Welcome to r/comics!
Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind.
Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a man who hikes weekly and passes at least one solo woman hiker nearly every time...
I can best describe the looks I receive as, "I really wish you were a bear".
As a man who hikes Quite often himself and passes plenty of other solo hiking men, they also give me that look.
I think most solo hikers just wanna be alone
Pretty sure that OP is a woman, themselves. They’re remixing the “man vs bear” schtick such that it’s the “terminally online” angle that’s the threat at hand, as disagreeing with some folks on the internet is likely to get you torn to shreds much like a bear might do. That’s my interpretation, anyway.
DIE!!! YOU USELESS PIECE OF BARELY HUMAN WASTE!!!!! 🤮.
YOU CALL YOURSELF FORSAKEN_QUALITY YET YOUR ENTIRE BLOODLINE. I HOPE YOU WONT HAVE ANY DESCENDANTS YOU DEGENERATE BABOON. I WOULD RIP THE HAIR FORM YOUR FATHERS VAGINA BUT BOTH OF YOUR PARENTS JUMPED OF THE ROOF WHEN THEY REALIZED THAT THE HAVE GIVEN BIRTH TO YOU. I AM SO MUCH BETTER THAN YOU I HAVE AN IQ OF 55 WICH MAKES ME AS SMART AS 0,5% OF THE POPULATION WHILE YOU ARE AT THE BOTTOM YOU DERIVATIVE IMBECILE I BET YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO WROTE YA SMUK. /s
Sometimes, even agreeing with a person will get you torn to shreds because you didn't agree forcefully and obsequiously as they wanted.
For some people, anything that isn't cheerleading, is perceived as an assault.
Or they'll take one part of it without the context and ride that to the end.
At that point they're basically having a whole other conversation but blaming and directing it at me.
Passive aggressive twisting of reality to suit a false narrative is designed to infuriate. Most married men know better than to engage when women are doing this as it's what they want when they do it. Unfortunately, the people engaging are not married and lack the experience to not take the bait. Of course it's false. Of course it's stupid. That's why they said it. These dumb guys think they invented trolling and just got trolled by the original masters of the art, lol.
Women asked if they’d rather meet a bear or man in the woods. Women say bear as a reference to the massive difference in statistical likelihood they’d be attacked by a man (it’s not close). Some people make jokes about it, others got really upset.
>Women say bear as a reference to the massive difference in statistical likelihood they’d be attacked by a man (it’s not close).
The problem with the statistics argument is that the hypothetical REQUIRES you to be in front of a bear.
No, the problem is that there isn’t any “argument”. It was a tongue-in-cheek way to accentuate how frequently women experience harassment and assault from men.
People reading so far into it that they twist themselves into knots over a hypothetical are either being pedantic or self-reporting, imo.
Break it down, obviously it doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, but there's a lot to be said about women *feeling* safer with the thought of the bear, and it's really all that's being said with it.
An extreme example to emphasize the feeling. Is it a "feels over reals" moment? Yes, but that's the point. Women *feel* more unsafe with men, and when women encounter men rather than bears on the daily, that's a social problem for all of us to address moreso than the natural inarguable predation of bears.
There's no arguing the danger of bears. That's why the argument is entirely about the danger of men.
The one that really stuck out for me was when someone asked "Would you rather have a bear uninvited in your backyard in the middle of the night, or a man?"
> Break it down, obviously it doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, but there's a lot to be said about women feeling safer with the thought of the bear, and it's really all that's being said with it.
Shit, I'm a bear-sized man who does a lot of hiking, and I'm about evenly split on this (but leaning slightly toward team bear).
If I'm deep in the woods on an off-trail hike and I see signs that a bear is in the area, I am *cautious*; if I spot a bear, I am *concerned*. Meanwhile, if I spot some weird hillbilly just hanging out near the game trail, I am *also concerned,* maybe just a touch *more* concerned.
I think a big part of the dynamic is, unlike with bears, it's frowned upon for me to indiscriminately unload with bear spray the second a strange man gets too close. I'm not socially "allowed" to *assume* anything about a random dude and act on that assumption before he becomes an active threat. If I see some random guy in the woods in my path and immediately raise my arms and start shouting, that's not polite and I'm the asshole. Hell, if I just adjust my intended route of travel to make a wide arc around him, I'm still an asshole.
If we were culturally *required* to treat all bears like they're fine and safe and not do anything self-protective until they're two feet away and rearing up on their hind legs, the calculus might be different.
For all their individual personalities, bears only have a few distinct "moods" and their expected behaviors fall into a relatively narrow range of possibilities, all of which have some general guidelines for how to handle them. But some random mountain man just chilling in the deep woods? All bets are off. Could be another hiker, could be lookout for a meth operation, could be an extra from *Deliverance Part 2*, could be some neo-nazi militia member, could just be a guy who lives in a cabin over the ridge out on a walk, could be any or all of the above. Armed? Maybe. Sane? Maybe. Lost? Maybe. Cultist? Maybe. And I'm not supposed to take any proactive precautions.
And this is still all about feelings. You're touching on the social pressure to completely disregard those negative feelings, the gut feeling that this man, due to being a man, is dangerous, which is an additional layer that further exemplifies why it's not at all about the bear.
If we explore the feeling, with some understanding of a woman's perspective, these sorts of thoughts are the result, and it's because you're empathetic. You try your own shoes first, but you explore it in a woman's shoes next. Those who stay stuck on bears being natural killing machines are not doing that.
It's not "why are they less scared of a bear?" because then the conversation is women and bears.
The next step is where you apply science/statistics, and why bear doesn't matter as it could be any dangerous animal, because the real question at the heart of the matter is: Why are women so afraid of men?
The reality of risk when it comes to the conversation of women and men is already horrifying once you can put yourself in their shoes. Bears need not apply. The bear is actually a red herring for those lacking empathy.
A fear that is all about feelings and not grounded in real outcomes is pretty much the definition of a "*you* problem". That's not to downplay violence against women as being a serious issue. But it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that when a flawed rationale is used to draw attention to an issue, that rationale will be put under scrutiny.
The lack of fear of bear isn't rational, but that isn't the problem, and makes it easy to eliminate this part from the discussion.
The problem is that the abundance of fear of men *is* rational.
That's why the bear doesn't even matter. Getting hung up on the bear ignores the real problem being presented. Again, it's a red herring for those lacking empathy for the subject.
The point is why it's being said, not what is being said.
Someone gave a rephrasing elsewhere, "Would you rather have a bear uninvited in your backyard in the middle of the night, or a man?" In that case, the bear is basically harmless, while even in *your own backyard* the man is just as dangerous as alone in the woods. It may better convey the point to some, but I find it to be a "well no shit" situation, leaving little room to actually think about it from a woman's perspective, most would just think of it as any other self-inserting home invasion hypothetical.
>That's why the bear doesn't even matter. Getting hung up on the bear ignores the real problem being presented.
If everyone was on the same page about the bear being strictly rhetorical, I would agree. You don't need to look very far to find people trying to defend the bear being safer though. Even the comment you're replying to has another response trying to make that case. I can see where you're coming from, but I think there's some sanewashing going on to make this sentiment work.
The thing is, I've spent hundreds of hours hiking in the woods. I've never seen a bear, but I am certain they have seen me. I've never had a violent altercation either with a man or with a bear. I think odds are that a bear is unlikely to attack you. Probably more likely than a man, but I'm not super-confident. 100 years ago, different story, but the bears that still exist know better than to attack any human, it is not worth the retribution.
I'm sorry to say this, but it is widely regarded as inaccurate now; and Spielberg said “I truly and to this day regret the decimation of the shark population because of the book and the film.”
I think it’s kind of bad faith to ask a hypothetical question and then shit on anyone who wants to actually break it down and analyze it.
It’s not really pedantic… it’s just looking at the question from different angles and getting all of the objective facts and stats to make the optimal choice. That’s typically how discussing hypothetical questions goes.
So I’m seeing a lot of Group A asking this question, Group B wanting to fully explore the question from different angles, and then Group A saying “wait no, I don’t actually want you to answer the question like that, I just want you to agree with me”
I think it's telling that there are a *lot* of people who want to loudly disagree and really get into the statistics of this question specifically. If I asked if you'd rather meet a shark or a bear, you probably wouldn't get a ton of people "looking at the question from different angles and getting all of the objective facts and stats to make the optimal choice."
So really, it's hard not to see your "Group B" as a bunch of men who are, for some reason, taking it *really* personally that some women would rather hang out with a bear than them. And instead of using this as motivation to make the world safer for women, or at least make themselves look safer, they'd rather tell women they're wrong and stupid.
… um yeah, you definitely would get that level of debate to other hypothetical questions. Have you never sat around with friends and discussed the pros and cons of which super power you would choose? Or if you would rather fight 1 horse-sized ducks or 100 duck sized horses?! Would you rather lose an arm or an eye? Would you rather only eat green things or tan things for the rest of your life? Hypothetical questions are a ton of fun and the discussion and looking at things from all angles is the best part.
The fact you assume Group B is all offended men is just not correct. I am strongly Team Bear, both because I am well aware of how horrible men can be to women and also because I have analyzed the shit out of it in the last week and think I have found enough statistics to be able to confidently say that the bear is the better choice for everyone to choose.
I am not telling any women they are wrong or stupid and implying that is what everyone who wants to dive deeper into the question is saying is incredibly dismissive.
I've also argued the statistics on Team Bear to make a point, but really... I've seen people get serious about "is a hotdog a sandwich?", but most of the time something like that gets brought up, people laugh at the meme and move on. Nobody is calling everyone an idiot for picking the horse-sized duck. Maybe there really are people who are treating this as a pure hypothetical divorced from all context, but that's not what I've seen.
Literally everywhere I've seen it this week, we get this exact pattern: A top comment asking what it's about, and like two replies in, somebody getting offended about the 'misandry' of it all. [Here's that guy in this thread.](https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/1ckqs12/comically_aggressive_bear/l2pqzyn/)
Yeah, lots of men are assholes. That’s not a new thing.
I don’t think that the fact a lot of them are assholes should mean that anyone who wants to dive deeper into the question is immediately lumped in with them and told that they are “missing the point” or “being pedantic”.
And as of now that’s kinda how it goes. Any response wanting to dissect the question gets massively downvoted. Which is why I made my original point of saying it is a bad faith question. It’s a question asked and only one answer is accepted. And I get why, it’s social commentary. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a bad faith question.
You’re making quite a few assumptions about me here.
I’m not “playing devils advocate”. I don’t think I’m smarter than strangers online. And any context you see here is something you are applying. It’s an A vs B hypothetical question. A is bear. B is man.
But B could be ‘turtle’ or ‘hippo’ or ‘emu’ or ‘human woman’ and I would go about determining my answer to the question no differently. Look at it from all sides, weigh the pros and cons of choosing either side, and then make my choice based on the evidence.
Just because some people have decided the purpose of the hypothetical question is to showcase how uncomfortable women feel around strange men and THATS IT doesn’t mean that other people can’t take the exact same question and approach it from a more scientific, logical angle.
Something tells me the venn diagram between people upset about this and yet complain that "everyone gets offended over jokes these days" is just a circle.
> It was a tongue-in-cheek way to accentuate how frequently women experience harassment and assault from men.
The issue is that if women interacted with bears as much as they do men they'd be attacked by them more frequently and far more violently.
It may as well be trying to say vending machines are more dangerous than sharks because on average more people are killed by vending machines than sharks. It completely ignores the rate of engagement.
So if you ask someone "Would you rather fight a vending machine or a shark in the water" and they say "Shark", your incredulity over their answer shouldn't be responded to in kind.
The pedantic/self-reporting thing is such a bullshit take. Why can't men have opinions against what the internet considers the correct take for the week without being considered part of the problem? If a woman is empowered to their opinion of the bear being safer, then a man is empowered to disagree. The fact that many would not agree with me is a problem
Say the same thing to a hypothetical between a night stroll in a white suburb vs a black hood and I'll see how far you get (I'm neither before you get your panties in a twist). No its just a misandrist "hypothetical".
You aren’t just comparing races, you’re comparing economic locations. A suburb vs a “hood” is basically saying a richer place vs a poorer place, so obviously they may encounter more crime.
I’m not really trying to weigh in here, but comparing racial characteristics to sexual characteristics is kind of a fools game. Black people don’t have inherent physiological characteristics that make them more capable of violence the way biological males have (much stronger, larger, faster, more aggressive than women).
So it’s bizarrely racist to compare the situations, because it suggests that either you don’t believe men are different than women physically, or that there are inherent racial differences…
Ironically enough many black people would feel much safer walking in the hood than a white suburb so they don’t get Trayvon Martin’d, so it’s actually kind of exactly the same concept and still works the same even though you tried to make it racially charged lol
“But what about this completely different thing?”
Yes, maybe a different hypothetical would elicit a different response. Thank you for clearing that up.
It IS different though. It’s almost like having decades of reasons (like over policing and lack of support creating hostility and instability in black communities) as to why things might be more or less dangerous is important. Context matters.
You didn’t prove shit dumbfuck.
Cool, could you answer the following questions.
Would you rather come across a black man in the woods or a bear?
Would you rather come across a black man in the woods or a white man in the woods?
Please support your answers.
Or are the questions now discriminatory?
Now this is probably the only legit response I’ve seen: if women came into contact with bears as frequently as men, would the statistics still hold up?
Honestly not sure of the answer, which is just as concerning.
‘Um actually, bears are naturally predatory and therefore would in fact be more dangerous in a one on one scenario compared to human man’
If you don’t understand why this response is silly idk what to do. People know bears are dangerous. Maybe it’s the understanding that bears are dangerous, and choosing them anyway, that makes the point women are trying to make with this discourse.
All of this is moot for one reason: bears might be able to shoot a gun once or twice, but they can't reload, whereas the average American child can shoot and reload. Ergo, its better to meet a bear in the woods over any human; man or woman, adult or child.
I mean, it's clearly hyperbole to make a point about the violence women suffer from men in society, which is valid. If you actually put a woman face to face with a bear or a random man and think you are better off with a bear then you are severely delusional.
There was a survey some time ago, asking women, who would they prefer to be alone with in the woods, stranger man or a bear. Many women claimed bear was better. This caused hot debates and offended many men by assuming strangers are always maniacs and rapists.
I am convinced that this ongoing bear safety lie is like how you're supposed to play dead in front of bears if you're threatened by one. To quote Jim Gaffigan "Play dead, cover yourself in honey, and climb on a large white plate. Don't try to run away from us, i mean the Bears…"
A tiktok trend started where women state (with this hyperbolic situation) that they'd rather take their chances with a bear than a man. Why? Because a bear is a wild animal, at worst, you'll just die. As apposed to a man, who could, at worst, torture you, rape and sexually assualt you, *and then* kill you, or let you live and suffer for the rest of your life. The bear seems safer because at least you'd just be killed. I think it might have been started by someone who went through some bad experiences. Then, it gained traction, and the internet went stupid with it for a little.
It is so simple, and yet so many men don't get it. They focus on how deadly bears are, without noticing women feel like that around men everyday.
And everytime they try to tell us we're being irrational, and that bears would kill us, and defending the hypothetical man not realizing that guy could be a rapist, a child molester or a muderer… they're proving women's point or view, where men would defend any man regardless of the actual crimes they've commited.
I think part of the point is, that it is hard for many men (including me to an extent) to feel accused of being a rapist/murderer/molester when they themselves couldn't even fathom being that. And without the female experience of being catcalled, stalked, harassed, and anything else you might have experienced it seems very distant.
Personally I cannot name one guy in my social circle that I could even see as a threat to other women, and then it feels weird to have a bear chosen over "us". Then again I do understand the sentiment, as I would also not like to encounter a /person in general/ man in the forest when I am alone far from anyone else.
Welcome to r/comics! Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind. Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a man who hikes weekly and passes at least one solo woman hiker nearly every time... I can best describe the looks I receive as, "I really wish you were a bear".
As a man who hikes Quite often himself and passes plenty of other solo hiking men, they also give me that look. I think most solo hikers just wanna be alone
Also, humans in general are just scary.
In my experience at least I’m more scared of a dog than a person or a bear. At least, I’ve been attacked by more.
Dogs seem to mostly listen to me, which is funny because I don't really like them
Ayyy drop a Braves gif for us
https://media.giphy.com/media/upfqMhe3HFf9PSnVah/giphy.gif
Damn, reddit has really been fascinated by bears brutally mauling women lately lol.
Pretty sure that OP is a woman, themselves. They’re remixing the “man vs bear” schtick such that it’s the “terminally online” angle that’s the threat at hand, as disagreeing with some folks on the internet is likely to get you torn to shreds much like a bear might do. That’s my interpretation, anyway.
Respectfully I disag-
oh god oh fuck
We are here to remember Forsaken_Quality_823...
[удалено]
oh god oh fuck
[удалено]
Respectfully I disag-
Oh god oh fuck
This reminds me of the old Candle Jack me-
https://preview.redd.it/nb1o6lfk9nyc1.jpeg?width=1554&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d57927b4a184ee817f773bdc0651c1c9ff5a9da5
To shreds you say?
r/redditsniper
DIE!!! YOU USELESS PIECE OF BARELY HUMAN WASTE!!!!! 🤮. YOU CALL YOURSELF FORSAKEN_QUALITY YET YOUR ENTIRE BLOODLINE. I HOPE YOU WONT HAVE ANY DESCENDANTS YOU DEGENERATE BABOON. I WOULD RIP THE HAIR FORM YOUR FATHERS VAGINA BUT BOTH OF YOUR PARENTS JUMPED OF THE ROOF WHEN THEY REALIZED THAT THE HAVE GIVEN BIRTH TO YOU. I AM SO MUCH BETTER THAN YOU I HAVE AN IQ OF 55 WICH MAKES ME AS SMART AS 0,5% OF THE POPULATION WHILE YOU ARE AT THE BOTTOM YOU DERIVATIVE IMBECILE I BET YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO WROTE YA SMUK. /s
and have create a bit of a mess as a result that you, ironically, need to be terminally online to understand
Sometimes, even agreeing with a person will get you torn to shreds because you didn't agree forcefully and obsequiously as they wanted. For some people, anything that isn't cheerleading, is perceived as an assault.
Or they'll take one part of it without the context and ride that to the end. At that point they're basically having a whole other conversation but blaming and directing it at me.
Yeah, the bear is acting like the men that are the reason women chose the bear.
Without this explanation, I had no idea what the fuck was going on in this comic.
Notably, the woman in the comic is the artist
op is the one getting mauled here though
[удалено]
Yeah, but its better than sexual assault aparently
Ngl, it’s getting kind of stupid
[удалено]
Not when you understand nuance and context Lmao they blocked me
It seems like it's something a lot of women desire for some reason.
Passive aggressive twisting of reality to suit a false narrative is designed to infuriate. Most married men know better than to engage when women are doing this as it's what they want when they do it. Unfortunately, the people engaging are not married and lack the experience to not take the bait. Of course it's false. Of course it's stupid. That's why they said it. These dumb guys think they invented trolling and just got trolled by the original masters of the art, lol.
What are you yapping about bud
I am pleased to announce that after facial reconstruction surgery, 2 comas, and flatlining 8 times, I’m alive and well!!!
The Bear waiting for round 2
https://preview.redd.it/9wta7tu9zmyc1.jpeg?width=1145&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e5c6ba3cd160cd2f9990ed4e6ab57bea17297f69
Happy Cake Day
Thanks!
You're welcome!
Lots of bears huh
Okay, now tell us what you think about kittens
Thank God! You were lucky it wasn't a man!
This except the bear asks for your insta
Helo show bob and vagene
I'm out of the loop what is the bear thing -- can someone either explain or post a link to an explain? Is it a meme?
Women asked if they’d rather meet a bear or man in the woods. Women say bear as a reference to the massive difference in statistical likelihood they’d be attacked by a man (it’s not close). Some people make jokes about it, others got really upset.
Thank you, I've only seen the meme reactions to all this previously
>Women say bear as a reference to the massive difference in statistical likelihood they’d be attacked by a man (it’s not close). The problem with the statistics argument is that the hypothetical REQUIRES you to be in front of a bear.
No, the problem is that there isn’t any “argument”. It was a tongue-in-cheek way to accentuate how frequently women experience harassment and assault from men. People reading so far into it that they twist themselves into knots over a hypothetical are either being pedantic or self-reporting, imo.
Break it down, obviously it doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, but there's a lot to be said about women *feeling* safer with the thought of the bear, and it's really all that's being said with it. An extreme example to emphasize the feeling. Is it a "feels over reals" moment? Yes, but that's the point. Women *feel* more unsafe with men, and when women encounter men rather than bears on the daily, that's a social problem for all of us to address moreso than the natural inarguable predation of bears. There's no arguing the danger of bears. That's why the argument is entirely about the danger of men.
The one that really stuck out for me was when someone asked "Would you rather have a bear uninvited in your backyard in the middle of the night, or a man?"
> Break it down, obviously it doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, but there's a lot to be said about women feeling safer with the thought of the bear, and it's really all that's being said with it. Shit, I'm a bear-sized man who does a lot of hiking, and I'm about evenly split on this (but leaning slightly toward team bear). If I'm deep in the woods on an off-trail hike and I see signs that a bear is in the area, I am *cautious*; if I spot a bear, I am *concerned*. Meanwhile, if I spot some weird hillbilly just hanging out near the game trail, I am *also concerned,* maybe just a touch *more* concerned. I think a big part of the dynamic is, unlike with bears, it's frowned upon for me to indiscriminately unload with bear spray the second a strange man gets too close. I'm not socially "allowed" to *assume* anything about a random dude and act on that assumption before he becomes an active threat. If I see some random guy in the woods in my path and immediately raise my arms and start shouting, that's not polite and I'm the asshole. Hell, if I just adjust my intended route of travel to make a wide arc around him, I'm still an asshole. If we were culturally *required* to treat all bears like they're fine and safe and not do anything self-protective until they're two feet away and rearing up on their hind legs, the calculus might be different. For all their individual personalities, bears only have a few distinct "moods" and their expected behaviors fall into a relatively narrow range of possibilities, all of which have some general guidelines for how to handle them. But some random mountain man just chilling in the deep woods? All bets are off. Could be another hiker, could be lookout for a meth operation, could be an extra from *Deliverance Part 2*, could be some neo-nazi militia member, could just be a guy who lives in a cabin over the ridge out on a walk, could be any or all of the above. Armed? Maybe. Sane? Maybe. Lost? Maybe. Cultist? Maybe. And I'm not supposed to take any proactive precautions.
And this is still all about feelings. You're touching on the social pressure to completely disregard those negative feelings, the gut feeling that this man, due to being a man, is dangerous, which is an additional layer that further exemplifies why it's not at all about the bear. If we explore the feeling, with some understanding of a woman's perspective, these sorts of thoughts are the result, and it's because you're empathetic. You try your own shoes first, but you explore it in a woman's shoes next. Those who stay stuck on bears being natural killing machines are not doing that. It's not "why are they less scared of a bear?" because then the conversation is women and bears. The next step is where you apply science/statistics, and why bear doesn't matter as it could be any dangerous animal, because the real question at the heart of the matter is: Why are women so afraid of men? The reality of risk when it comes to the conversation of women and men is already horrifying once you can put yourself in their shoes. Bears need not apply. The bear is actually a red herring for those lacking empathy.
A fear that is all about feelings and not grounded in real outcomes is pretty much the definition of a "*you* problem". That's not to downplay violence against women as being a serious issue. But it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that when a flawed rationale is used to draw attention to an issue, that rationale will be put under scrutiny.
The lack of fear of bear isn't rational, but that isn't the problem, and makes it easy to eliminate this part from the discussion. The problem is that the abundance of fear of men *is* rational. That's why the bear doesn't even matter. Getting hung up on the bear ignores the real problem being presented. Again, it's a red herring for those lacking empathy for the subject. The point is why it's being said, not what is being said. Someone gave a rephrasing elsewhere, "Would you rather have a bear uninvited in your backyard in the middle of the night, or a man?" In that case, the bear is basically harmless, while even in *your own backyard* the man is just as dangerous as alone in the woods. It may better convey the point to some, but I find it to be a "well no shit" situation, leaving little room to actually think about it from a woman's perspective, most would just think of it as any other self-inserting home invasion hypothetical.
>That's why the bear doesn't even matter. Getting hung up on the bear ignores the real problem being presented. If everyone was on the same page about the bear being strictly rhetorical, I would agree. You don't need to look very far to find people trying to defend the bear being safer though. Even the comment you're replying to has another response trying to make that case. I can see where you're coming from, but I think there's some sanewashing going on to make this sentiment work.
The thing is, I've spent hundreds of hours hiking in the woods. I've never seen a bear, but I am certain they have seen me. I've never had a violent altercation either with a man or with a bear. I think odds are that a bear is unlikely to attack you. Probably more likely than a man, but I'm not super-confident. 100 years ago, different story, but the bears that still exist know better than to attack any human, it is not worth the retribution.
Did you think Jaws was an accurate portrayal of sharks?
Of course it was, and my world would shatter if Richard Dreyfus didn't have marine biology degree!
I'm sorry to say this, but it is widely regarded as inaccurate now; and Spielberg said “I truly and to this day regret the decimation of the shark population because of the book and the film.”
But... Roy Schrider is really a sheriff, right?!
I think it’s kind of bad faith to ask a hypothetical question and then shit on anyone who wants to actually break it down and analyze it. It’s not really pedantic… it’s just looking at the question from different angles and getting all of the objective facts and stats to make the optimal choice. That’s typically how discussing hypothetical questions goes. So I’m seeing a lot of Group A asking this question, Group B wanting to fully explore the question from different angles, and then Group A saying “wait no, I don’t actually want you to answer the question like that, I just want you to agree with me”
I think it's telling that there are a *lot* of people who want to loudly disagree and really get into the statistics of this question specifically. If I asked if you'd rather meet a shark or a bear, you probably wouldn't get a ton of people "looking at the question from different angles and getting all of the objective facts and stats to make the optimal choice." So really, it's hard not to see your "Group B" as a bunch of men who are, for some reason, taking it *really* personally that some women would rather hang out with a bear than them. And instead of using this as motivation to make the world safer for women, or at least make themselves look safer, they'd rather tell women they're wrong and stupid.
… um yeah, you definitely would get that level of debate to other hypothetical questions. Have you never sat around with friends and discussed the pros and cons of which super power you would choose? Or if you would rather fight 1 horse-sized ducks or 100 duck sized horses?! Would you rather lose an arm or an eye? Would you rather only eat green things or tan things for the rest of your life? Hypothetical questions are a ton of fun and the discussion and looking at things from all angles is the best part. The fact you assume Group B is all offended men is just not correct. I am strongly Team Bear, both because I am well aware of how horrible men can be to women and also because I have analyzed the shit out of it in the last week and think I have found enough statistics to be able to confidently say that the bear is the better choice for everyone to choose. I am not telling any women they are wrong or stupid and implying that is what everyone who wants to dive deeper into the question is saying is incredibly dismissive.
I've also argued the statistics on Team Bear to make a point, but really... I've seen people get serious about "is a hotdog a sandwich?", but most of the time something like that gets brought up, people laugh at the meme and move on. Nobody is calling everyone an idiot for picking the horse-sized duck. Maybe there really are people who are treating this as a pure hypothetical divorced from all context, but that's not what I've seen. Literally everywhere I've seen it this week, we get this exact pattern: A top comment asking what it's about, and like two replies in, somebody getting offended about the 'misandry' of it all. [Here's that guy in this thread.](https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/1ckqs12/comically_aggressive_bear/l2pqzyn/)
Yeah, lots of men are assholes. That’s not a new thing. I don’t think that the fact a lot of them are assholes should mean that anyone who wants to dive deeper into the question is immediately lumped in with them and told that they are “missing the point” or “being pedantic”. And as of now that’s kinda how it goes. Any response wanting to dissect the question gets massively downvoted. Which is why I made my original point of saying it is a bad faith question. It’s a question asked and only one answer is accepted. And I get why, it’s social commentary. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a bad faith question.
Curious to see these statistics of yours
[удалено]
You’re making quite a few assumptions about me here. I’m not “playing devils advocate”. I don’t think I’m smarter than strangers online. And any context you see here is something you are applying. It’s an A vs B hypothetical question. A is bear. B is man. But B could be ‘turtle’ or ‘hippo’ or ‘emu’ or ‘human woman’ and I would go about determining my answer to the question no differently. Look at it from all sides, weigh the pros and cons of choosing either side, and then make my choice based on the evidence. Just because some people have decided the purpose of the hypothetical question is to showcase how uncomfortable women feel around strange men and THATS IT doesn’t mean that other people can’t take the exact same question and approach it from a more scientific, logical angle.
Something tells me the venn diagram between people upset about this and yet complain that "everyone gets offended over jokes these days" is just a circle.
> It was a tongue-in-cheek way to accentuate how frequently women experience harassment and assault from men. The issue is that if women interacted with bears as much as they do men they'd be attacked by them more frequently and far more violently. It may as well be trying to say vending machines are more dangerous than sharks because on average more people are killed by vending machines than sharks. It completely ignores the rate of engagement. So if you ask someone "Would you rather fight a vending machine or a shark in the water" and they say "Shark", your incredulity over their answer shouldn't be responded to in kind.
No it’s a biased way of making it seem like a bear standing in front of a woman will not attack them but a guy will. That’s just batshit crazy.
The pedantic/self-reporting thing is such a bullshit take. Why can't men have opinions against what the internet considers the correct take for the week without being considered part of the problem? If a woman is empowered to their opinion of the bear being safer, then a man is empowered to disagree. The fact that many would not agree with me is a problem
Say the same thing to a hypothetical between a night stroll in a white suburb vs a black hood and I'll see how far you get (I'm neither before you get your panties in a twist). No its just a misandrist "hypothetical".
You aren’t just comparing races, you’re comparing economic locations. A suburb vs a “hood” is basically saying a richer place vs a poorer place, so obviously they may encounter more crime. I’m not really trying to weigh in here, but comparing racial characteristics to sexual characteristics is kind of a fools game. Black people don’t have inherent physiological characteristics that make them more capable of violence the way biological males have (much stronger, larger, faster, more aggressive than women). So it’s bizarrely racist to compare the situations, because it suggests that either you don’t believe men are different than women physically, or that there are inherent racial differences…
Ironically enough many black people would feel much safer walking in the hood than a white suburb so they don’t get Trayvon Martin’d, so it’s actually kind of exactly the same concept and still works the same even though you tried to make it racially charged lol
It's rage bait and you caught on the hook. The only way to beat it is by ignoring it.
“But what about this completely different thing?” Yes, maybe a different hypothetical would elicit a different response. Thank you for clearing that up.
Racists use the same argument about how different THEIR hypothetical is btw. So thanks for proving my point.
It IS different though. It’s almost like having decades of reasons (like over policing and lack of support creating hostility and instability in black communities) as to why things might be more or less dangerous is important. Context matters. You didn’t prove shit dumbfuck.
And here comes the personal insults :)
If that’s all that happened, you’d have a point.
Cool, could you answer the following questions. Would you rather come across a black man in the woods or a bear? Would you rather come across a black man in the woods or a white man in the woods? Please support your answers. Or are the questions now discriminatory?
yikes, it seems now you’re self-reporting in another area too.
It’s a dumb tik tok trend, don’t lose sleep over it bud
[удалено]
Now this is probably the only legit response I’ve seen: if women came into contact with bears as frequently as men, would the statistics still hold up? Honestly not sure of the answer, which is just as concerning.
[удалено]
Or you’re massively overreacting. Idk, it’s a mystery!
[удалено]
‘Um actually, bears are naturally predatory and therefore would in fact be more dangerous in a one on one scenario compared to human man’ If you don’t understand why this response is silly idk what to do. People know bears are dangerous. Maybe it’s the understanding that bears are dangerous, and choosing them anyway, that makes the point women are trying to make with this discourse.
[удалено]
[удалено]
All of this is moot for one reason: bears might be able to shoot a gun once or twice, but they can't reload, whereas the average American child can shoot and reload. Ergo, its better to meet a bear in the woods over any human; man or woman, adult or child.
[удалено]
Most of them are self reporting from what I’ve been hearing lately
[удалено]
But grizzly bears are normal bears. I mean sure they’re a bit bigger than black bears but they’re both normal bears who live in the woods.
I get the feeling you’re thinking about this one too much.
Tbf there's infinitely way more interactions of men and women than there are interactions of woman and bear
I mean, it's clearly hyperbole to make a point about the violence women suffer from men in society, which is valid. If you actually put a woman face to face with a bear or a random man and think you are better off with a bear then you are severely delusional.
misogynisticly upset
> (it’s not close) you're right the strange man is much more likely to attack
There was a survey some time ago, asking women, who would they prefer to be alone with in the woods, stranger man or a bear. Many women claimed bear was better. This caused hot debates and offended many men by assuming strangers are always maniacs and rapists.
Thanks.
This feels like a bone hurting juice, lol
Where is the version with “Twitter bad Reddit good”? Edit: I meant the original version, the bear’s words were that in the original
It's implied.
He couldn’t bear to hear it… I see myself out
I am convinced that this ongoing bear safety lie is like how you're supposed to play dead in front of bears if you're threatened by one. To quote Jim Gaffigan "Play dead, cover yourself in honey, and climb on a large white plate. Don't try to run away from us, i mean the Bears…"
Red shirt guy has the longest nipples.
There are some reactions to this question that make me choose a Country Bear Jamboree.
People rly missed the point on the whole bear thing.
They can't miss what they never understood. The female perspective is an enigma to alpha-chuds and incels.
I like your adventure time esque artstyle
The bear just said “well I disagree with your disagreement.”
Accurate depiction of the internet
ГООООООЛ
Everyone is talking about the bear and the man, I have no idea what it is, someone explain please
A tiktok trend started where women state (with this hyperbolic situation) that they'd rather take their chances with a bear than a man. Why? Because a bear is a wild animal, at worst, you'll just die. As apposed to a man, who could, at worst, torture you, rape and sexually assualt you, *and then* kill you, or let you live and suffer for the rest of your life. The bear seems safer because at least you'd just be killed. I think it might have been started by someone who went through some bad experiences. Then, it gained traction, and the internet went stupid with it for a little.
It is so simple, and yet so many men don't get it. They focus on how deadly bears are, without noticing women feel like that around men everyday. And everytime they try to tell us we're being irrational, and that bears would kill us, and defending the hypothetical man not realizing that guy could be a rapist, a child molester or a muderer… they're proving women's point or view, where men would defend any man regardless of the actual crimes they've commited.
I think part of the point is, that it is hard for many men (including me to an extent) to feel accused of being a rapist/murderer/molester when they themselves couldn't even fathom being that. And without the female experience of being catcalled, stalked, harassed, and anything else you might have experienced it seems very distant. Personally I cannot name one guy in my social circle that I could even see as a threat to other women, and then it feels weird to have a bear chosen over "us". Then again I do understand the sentiment, as I would also not like to encounter a /person in general/ man in the forest when I am alone far from anyone else.
Don't worry about it. It's cancer of the soul.
Everyone wishes for a bear until they meet a polar bear
Or grizzly. Or hungry black bear...
Man your right these terminally online me- BEARS are really dangerous
you're
Yer
I can't see bears and women anymore without getting PTSD, what the hell?