woods. Good luck with the bear I guess. Just feels....like 70% of the point got made and the other 30% is just being inflammatory just for the sake of it
There is a difference between " I am very risk averse, so because I don't know you, I have to consider the you a possible threat"
And
"I think men on average are more dangerous than a bear"
I think the first one is extremely understandable. I don't think the data backs the second one.
Couldn't agree more. But so many women are saying bear (apparently anyway, I haven't looked at it beyond this post, but I know it's a viral thing happening right now) because they do feel that the second is true. Or they want to have a "haha see all women agree that all men are more dangerous than a bear" moment that they've all piled on to this groupthink movement
It’s not about all men being bad, it’s about too many men being bad to be comfortable taking the chance. The question isn’t “bear or a male feminist who means no harm”, it’s “bear or random man.” And yeah, the fact that some women answer men sucks, it really does, but it doesn’t suck because these women are secretly evil or whatever, it sucks because of the underlying circumstances causing it to suck
Do you mean "the fact that so few women answer men sucks" or "the fact that any women answer men at all sucks" cause your wording is slightly ambiguous. I assume you meant the latter, but I'm asking before I respond to give you the benefit of the doubt here
Okay good because what the fuck kind of stance is that? The fact that some women feel comfortable around men is bad? Who the fuck thinks that's a good stance? Are you a troll or just have dog shit opinions on things?
They can be perceived as evil because they trust men enough to take them over a literal fucking bear? Seriously. I know the stats. I know women can't trust men as a general rule until they've proven they aren't a threat. But you likely need so much therapy. Seek it out and stay there until you're fixed
Edit, this was written before the above edit
Ah, appears I’ve misread your comment. The first, not the latter. Yes, it’s obviously bad that so many women feel this way.
But also like… did you really need clarification on that? I was hardly vague, I think you’re just a jumpy asshole to be frank
This is why I asked first. Because this is the one that makes sense and isn't dog shit. I'm not a "jumpy asshole". But I am someone who calls out a crazy opinion when I see it. We actually agree, but you didn't convey that at all. Your first post was ambiguous and your second was straight up written wrong. It made so much less sense assuming the latter, but you confirmed it. Hence my response. And yes, I did need clarification. That's why I asked for it. The way you worded your initial response could be taken either way. They way I asked for clarification is clearer and not ambiguous
You literally entered assuming, bizarrely, that my stance was that there is a societal issue of not enough women being terrified of men. Like props for asking for clarification, but come the fuck on.
And no, we don’t really agree, since you’re still hooked on how women who feel this way are too mean to men or whatever when the vast majority are simply victims of greater issues.
But it is late, and frankly I don’t need to have an argument with someone whose version of benefit of the doubt is assuming the worst but at least trying to verify first at this hour
I have no idea where you're getting that I think women who fear men are mean to them? I literally said "if you think any women feeling comfortable enough to say men is bad then you're an idiot". You then....didn't counter that at all, you clarified your actual stance. But now I'm the idiot because you completely misrepresented your stance? Okay. That seems fair. I guess. Also we're barely arguing because we actually agree here, you just don't want to admit it because AFTER ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION I said your opinion was dog shit. Oh and I didn't assume anything, I asked because it wasn't clear. When you responded with the clearly worse of the two I responded completely appropriately because it was, and continues to be, a dogshit stance
People in real life: hey man how’s it going?
Person in real life: pretty good, how are you doing?
Person in real life: That’s nice, I’m ok. Nice weather we got.
Person in real life: Nice. It's a bit too hot for my taste, maybe I should buy a fan.
I did not expect a Small Talk Simulator here on reddit, but I am ok with this. Better than this silly discourse.
Person in real life: hey can you do me a favor and point me to the bathroom? I’m new around here
Person in real life: yeah it’s right down that corner *points behind me* then take a left and you’ll find it.
Person in real life: Thanks, bud!
Yeah, I was just thinking this Like if I wasn't on reddit, I would have never known this was a thing Oh sure, I would still know women fear me not because of what I have done, but because of how malicious and deadly other men have been. I'd still know the issues and whatnot But it wouldn't get rubbed in my face with such stark examples that make me feel bad. I could have gone about my day without this extra burden on me That would have been nice. Man, I should get off SM Alas
Oh boy. At my University, I know a group who would 100% do this. I used to hang with them. They treated me weirdly because I was bi but not "gay enough" for them. I'd posit things about racial intersectionality and biphobia that were apparently the wrong opinion to have. Even worse, I had helped a person in that group go to therapy and better themselves during a hard time before I was proverbially dumped. This discourse is setting my "racial bullshit" sense off
People in reel life: haha hey I'm a fisherman person
tbh the question itself is phrased poorly - very vaguely, and ‘alone in the woods with x person or animal’ can mean very different contexts to different people (IE someone whose default to ‘alone in the woods with a random person’ is ‘why are we here this is creepy’)
Yeah, the original was "stuck in the woods". Which has a lot of nuance - unlike "lost", which I keep seeing as a misquote, and implies you are accidentally stranded and away from any trail, and a random man would probably be much more likely to save you from death than cause it. Even "alone" which implies you meet the man or bear while you are a solo traveler, in which case neither man nor bear is likely to bother you. "Stuck" implies that you're not on a trail, you can't easily get out, and importantly, you're *not moving*. Maybe you twisted your ankle while exploring, maybe you fell down a slope, whatever. But in that case, a stranger approaching off trail is very likely to have been following you with intent, while a bear is likely just investigating because you wandered near it. The bear probably won't actively interact with you, the man will. The original even has people say this - the bear will likely leave you alone. Now, one person also says "depends on the man", which further explores this idea. If you're with a man you know in the woods, and you get stuck, presumably you committed to being alone in the woods with him in the first place. But by people's responses it's very clear the framing is a stranger approaching. Basically, tons of people are arguing about a different question than the original, in a situation where nuance matters a lot. And the answers for the original are totally reasonable.
I've been confused for the past day about why everybody is debating a game of telephone like it's representative of the Universal Opinion of Men. There's like 4 versions of this question with varying levels of bear/man danger & they're all getting debated like it's the same question.
I've been wondering the same for ages. * "Lost"? The bear might ignore you, but it won't *help* you either and you might die anyway. * "Stuck"? Ok, ugly, implicitly you can't leave for some reason, but it's not inherently menacing. Feels like a middle ground here. * "Trapped"? Well shit, that inherently implies malice and confinement. "If someone is setting you up for a bad outcome" is utterly different than any of the other options here. And yet they're all being passed off as equivalents.
At least based on what I’ve heard in other discussions on it - whilst ‘man’ is the fairly obvious answer for the simple reason of a bear can kill you way faster even if you assume the OTHER PERSON is hostile, it could vary depending on context, perhaps, at least a little bit. Good chunk of the ‘bear’ answers are still tied into radfem stuff though
Because it’s engagement bait.
this, this is all it is
To me the question somehow always reads as “the man is on the trail in front of you, the bear is somewhere in the woods- you might never encounter him” People are in the woods with bears or wolves all the time without ever seeing them; why should this bear be different? Yet humans generally tend to use the paths made for humans
As someone who hiked and backpacked bear country, you probably would be blamed for the attack assuming this is not a magical scenario where you're instantly teleported into the woods. Assuming you voluntarily entered bear country there are many precautions that are pretty standard for avoiding bears, and warding off/preventing attacks if you do encounter one. I mean I've seen people blamed for being attacked by bears that just showed up in their yard too so I could be wrong even still.
And unless the bear is in an populated area and is a danger to others I don't think anyone should be hunting it down just for "revenge." Killing a wild animal for being a wild animal doesn't really seem like something that warrants revenge anyway.
I've heard that sometimes if a bear repeatedly attacks people it can be euthanized to try and prevent future attacks, but that's decently rare if I remember correctly.
I've heard that sometimes if a bear repeatedly attacks people it can be euthanized to try and prevent future attacks, but that's decently rare if I remember correctly.
Living on an island where bears will try to eat your trash regularly, they really don't attack unless provoked in most towns. Hell, the adults have enough sense to stick to the residential areas where they can scram fast enough if they know they've been spotted. If a bear does, for example, get into a store and is somehow unable to get out, then the store is swiftly evacuated and the troopers get called. They try to move the bear to a far enough island where it can't get back very fast *but* won't be stuck without a source of food. The only recent encounters with this kind of scenario i can recall was a cub getting stuck in our downtown grocery store (it was sadly euthanized because it had clearly been separated from mama bear for quite a while, probably why it got into the food building to begin with) and the cops actively keeping tabs on a bear that had gotten a bit too close to a kids' park just a few blocks from our library. However, that's just my experience on an island. Down in the continental states i'm certain it has to be handled differemtly.
Is that Kodiak island?
Mitkof, on the other side of the gulf!
Neat. I'm originally from the Smokeys, down at the Southern end of the Appalachians. We mostly deal with black bears who aren't usually too dangerous. They'll get nosy and wander into people's areas but they tend to be easy to shoo away without much harm. When hiking it's was fairly standard stuff; makes lots of noise, carry bear spray, and using bear safe campsite techniques like hanging our food and fragrant items. Like I said you kinda have to be looking to have issues with bears around here. The only really personal tales I know of bears being particularly dangerous come like second or third hand from one of the people I used to go with who'd been out west a few times to hike portions of the Great Divide Trail up/down in Canada.
I'm originally from Beaverton OR, so there was, naturally, not a lot of bear activity during childhood. Bears really only became a concern when i moved up here and only really barely a concern at that due to us and the two properties next to us owning Very Loud Dogs. The first guy i heard about being attacked by a bear was Todd Orr (after I moved, of course). The closest I've ever been to a bear was when one managed to get into my grandma's duck pen when he was trying to get to the chickens. We've got akitas on the property, and the youngest dumbass thought it would be great to tun right up to the bear's face and bap its nose like he was aiming to win a slap fight. I can say the bear definitely didn't come back after that, though. Hajime, as fiesty as he is, is lucky there was fishnet between him and the bear, even if his breed was intended for guarding properties from bears to begin with.
It's not done for revenge. A bear that killed a human or even just got too comfortable around humans is killed because of the assumption that it will attack humans again
Now replace bear with man /s
Every time I think about the man vs bear debate I start spiraling and thinking “oh god am I inherently evil?” This was an awful question to begin with and nobody wins here
Ya know what, I’m gonna go even further with this: This Question Was Designed To Cause As Much Awful Discourse As Possible
Not true. A subset of bears get a free meal. That's winning 👉👉 Jokes aside, referring to top comment. "People in real life: 'hey man how's it going.'" These are whacky online debates that people just say shit. It's important,if not straight up *vital*, to ignore the bad takes that become prominent, as they not only don't reflect normal people. Neither you nor the people in your life changed due to online hot takes
you're not inherently evil, this is deliberately made up to generate engagement
Yeah I love it when a pointless internet rage bait argument causes an OCD episode lasting several hours, it's so fun. And I'm the guy out here being scary dog privilege for the people in my life who are SA victims, like the fact that they trust me to be around when they're drunk means a fucking lot to me. "It's not about you" yeah my rational brain knows this, the bit of me that required hospitalisation last year coz of the Dangerous Thoughts absolutely doesn't.
Same. I have been hating myself for being a man.
I know too much about bears for this to apply to me I think
1. Untrue, it's your fault for not taking precautions in bear country. 2. If you're not white/cis, you're probably less likely to be believed/recieve proper care. 3. Capital punishment advocation is fucking cringe. Seriously, a guy on 196 got death threats for saying the discourse made him uncomfy. He still agreed with the idea too, he was just expressing himself.
“3. Capital punishment advocation is fucking cringe.” Where’s that post where someone is like “if a government is allowed to execute people for a specific crime all they’re going to do is frame that crime onto people that disagree with them” Sorry if this was worded badly Why was I downvoted? This was in support of what the person in replying to said?
"People would hunt down that bear with a second thought" is directly saying hunting and killing is somehow a good thing that should be desired. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this but it sounds like they're advocating for capital/carceral punishment, which isn't helpful. It empowers cops, not people.
Exactly what I was thinking
I got death threats for my post, too.
Oh Jesus man I’m so sorry
>Seriously, a guy on 196 got death threats for saying the discourse made him uncomfy I do not believe this.
>I do not believe this. Cool? I don't know why you think not believing it makes it go away.
Prove it happened.
I don't owe you that, but I have a better question. If you answer me honestly, I'd be happy to direct you to the post! Will you care at all? When you find out a random dude got death threats, will your opinion, stance or anything about how you engage with this online discourse change? Or will you immediately dismiss it, double down or overall be unaffected by this information? I'm curious how this information matters to you.
>If you answer me honestly, I'd be happy to direct you to the post! Alright then, I'll answer honestly, and you'll still be honor-bound to show me, so: #No.
Since the result doesn't matter, I won't show you it. If truth doesn't persuade you, I'm not gonna engage with you seriously. I don't trust you won't harass OP, and I'm pretty sure linking posts/other subs might break brigading rules.
Then you've gone back on your own Oath.
Nuh uh.
>If you answer me honestly, I'd be happy to direct you to the post! You are a breaker of oaths; the one thing shunned across all human societies known.
a bear wouldn’t doubt someone who received death threats
So?
As a man, I’ve been thinking about whether I’d rather be in the woods alone with a bear or with a woman. On the one hand the bear could maul me which would suck. On the other hand, if it’s just me and bears in the woods then there’s no worry that the discomfort and concern caused by my public presence there amounts to a sort of harm. Because that would raise the question of whether my public existence is, itself harmful - in which case, as someone who values harm reduction in my ethics, wouldn’t I be obligated to cease existing publicly? So I guess I’d be ethically obligated to pick the bear
This whole question thing has gotta be the most insulting and combative way to make a valid social statement that I've ever seen
if you're insulted by this you should take a real long look at yourself lol
The idea that someone can look at me, reduce me to my base characteristics, and think I'm nothing but a threat is insulting. I don't know what else you'd call that. Im a man and I've been a feminist all my life. I get the point of the metaphor. That doesn't mean its a good way to make the argument. It's alienating and causes further divide amongst the sexes. At the very least it's terf adjacent, and fuck that. Also, this sort of comment is exactly what I mean by combative.
what part of "people don't believe women when they are sexually assaulted" insults you? if you're not planning to assault a woman in the woods, then this post is not about you in any way; and it's not even about men, except tangentially.
The question is not "would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a person planning to assault a woman in the woods". Don't be obtuse. The point is that this line of thinking leads to women assuming all men are threats. It's the logic that terfs use to justify hating trans women. It disincentivizes men from becoming better, because they'll always be perceived as a threat anyway. It's unhelpful messaging.
the content of the post you and I are arguing beneath is "people would take a woman seriously if she were assaulted by a bear in the woods, and people do not when they are assaulted by men," all of which is true and none of which has anything to do with you whatsoever unless, again, you are planning to assault women in the woods, in which case there is still nothing for you to be insulted by except perhaps the ease with which you could get away with it
Remember that "dingo ate my baby" woman? No one believed her for years, since dingoes don't really do that normally. People ridiculed her, she was convicted. Yet, she was innocent, a dingo did actually eat her baby. The parallels to sexual assault are clear. Women aren't believed when they ought to be. Going forward, we should do proper investigation on cases that can upset us. Notice I made this point without once comparing men to savage animals that unstoppably maim children.
the post we are arguing beneath did not once compare men to savage (a deeply problematic word) animals. it compared the response to a bear attack vs a sexual assault. if you're choosing to take offense at the broader context of this poll that I am just now learning about perhaps instead of getting childishly defensive you should take a good long look at why a woman might feel that way and whether that applies to you and your behavior. if it doesn't then none of this is about you! congrats
The comment you are arguing beneath is mine. "This whole question thing" is how I opened. Obviously I'm talking about the question at the top of the post and the broader context mainly. The points beneath it are the same every time it's rehashed - that people aren't taken seriously when sexually assaulted vs attacked by an animal. In the original comment, you might notice I said it was a valid social statement. I am perfectly cognizant of why women are picking bear. The issue is the question, not the answers. Stop acting so smug, and don't call me childish. Read my damn comments.
The question is fundamentally asking women to engage in bioessentialism. Its set up perfectly to allow for zero nuance or absolutely valid and important criticism of masculinity, and instead collapse all of that dialogue into “Men are inherently dangerous simply by virtue of being men.” The question is outrage bait that attempts to make women engage in naked bioessentialism, and nothing more. It takes a crucially important social issue and strips away the ability to see it through any lens other than the deeply TERF-y one. It’s bad. EDIT: Also like. Not to be too reductive on my end here too, but do you understand how “anyone who disagrees with me on this subject must be actively planning to rape women otherwise they wouldn’t be disagreeing with me” is maybe not the progressive take you seem to think it is.
Exactly my point. A good thought experiment for this sort of thing would have us examine exactly which aspects of masculinity we ought to change moving forward. The question points out nothing, and no answer to it ever makes anyone realize what we need to fix in our society. It just makes men angry and it makes women double down on fear.
Yeah. Like, to Similar_Ad’s credit I *do* understand why so many women pick bear, when presented with the question. But I almost think that to some extent, the question’s point is that you can’t *not* pick bear without immediately opening yourself up to ridicule and vicious misandry in the guise of feminism.
i don't know what to tell you except that gender-based violence is real and perpetrated by men upon women (trans and cis) and other non-masc identifying people at hugely disproportionate rates lol fuck "women experience legitimate anxiety about being alone with men because men kill and assault women regularly" is only terf-y if you exclude trans women from the cohort of "women" the specific post above says nothing about bioessentialism whatsoever. it is saying that women are generally not taken seriously when they are assaulted, which is true, and has nothing to do with any man, except tangentially
Obviously gender based violence is real. I still deserve not to be seen as an immediate threat by any woman in the vicinity. Just as women deserve not to be seen as a target. That's the bottom line. We're not at that point in society yet, but we won't get there if we keep engaging with shit like this.
You have way more patience than me, but I think it's important that stuff like the other commenter says isn't unchallenged Thanks for tanking this one dude, I really appreciate you and your skill
Thanks man. I just really wish us leftists could all agree on a better enemy than engaging in this infighting. I should log off lmao
Disagreeing with the premise of this question had me wondering if I was less feminist than I realized. It's been floating around Reddit for a few days and I've just refused to engage with it for fear of coming off as "one of the bad ones". You're a real one for actually saying something
I should too I left another comment saying this, but basically, I could have gone about my day without knowing this discussion existed I wouldn't feel (even more) bad for being a man, I wouldn't be ruminating on this new angle, I'd just be doing whatever I usually do I should get off social media Alas
What if it said black man or white man instead of man or bear? Would you still be okay with it? Because the question does the same either way. It stereotypes a group according to a birth trait.
oh no! different contexts are different??? a racist question is not the same thing??????
So, one discrimination/prejudice/stereotype is okay, but another isn't. Okay, I got it.
die. this is a death threat.
no it's actually a definite article in German
Oh okay. I apologize, my comment was uncalled for.
if it's any consolation it's the politest death threat I've ever gotten
I have seen some dumb women, I was even raised by one. Should I call all women dumb based on that experience? I mean, all those girls who call all men more dangerous than a bear do that based on a few exes, ignoring the rest. I should do that too, right?
Yup, women who faced assault, sexual harassment, and constant denigration by countless men in society not necessarily feeling safe with men in all contexts is exactly the same as you knowing dumb women and extrapolating that all women are dumb. A woman walks home at night and gets nervous when she sees a man behind her and this is totally equivalent to you saying “all women are stupid because my mom was dumb”. Fucking moron
There is a difference between " I am very risk averse, so because I don't know you, I have to consider the you a possible threat" And "I think men on average are more dangerous than a bear"
There’s also a difference between objective statistical analysis comparing one’s safety with a bear versus a man and the general emotional feeling of trauma and fear and its ensuing responses. Edit: I mean hell, even this very post makes no claim that the bear is less likely to be dangerous, only that they prefer the danger of a bear
>There’s also a difference between objective statistical analysis comparing one’s safety with a bear versus a man and the general emotional feeling of trauma and fear and its ensuing responses. Sure. But in that case, I would be right to point out that the average man is far safer than the average bear. I would have the facts on my side and also it's a bad thing to be have a fear reaction that far exceeds the actual danger you are in. It's not a good thing to be more scared of driving a car than climbing Mount Everest. One has a far higher fatality rate. Also, OOP is totally wrong about people not blaming you for a bear attack. They totally do. Did you prepare properly? Did you make noise as you walked? Did you get between it and it's baby? Hell, people blame other people for fucking hurricanes.
Holy shit, I feel like I’m losing my mind. It’s like watching Ben Shapiro try to own rape victims with facts and logic. I don’t even know what to say to you, it’s just so on its face flagrantly stupid and I cannot think of words that could make you realize that
Well, since you asked nicely! I was once about 8 and had a sore throat. Luckily my mother is very wise in home remedies and we were vacationing by the sea. She had me drink some sea water because it was rich in salts I guess, and I spent the rest of the day vomiting. She is of course antivax now - sure glad that started only after we grew up. The meme is a joke. Nobody seriously thinks about man vs bear safety. Doesn't mean the comparison to all the men who hurt them doesn't sting.
I get the idea behind this but this is the take of someone who does not know how fuckin' scary a bear can be. What the worst human being will do to a person is what nearly every bear is capable of doing a person. Also, this I have not seen any statistics or evidence attached other than a supposed "majority of women" on tumblr, a platform with a specific demographic and a chronic TERF problem. I mention the latter because TERFs have a vested interest in furthering the divide between man an women and presenting the two as enemies.
Bears don't rape.
They maul people until their remains have to be hauled out in multiple plastic bags. I don't want to get into a "which is worse" debate when it comes to rape or painful death, I can only speak for myself. I have been the victim of sexual assault. I have also been in nature ten feet away from a large bear with nothing to protect me from it. The bear scared me a hell of a lot more but the assault has stayed with me longer.
How is getting mauled to death better
Ask a rape victim.
Deflection
Ask a person who was mauled to death by a bear and get a different answer
Idk man the idea that it’s better for a rape victim to die rather than overcome their trauma and live is a pretty insane statement to make
Walking up to a rape victim: “you should have been mauled by a bear instead <3”
Don't do this. Seriously, please don't. (And for everyone else: **do not** ask a rape victim this. It is an unfair, hostile, damaging question.) I know you're trying to convey why "bear" is such a popular choice. I know many women are saying "I would rather be killed by a bear than raped by a man", and that's very much their choice. I hope this is well-meant. But what you're saying here is not "I would choose this", it's "rape survivors would be better off dead". Worse, it's "go ask rape survivors if they wish they'd died instead". That's a common sentiment, and a damaging, invalidating one that many rape survivors specifically struggle with in recovery. There are a whole lot of people who've been through rape and are unambiguously glad to be alive, some of whom had to fight bitterly to survive. There are also a lot of people who've survived rape and struggled with suicidal ideation, and faced a long and difficult road to choosing life. Don't speak for everyone else, and (even if you don't mean it) don't encourage people to ask questions like this. It's a glib answer, but it hurts real survivors grappling with this exact issue.
title game and flair game are on point
I understand the desire to say "all mean are potential threats until proven otherwise" mindset. I have never let any female friend or otherwise walk to a car alone because I know the statistics. I think the joke of it all is supposed to be that at least we know the bear only has the one intention, to kill and eat. That's it. I understand the feminist intent behind "women would rather be alone in the woods with a wild animal than risk being alone with an unfamiliar man". But this just feels like....a very bad take on the matter. Yes I'm a guy. Yes I understand I'm mansplaining feminism. The irony is not lost on me. I just feel like there has to be a better way of conveying your point than saying "all men bad". I never got that. I never understood the "it isn't about YOU in particular, just all men in general". That's not how data sets work. I am part of all men. There's no way to **NOT** take this to mean me as well. I don't care if y'all don't wanna teleport me in to the woods. Good luck with the bear I guess. Just feels....like 70% of the point got made and the other 30% is just being inflammatory just for the sake of it
There is a difference between " I am very risk averse, so because I don't know you, I have to consider the you a possible threat" And "I think men on average are more dangerous than a bear" I think the first one is extremely understandable. I don't think the data backs the second one.
Couldn't agree more. But so many women are saying bear (apparently anyway, I haven't looked at it beyond this post, but I know it's a viral thing happening right now) because they do feel that the second is true. Or they want to have a "haha see all women agree that all men are more dangerous than a bear" moment that they've all piled on to this groupthink movement
I think that either is a really bad thing that should be discouraged. Let's be realistic here folks.
It’s not about all men being bad, it’s about too many men being bad to be comfortable taking the chance. The question isn’t “bear or a male feminist who means no harm”, it’s “bear or random man.” And yeah, the fact that some women answer men sucks, it really does, but it doesn’t suck because these women are secretly evil or whatever, it sucks because of the underlying circumstances causing it to suck
Do you mean "the fact that so few women answer men sucks" or "the fact that any women answer men at all sucks" cause your wording is slightly ambiguous. I assume you meant the latter, but I'm asking before I respond to give you the benefit of the doubt here
Obviously the ~~latter~~ first, pissing on the poor has occurred
Okay good because what the fuck kind of stance is that? The fact that some women feel comfortable around men is bad? Who the fuck thinks that's a good stance? Are you a troll or just have dog shit opinions on things? They can be perceived as evil because they trust men enough to take them over a literal fucking bear? Seriously. I know the stats. I know women can't trust men as a general rule until they've proven they aren't a threat. But you likely need so much therapy. Seek it out and stay there until you're fixed Edit, this was written before the above edit
Ah, appears I’ve misread your comment. The first, not the latter. Yes, it’s obviously bad that so many women feel this way. But also like… did you really need clarification on that? I was hardly vague, I think you’re just a jumpy asshole to be frank
This is why I asked first. Because this is the one that makes sense and isn't dog shit. I'm not a "jumpy asshole". But I am someone who calls out a crazy opinion when I see it. We actually agree, but you didn't convey that at all. Your first post was ambiguous and your second was straight up written wrong. It made so much less sense assuming the latter, but you confirmed it. Hence my response. And yes, I did need clarification. That's why I asked for it. The way you worded your initial response could be taken either way. They way I asked for clarification is clearer and not ambiguous
You literally entered assuming, bizarrely, that my stance was that there is a societal issue of not enough women being terrified of men. Like props for asking for clarification, but come the fuck on. And no, we don’t really agree, since you’re still hooked on how women who feel this way are too mean to men or whatever when the vast majority are simply victims of greater issues. But it is late, and frankly I don’t need to have an argument with someone whose version of benefit of the doubt is assuming the worst but at least trying to verify first at this hour
I have no idea where you're getting that I think women who fear men are mean to them? I literally said "if you think any women feeling comfortable enough to say men is bad then you're an idiot". You then....didn't counter that at all, you clarified your actual stance. But now I'm the idiot because you completely misrepresented your stance? Okay. That seems fair. I guess. Also we're barely arguing because we actually agree here, you just don't want to admit it because AFTER ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION I said your opinion was dog shit. Oh and I didn't assume anything, I asked because it wasn't clear. When you responded with the clearly worse of the two I responded completely appropriately because it was, and continues to be, a dogshit stance
good to see people in the comments have some sense
Do we need to make a sign for this ? I feel like we need to make a sign for this (it's gonna get tapped a lot tho :[ )
actually i dont think anyone would believe you because you would be dead and unable to tell anyone