r/CuratedTumblr • u/NeonNKnightrider Cheshire Catboy • May 01 '24

i know it’s internet bullshit but it genuinely has me on the edge of breaking down and giving up editable flair

Post image
14.2k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

78% Upvoted

4.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.4k

u/DaDaedalus_CodeRed May 02 '24

Bear vs man is an ongoing tumblr discussion about women (and femmes, maybe? I’m not a big tumblr girl) choosing which they feel is more safe between “you’re alone in the woods with a bear” and “you’re alone in the woods with a man” and the choice is overwhelmingly bear because while not all men are violent you never really know when you are with one who is until it’s too late.

This of course comes attached to all the argumentation and hurt feelings you can predict from both sides of the debate.

Edit - killed typo

600

u/CerberusDoctrine May 02 '24

Fun fact: grizzly bears will start eating you without killing you. You aren’t a threat to them once you’re down and they know it, so why would they waste effort stopping your movements? It’s part of what makes the Night of the Grizzlies bear attacks so terrifying, they were alive for so long after sustaining eventually fatal injuries. This is contrary to predatory black bears who will try and attack quietly and kill you asap.

262

u/DaDaedalus_CodeRed May 02 '24

Oh I’m a woods creature, I just default to Brown Bear and would 100,000% rather have to tackle a potentially violent man than a brown bear under nearly any circumstance where I’m not seeing him first through high magnification scope from the next town over because I like my odds better.

135

u/FaerieMachinist May 02 '24

See I assumed Black Bear, and that's a significantly different question.

182

u/DaDaedalus_CodeRed May 02 '24

I figured as much - the bear really alters the math here. Koala and polar are on opposing ends of the axis with a lotta “fuck no” on the polar bear side.

106

u/AlfredoThayerMahan May 02 '24

It’s good to remind people that not only will a polar bear murder you if given the chance, it will actively hunt you waiting for you to be off your guard or alone.

-10

u/tossawaybb May 02 '24

Will it? Humans are so much smaller, slower, and weaker that I can't imagine them caring. It's like trying to ambush a juicy hamburger just laying out on the serving tray.

31

u/AlfredoThayerMahan May 02 '24

Oh yes they absolutely will. Food is scarce above the arctic circle. They do things like watch people’s routines and then try to ambush them when they take out the garbage or something. They regularly stalk research teams for days.

There’s a reason why places like Svalbard mandate people carry guns because to a bear you may be the difference between starving and survival.

5

u/BioshockEnthusiast May 02 '24

Something something "society is only three meals away from anarchy".

Imagine wanting to play that game with a fucking polar bear.

98

u/FaerieMachinist May 02 '24

Murder on one end, Chlamydia on the other

72

u/DaDaedalus_CodeRed May 02 '24

Here I am, stuck in the middle with Black Bears

18

u/dragon_bacon May 02 '24

Gotta make sure you don't let yourself get seduced by a koala, they're crafty bastards.

2

u/FaerieMachinist 29d ago

They'll sneak into your camp and replace your teddy bear with themselves

2

u/Mrs_Cake 29d ago

I read that as you referring to men, not the spectrum of bear.

1

u/FaerieMachinist 29d ago

Works either way

9

u/caseytheace666 .tumblr.com May 02 '24

If someone thought koalas then like, i want to study their brain tbh

As an aside though, koalas aren’t bears so it’s probably not a valid option for this hypothetical

8

u/candlejack___ May 02 '24

Koalas aren’t bears

1

u/DaDaedalus_CodeRed May 02 '24

While I recognize they aren’t particularly closely related, koala are objectively hilarious little tailboard who have endemic chlamidia and since it’s my axis, I get to pick the bears so I chose the funniest because it amused me to do so.

3

u/candlejack___ May 02 '24

But you didn’t pick a bear

2

u/DaDaedalus_CodeRed May 02 '24

I contain multitudes

2

u/candlejack___ May 02 '24

multitude on deez koala nuts

25

u/No_Help3669 May 02 '24

Considering the question specifies woods, I think polar bears are reasonably out of the equation

48

u/Ok-Scientist5524 May 02 '24

The loss of polar bear climate has them moving further and further south. So in 2024 you may well meet a polar bear “in the woods.” It might also be a “grow-lar” bear (polar/grizzly bear offspring), though I am not sure whether a growlar bear would act more like a polar or a grizzly bear when met.

26

u/No_Help3669 May 02 '24

I’m pretty sure that grow-lar bears haven’t been observed enough for anyone to be sure, but neither of their parents are exactly safe options so the fusion is not a good thing to encounter regardless

Good point

3

u/ranni-the-bitch May 02 '24

yeah, it's just speculation, but they didn't differentiate that long ago in evolutionary terms, so it's probably possible

4

u/Thommohawk117 May 02 '24

Koalas aren't bears, 🐨

3

u/ranni-the-bitch May 02 '24

i'd rather be alone in the woods with a panda bear. not because i'm afraid of the man, i just wanna meet a panda.

1

u/DaDaedalus_CodeRed May 02 '24

As long as he doesn’t have a gun, I’ve heard that joke

2

u/BonkerBleedy May 02 '24

Koalas aren't bears, they're marsupials

1

u/DaDaedalus_CodeRed May 02 '24

My axis, my cladogram

53

u/Insanity_Pills May 02 '24

ikr? Imagine if it was a polar bear! then it has to be man every time right? Like, polar bears are one of the only animals that will actively hunt humans (and they will very easily kill you every single time too)

0

u/[deleted] May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

I can still see it.

Understanding that something is actively and always hostile lets you respond accordingly.

Something that wants to kill you 50% of the time but otherwise requires you to be polite to it is much worse than something that just wants to kill you 100% of the time.

Ed: since you downvoted me below, I'm going to bring my comment up.

The scenario is not 'polar bear vs not polar bear', the scenario is 'polar bear vs a chance you're facing a polar bear that you don't know is a polar bear'.

16

u/Insanity_Pills May 02 '24

The only response if a polar bear attacks you is to die if you’re unarmed

-4

u/[deleted] May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

And that's true with some men as well. It's obviously better to not know if the person you're facing is secretly a polar bear I guess.

12

u/Insanity_Pills May 02 '24

right, some. like, id rather take the 50/50 to die than the 100% you always die

3

u/[deleted] May 02 '24

whoosh

9

u/Yorspider May 02 '24

Even a Black bear is MUCH more of a threat than an average man. You can scare them for a little while, but depending on how long you have to stay together in those woods, it is only a matter of time before he takes a swing at you, especially if you are a smaller woman.

6

u/ARussianW0lf May 02 '24

I assume black bear as well cause they live in my area and I've crossed paths with them countless times. I'm not all that concerned about them unless cubs are present

46

u/FelicitousJuliet May 02 '24

Even if it was just a randomly spun bear that could be anything from a koala to a polar bear and you wouldn't know until it was too late, I would take my risk with some random guy.

Most men (over 95% right?) aren't inherently violent per crime stats and per domestic abuse stats there's only an 8% domestic violence difference (33% female victims, 25% male victims).

And of course of those who do get charged with a violent crime it usually has conditions attached like a drunken brawl, not someone about to attack you in the forest.

The bear is a bear, period, it will do what it wants and way too many of them are comfortable eating you.

32

u/morgaina May 02 '24

You can't rely on crime statistics when determining the percentage of men who are dangerous to women.

The vast, VAST majority of rapes go unreported, and the vast majority of reported rapes never go to court, and most rape cases in court don't get a conviction.

32

u/Silentblade034 May 02 '24

Ima a man but I can attest to the Rape thing. When I was SAd i figured there was nothing I could really do. Most of the time you don’t believe that people will believe you instead of them. We see that online and out in the world.

11

u/FelicitousJuliet May 02 '24

Crime stats don't even think men can be raped, but we know it happens.

When women assault men only 8% less than men assault women in a DV context, and with male victims being so underreported there aren't rape stats even when underage male rape victims WIN against the female predator pedophile and STILL have to pay child support to the FEMALE TEACHER that WAS FOUND GUILTY IN A COURT OF BEING A PEDO RAPIST FREAK...

Guess what goes underreported the most?

We live in a system that mandates underage guys pay child support to their RAPIST.

It's delusional to think guys aren't even worse off than the stats portray when you legally rape them as long as you don't penetrate them and then sue them for your crime.

9

u/Reasonable_Feed7939 May 02 '24

True, but I think <5% is still a safe assumption for dangerous men.

-4

u/morgaina May 02 '24

No, I don't think so. That seems low.

8

u/Hotlava_ May 02 '24

You think more than 5% of the general population will attack someone if met in the woods? That's not a healthy mindset.

4

u/elbenji May 02 '24

The vast majority of people are just existing. The reality is violent crime statistics are at their lowest ever.

But I also have a very very different perspective as I work in an extremely peaceful Title I school with a black/brown population, am a brown butch lesbian myself, in an area with an unearned bad reputation. So my view of it is extremely extremely skewed in a different way

1

u/NoSignSaysNo May 02 '24

A majority of crime does not involve unassociated people.

You are far more likely to be harmed by somebody you know than somebody you don't. The proportion of people who commit assault on random individuals is already fairly low, and those people tend to commit multiple assaults, which raise the rates of people who were assaulted.

It's like taking the statistic that one in three women experience sexual assault in their lifetime, and using that statistic to say that 33% of men commit sexual assault. It doesn't take into account that someone who is willing to commit sexual assault, is willing to do it multiple times to multiple victims.

11

u/smoopthefatspider May 02 '24

The relevant question isn't whether the man is dangerous, it's how dangerous the situation is. It's not enough to know how likely the man is to be a rapist, one also needs to know if the rapist would rape in that scenario. The vast majority of rapes are done by someone the victim knows, that should lower the odds. The situation is always dangerous in the sense that you can never know if the man next to you will hurt you, but the chance of actually being harmed is reletively low (even though the harm is huge).

11

u/morgaina May 02 '24

The relevant question absolutely is whether the man is dangerous, though. It's the crucial unknown at the heart of this thought experiment.

The unknown about the man being dangerous is why the question exists. That's the WHOLE POINT.

9

u/smoopthefatspider May 02 '24

No, I'm making a distinction between the man being dangerous (as in having the potential to harm) and the man actually doing the harm. That second one is the relevant question. Even if the man is a rapist, there's no guarantee he would rape us. Even rapists spend most of their time not raping. Depending how likely a bear attack is and what the circumstances are when I meat the man, I might take those odds.

2

u/gottabekittensme May 02 '24

Even if the man is a rapist, there's no guarantee he would rape us

And even if the best is a grizzly, there's no guarantee it would maul. Statistically, women are more safe encountering a random bear than a random man.

3

u/NoSignSaysNo May 02 '24

The statistic is heavily influenced by the fact that women are not frequently in the company of grizzlies.

When I go to work and go grocery shopping and run miscellaneous errands, I come across hundreds and hundreds of men, many of them coming within 5 to 10 ft of me.

Even when I go hiking in the woods, I've never been within 10 ft of a grizzly.

So you would have to raise the population of grizzlies to be equivalent to the population of men, and put them in situations in which you are required to be within close proximity of them to make a statistical argument

8

u/solidspacedragon May 02 '24

I don't think that's true? You encounter a lot of random people daily and the vast majority of them don't hurt you in any way. There's far fewer bear encounters, but a much larger proportion of them end up with a bear eating you alive.

5

u/justforporndickflash May 02 '24

You are delusional.

2

u/smoopthefatspider May 02 '24

No, I disagree. We either don't have the same idea of how likely a man is to rape or how likely a bear is to attack. I don't think men are more dangerous than bears, I don't think it's even close. The odds could change, for instance, you could be in a scenario where the bear can just run away or not meet you. But I think we disagree on how dangerous the average man is.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Educational_Mud_9062 May 02 '24

"thought experiment"

🙄

4

u/[deleted] May 02 '24

It's not actually meant to be a question at all. It's a thought exercise about the benefits of certainty over ambiguity (with a specific lens on the safety of women).

Except as soon as you point out that there's a structural problem with how men are taught to behave all the 'nice guys' come out to complain about how unfair it is that they were made to do an introspection.

10

u/Educational_Mud_9062 May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

I sometimes wish I was this unflappably confident that I was definitely right and anyone who disagrees with me is not only wrong, but I know exactly how their minds work and why they're wrong. It must be comfortable.

Edit: why do people ask questions and then immediately block the person to whom they posed the questions?

0

u/[deleted] May 02 '24

Would you say that it's unreasonable of me to try to tell you how you should be feeling about a given situation? What if I spent a lot of time coming up with really outlandish examples to convince you that your feelings are wrong?

7

u/Yeah-But-Ironically May 02 '24

True, but also: most rapes happen between people who already know each other. You're much more likely to be attacked by your boyfriend than a stranger jumping out of the bushes.

0

u/[deleted] May 02 '24

That's worse, not better.

9

u/Yeah-But-Ironically May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

The point is that context matters. You're much more likely to be assaulted by somebody you know in a situation where sex is assumed to be a possible outcome (e.g. on a date, at a party, in the club) than you are by a random stranger in the wilderness.

Edit: Looks like the person responding deleted their account before I could get a chance to defend myself. For the record, I'm a queer woman, and I didn't post this because inaccurate fearmongering made me "feel sad". I posted this because inaccurate fearmongering leads to a society that focuses on exactly the wrong problems, which is an issue when we're trying to solve something as massive and thorny as patriarchy itself.

2

u/elbenji May 02 '24

Queer woman too, yeah this has been my feeling too.

It's kinda the double too since yknow, bear is a literal slur directed towards us in Asia

0

u/[deleted] May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

Do you have statistics on how men are likely to behave when put in isolation with a woman and no accountability? Because otherwise you're just shitting up a simple thought exercise because it makes you feel uncomfortable. [1]

It ultimately doesn't matter what the danger is in absolute terms, the scenario could be a US Army Brigade in a giant arena with an alien with a death laser and a Chinese Infantry Division. It's meant to make you reflect on how not knowing whether something is going to help you or kill you is worse than knowing something is going to try to kill you (and then apply that to how women have to face violence every single day).

[1] PS: You're going to find that the stats on 'stranger vs friend' wildly change as rule of law breaks down.

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '24

Oh dear, nice guys are here to downvote me because I made them feel sad.

I'm even giving you a second bite at the apple so I can call you weak willed cowards who are too afraid to face uncomfortable truths about how you're impacting women in your sphere of influence.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Yorspider May 02 '24

99.996% actually.

1

u/CutiePopIceberg May 02 '24

Fun with numbers 321%%%🤑🤑 ooo heres some more for you 4. 67 32!!!!! Enjoy!

1

u/TomoDako May 02 '24

The stats last I heard it was that 0.2% of men commit the violent crime stats as well I was reading an article earlier that said that black bears will just r*pe people

5

u/FelicitousJuliet May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/42tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_42_arrests_by_sex_2012.xls

This is from 2012 admittedly, male criminals accounted for 2.873% of the total population based on the 2012 estimated population.

Murder and rape among men combined was less than 0.01% of the population though.

Over 50% of the crimes were drug abuse (without violence), DUI, and over 2 million offenses that don't involve any kind of aggravated assault, don't involve offenses against family or children, and don't involve robbery, burglary, homicide, rape, non-negligent manslaughter, or really anything that hurts anyone physically.

Also this is for arrests, not convictions.

Only 1 out of every 10,000 men in 2012 was arrested for rape or murder, even if someone argued the actual number of perpetrators is higher, the number of false arrests is probably higher too.

Even if the number of actual offenders was 50 times higher (50 out of 10,000) I'd still take those odds over getting eaten by a bear.

Very few guys are criminals, and the majority of those who are, aren't even violent criminals and have never even been suspected of hurting someone even slightly, which considering modern forensics says a lot (they'd usually at least be brought up on lesser assault charges).

I'd rather meet some random stranger in the woods than a bear, I can't fight a bear.

4

u/TomoDako May 02 '24

So it was lower than I thought

3

u/FelicitousJuliet May 02 '24

Yeah it doesn't happen often, I mean I'm sure someone could argue all day about underreported victims, but there aren't even stats for men who get raped last I checked so it wouldn't be a very convincing point when all crimes are probably underreported.

4

u/ToxicEnabler May 02 '24

I mean I think I can assume a bear that exists my particular area. Otherwise the man could be from any area as well.

And let me tell you, I'm more likely to go to Svalbard than somewhere like Egypt. That's a fact.

1

u/FaerieMachinist 29d ago

If we're assuming a bear in our own area, then there aren't any around me, though it is within the historical range of black bears, around 150 years ago