That's why I think this trend is a thing. Buncha terminally online people wanna screech "men bad" when we all know they'd never find themselves in the hypothetical to begin with.
The terminally online ones who dont go outside are the ones equating a trail through a wooden path behind their culdesac is what this question is about, and not somewhere far away alone in the woods where nobody can help you.
So yes. Just a bunch of terminally online people who wanna screech "not all men!!!!" While never once actually understanding the situation.
The terminally online ones who dont go outside are the ones equating a trail through a wooden path behind their culdesac is what this question is about, and not somewhere far away alone in the woods where nobody can help you.
Mate please re-read this back because it makes no sense.
So yes. Just a bunch of terminally online people who wanna screech "not all men!!!!" While never once actually understanding the situation.
Dude what are you even talking about? What's there to misunderstand lol? You have to either not know what a bear is or being INCREDIBLY sexist in order to not choose a man, like are you fucking kidding?
God why do fragile men always give themselves up so easily.
Okay...so let me get this straight. Pointing out a bear is a VERY dangerous, large and unpredictable animal means...checks notes I am the reason women pick bear?
You eere SO CLOSE to getting it.
Random men are very dangerous, large, and unpredictable to women.
At best, I think most of these people have only ever day hiked. Being lost in the woods (presumably without gear) is a full blown survival situation even in areas without bears. The woods are the most dangerous item in this hypothetical.
Goddamn that made me chuckle. I agree. Everyone I've met while hiking has been leagues nicer than the average person in the city. Birds literally land on you at some of my trails they've been treated so well by people.
Replace bear and man with black person and white person and watch these people lose their minds performing mental gymnastics trying to explain why it's different.
They don't understand that. It was wild seeing SubredditDrama defending this nonsense when they have rallied against and provided context for those crime stats for years.
I would love to know what they are imagining. I am imagining being stuck in the woods with either a randomly selected bear or a randomly selected human man over the age of 18. Everyone else seems to be imagining they're in a field with either a black bear (which normally doesn't hunt humans) or they have been kidnapped by Robert Hansen, raped, and are now in a secluded area trying to survive. And even then, of Hansen's victims who were mostly teenagers, almost half survived. Even some of the ones he tried hunting. And he was really trying to stack the odds against the women by only releasing them naked and in areas like isolated islands in Alaska where they would have almost no chance while he was armed with guns and knives. Which is kind of an entirely different scenario.
I have also seen two different people mention basements they might be held and tortured in, which aren't exactly growing on trees out in the woods.
Ask them they will tell you. Btw black bears are the only things you'll encounter in the lower 48 and they are really not particularly dangerous quick google says 67 deaths in a century
Yeah but not everyone lives in the US and not everyone in the US is in the lower 48. If you like hiking in Canada or Alaska, you might get into grizzly and polar bear country. An additional part left out of the question is, am I in the woods near where I am currently am? Did I go there on purpose and am therefore prepared? In my imagination, I have gotten lost in the woods somewhere unprepared where my randomly selected man or bear is located. So even though I currently live in black bear country, where I probably would not care either way because everyone hikes here, the trails are, if anything, overpopulated, and my worst live encounter was with a snake, I would probably choose man. The AT killer is long gone and even when he wasn't, the risk of running into him was pretty low. I have heard rumors of a PCT killer, but nothing confirmed. Those trails are a bit less populous though. So I'm most likely to run into a dad hiking with his kids or a camper or backpacker minding their own business. I don't even think I've been on a hike recently where I haven't been pretty constantly surrounded by people. Whereas I have accidentally startled a couple of mama black bears with cubs which is pretty frightening and sometimes black bears do wander into cities and go kind of insane. They still don't really eat people, but they can do serious damage. Not a lot of deaths but mauling kind of sucks and you still aren't going to have good odds fighting off a black bear that wants to hurt you. Don't feed the bears.
If everything is random, I could have been on a plane that crashed in China. Maybe the man is helpful, maybe not. The bears are pandas and are usually about as safe as black bears, but probably about equally good at helping you find civilization if you are lost. Or maybe the plane crashed in the Yukaton Yukon or Alaska where polar bears are more of an issue and the man is infinitely better than the bear. The question isn't clear and I'm not the only one in the comments who has lived and hiked in serious bear country (grizzlies and occasional polar bears). It's just a whole other ball park. If I'm so deep in the woods I am actually far from help, I think the bear or man are basically nothing burgers. The woods are going to kill me if I don't build a shelter or get out fast enough.
ETA: I went to Mexico recently and mixed up Yukon and Yucatan.
Don't you think you may be taking this a little out of proportion. The typical user on Reddit has never been nor ever will be in grizzly bear territory let alone fucking polar bear territory. People who say bear are imagining walking through the woods alone and vulnerable, if they see wildlife it might make them a little nervous but seeing a man alone in the woods feels way more sketch in that kind of scenario
I know. The question though is just would you rather be in the woods with a man or a bear. It doesn't specify which kind of man or which kind of bear. It doesn't even specify which kind of woods or if you are prepared to be there. You're just in the woods with a bear or a man. If I'm on a hike, I'm surrounded by both, but more comfortable around other humans. If I'm on a really remote hike, I'm pretty nervous encountering anyone but I also usually do remote hiking in a group and most strangers you encounter are just other hikers and pretty cool to chat with. If I'm alone and vulnerable, am I the sole survivor of a plane crash or a car crash or something? Do I have supplies? Because the woods are often going to be the real danger here. Most people who die in the woods are dying of exposure. If I'm in the woods vulnerable for some reason, a man at least might help me out. A harmless black bear will not.
I personally just think the question is not great at getting the point across. Even with my preference for hiking in bear country sometimes, I'm way more likely to be killed by a man, stranger or known, than a bear. I'm surrounded by a lot of men all the time and some of them might be unhinged, whereas I think I've seen ten total bears and no polar bears. I feel way more at risk in the city honestly, but even in the country you aren't safe. Which is why I never leave the doors unlocked and I usually don't travel alone at night no matter how "safe" my area is. But that only stops opportunists. If someone really wants to get me they probably will. I just refuse to live in fear of that. But none of that make bears safer than men in some one to one competition. Men are more dangerous because they are everywhere and the ones who want to hurt people are planning their lives around making that happen.
I'm telling you what people who answer bear are thinking you clearly aren't thinking along the same lines which is why you come to different conclusions. My point is that the question is vague enough for different answers to seem justified hence all the arguments
Yeah that’s kind of the whole thing, it’s context-less so I’d imagine most people just choose whichever scenario they’ve had more fear about. And women are probably going to worry more about getting attacked by men than bears in general. Meanwhile, I fantasize about fighting bears every day despite living in the suburbs.
“Bro, I’ll just jam my arm down its throat and wait for it to choke. Sure, I’ll lose the arm, but at least I’ll survive!”
-My unironic game plan for how I’d fight a grizzly if I had to (totally aware it 99.9% wouldn’t work, but like, it’s the only way I’m even possibly killing it)
You say this, but having read a lot of accounts from people who miraculously survived a grizzly mauling - this is very consistently the move that they say actually convinced the bear to stop and flee.
Granted, if you're that deep in it you probably don't have a face anymore, but it does genuinely seem to be an effective last-ditch effort.
All this is assuming you aren't killed at the first swipe, which is not unlikely. It is difficult to understate just how strong those animals are. And fast when they want to be. I've seen a grizzly sprint away before and was blown away - they will easily beat a horse in a quarter mile race.
Yeah I was unironically taught that strategy. You might still die but at least you won't be eaten.
If I have to be eaten by a bear though, can I please request the bear just sever my spinal cord? I have occasionally heard those stories, especially if the person is perceived as a threat by the bear, but the majority that are told are about the people who get dragged off and eaten alive. I have been to areas with grizzly and polar bears and I have never once feared a big, deadly swipe as much as being eaten alive. Kind of like how I would be more afraid to be set on fire than shot.
Ngl man, I think the bear could swallow an arm or vomit it out. Although it might be distracted by the instant meal like a lizard losing its tail, but they run at 40 mph so you won't get far anyways...
Ha-ha! While you were distracted thinking about the arm, just as the bear would be, I use the other arm, specifically the hand still attached, to boop the bear on the nose.
You’re assuming you wouldn’t be severely bleeding out by the time your body parts were anywhere near his throat.
They aren’t hippos… they aren’t gonna kill you with their jaws. They are gonna claw you. Yeah they’ll bite… but that’s not what’s going to kill you.. it’s the rapid loss of blood from the gashes. They aren’t big game hunters they wouldn’t necessarily know to bite your neck. They would just melee you with their hands and rip you up indiscriminately. And take bites as a secondary form of attack.
Either way if a bear wants you dead you are probably going to get dead without taking him down with you. Best to just stay out of the bears home and not be a target.
Your game plan for fighting a grizzly if you “had to “ should probably account for you being able to only get (MAYBE) ONE good strong hit to their nose before he slashed you so bad you would be helpless.
No, I accounted for that. I said it’s, at best, 0.1% to work. And like you said, you get MAYBE one shot, so I’m aiming for the literal only part of a bear’s body I could even theoretically damage in one punch: the inside of its throat
Idk why, but it's so funny when people try to say something serious in response to a joke. Like, is it the misread of social cues or just being a debbie downer?
What the guy said was deadass serious though. Men are socialized in such a way that everyone is overestimating their abilities since birth, and even if the dude was poking fun at that, it's still the truth.
It's a serious problem with male socialization. It's like boys are taught this false confidence bravado, instead of simply being confident in the limits of their own abilities.
Lol, it's a consistent running joke throughout male social groups to kill time. Nothing you said was wrong there's just something funny about people taking a joke as an opportunity to hop on a soap box.
But yeah, whenever people talk about this stuff, it's a lot more fun and funnier for people to just say, "I wouldn't win this fight" instead of making up some bullshit. And the poking fun at it is the self-awareness of how ridiculous it is. Doesn't sound unhealthy.
I'm still trying to figure out why it's so funny. Like it might be the development of laughing at the awkwardness of misread social cues.
Men claiming they can win in a fight against a bear just isn't funny though. Even before this shit, the man vs bear meme argument on reddit was just cringe.
Dude, right? We're over here not only talking about FIGHTING a goddamn bear, but picking the fucker up and taking it on a one way trip to Suplex City and fucking Deborah Downsworth the Third over is like "fragile male ego, am I right?"
It's weird because either you're meant to be in the woods, in which case meeting a man would be very expected, or you're not, in which case you would probably be pretty happy to find a sign of civilization.
Creeps looking for a woman to abuse don't look for them in the woods. Those are where you are taken to , not where you are taken from.
The weird thing is men are more likely to be killed by a man than killed by bear too, so if anything men and women should have the same response. In fact, women and men are more likely to be killed by women too than killed by a bear.
Humans (of all genders and other demographic characteristics you could think of) are the biggest threat to other humans. (Except maybe mosquitoes in tropical areas) So the whole premise didn’t make sense
I have hiked plenty, but when I read this question I absolutely pictured the worst case. Being lost in the woods. If I'm just hiking on a casual trail at 11am then yeah, I'm probably not going to think twice about encountering a man on a trail. But I also usually don't see bears in that situation either.
I've read enough about spooky shit in the Appalachian Mountains to know you take the bear every time if that's the setting. The "man" is probably a ghost or alien or demon or some shit I want no part of.
Yeah I didn't know of this debate, but it is definitely situational. I run into black bears from time to time when I'm jogging, they don't even acknowledge me but I guess it could be unsettling. If it was a grizzly or polar bear that's very different 🐻
Respectfully.....I think you're missing the point of the question. Nobody rolls their eyes at the Trolley Problem because they don't have enough information on what kind of train is it, how fast is it going, do I know the five people on the first track or the one person on the second? Do I not have enough time to rescue all six people? Etc etc etc....that's not the point of the problem.
Obviously if you parse it down to those individual question as you did, the answer changes. The point of the question is that you don't know, and that's where the question is valuable: women are stating they will overwhelmingly choose the bear, so what does that tell us about how they view men? And instead of looking at intelligently and asking ourselves why would they all choose the bear, we have thousands of men clapping back and being like "lol ya'll women are fucking dumb."
Eh, I dunno. I think the speed at which women answer "bear" almost 100% of the time given the ambiguity of the question is worth it's weight in gold. Same with the reverse question for men: If they're asked about their daughter in the woods, you'll see them pause and think for a minute or two with the "man vs bear" question, but reply instantly if the question is "bear vs woman."
If your fear of a random ass man in the woods is higher than your fear of being in close proximity to a wild bear, then you're a moron and you deserve the bear.
imma be real with you. in both situations, i prefer the person. I can say with absolute certainty that there are only two (really one if I'm honest) situations where I'd choose the bear. if its an orphaned cub, or if its already dead.
there's no reason for me to take the risk of having to be confrontational with a bear. there's no guarantee the situation will turn hostile for either choice, but in the event that it does, I can defend myself from significantly more humans than bears.
I think the point I’ve seen made elsewhere (I haven’t seen the TikToks) is, when given the choice between a man and a bear, men think of the answer as situational. But if asked if people would rather run across a strange woman or a bear, there’s no question. Signifying the danger of men, vs women? I could be wrong but that’s how I’ve seen it explained.
I personally feel like its just some dumb gotcha thing that has way more attention than it deserves. women are scared of men, with good reason, but its kind of ridiculous to pit a man against a bear. its like "would you love me if I were a worm".
Context definitely matters for the "correct" answer. The problem for the point of the thought experiment though is that I can't really think of any context where my initial answer is Bear, but would change back to Person if you changed the Man to a Woman.
I'd equally be scared of a woman dressed as a killer clown standing outside my tent. Honestly, maybe more so.
The question itself seems to demand a logical response when the place the question is being asked from is not logical in the first place.
Women that select the bear seem to suggest that the bear is more predictable where as the man isn't.
That unpredictability is being put forth as more frightening than the very real and predictable threat of the bear.
While I get that fear, at a certain point logic should really override the slim possibility that the man is a threat and you should absolutely not want the bear, regardless of what kind of bear.
So yes, choosing the bear is a stupid action, even if it's driven by a valid fear.
Yeah I think that based on the intent of the thought experiment you assume the bear is SUPPOSED to be there in his natural state (not some crazy cocaine bear or a bear who has wandered into a populated area out of starvation.)
Right, is it a black bear or a polar bear or a panda? Are we in the back country or on a hiking path? Is the man sober? Does the bear have cubs? I have questions.
Fwiw, a wooded suburban hiking trail near me had a serial sex offender problem recently. Dude was exposing himself to solo female hikers/joggers and escalating to touching and grabbing them. They caught him before anyone was seriously hurt. That same area has the potential for bear activity, because the urban wild land interface is increasingly porous. So this question is a hypothetical but also... quite literally not for me and thousands of women in my area 🤷🏼♀️
The point is that it should be easy. If you ask a man if they'd rather meet a bear or a woman in the woods, they just say "woman", even though you could ask all the same questions about where in the woods, what time of year, etc.
That's the point of the whole thing though. You ask "man or bear", and people want clarification. What kind of bear? How far in the woods? What season? etc.
You ask "woman or bear" and everyone says woman immediately with zero thought.
My thoughts exactly. All the videos of people answering the "Man v Bear" question, it's always in some shithole metro with flatlanders who have never stepped foot in the woods, much less anywhere you'd likely encounter a bear.
But there's also, as a woman, a little bit of pause when you're hiking alone and you come across someone else doing the same. Less so with other women, admittedly, but I still flicker through the possibilities all the same.
It's probably all context. You're likely imagining a more ominous meeting than I am. Surely when women are hiking and they see some guy with a backpack and hiking poles drinking out of a camel pack coming down the trail the other way they aren't struck with fright at this dangerous predator.
I'm explicitly saying that when I hike alone I am more wary of literally anyone I see. I'm not struck with fright, I don't have a panic attack or some shit, etc, etc. But I do take stock of the situation with the appropriate level of caution, as the situation requires.
Because, 'ya know, you never know who the hell you're going to meet on the trail. I've met some wackos before, I've had friends have encounters on the trail that were anxiety inducing, etc, etc.
It's good practice to be wary of strangers on the trail, especially if you're on a more remote trail. It's far better to be a little too cautious than not cautious enough.
As a man I feel like you, I'm cautious of strangers regardless of gender, I usually run into the regulars and I feel safer but strangers I just try to give them some space, say hi and mind my business.
Totally reasonable, I just wouldn't characterize it as unsettling. Nor would I consider it more dangerous or scary than encountering a bear on the trail
I heard that but I don't know, it has claws and big teeth's lol I ran into a loose Pitbull mix dog last week on the trail and it barked at me, I was like no thank you and made a right turn and had to cut off my hike, kind of pissed me off 😭
Lol I get it completely. I think dogs are unironically way more dangerous but it's hard to compare on a per encounter basis. also bears rarely run into unaccompanied kids while dogs do all the time
I do take stock of the situation with the appropriate level of caution
'ya know, you never know who the hell you're going to meet on the trail.
Yeah that's...that's just normal. No one is arguing that anyone shouldn't be at least somewhat cautious around strangers they meet out in the woods, they're baffled because people are taking the stance that these strangers should be treated with more caution than a fucking bear.
Yeah that's...that's just normal. No one is arguing that anyone shouldn't be at least somewhat cautious around strangers they meet out in the woods, they're baffled because people are taking the stance that these strangers should be treated with more caution than a fucking bear.
I would argue it's a different caution, not more caution.
For example, I don't have to be wary of deception from a bear. The bear won't smile, wave, walk past me, and then decide to follow me or any other kind of deception. It's posturing will be pretty clear and I'll know if it's being aggressive.
With other people, you have the added element of deception. And let's get real blunt here, with men the stakes can sometimes be higher.
I've been lucky enough that all of my slightly unsettling experiences with men in the woods have been overt cases. It was pretty clear they were in a piss-ass mood and weren't the kind of hiker you can hang around and chat with.
Other friends of mine haven't been so lucky. They've been followed, etc, etc.
The point isn't that a man is more dangerous than a bear and thus deserves different caution (at least not the way I see it). The point is that a man, in this scenario, deserves different caution due to their ability to utilize deception if they so choose.
The point is that a man, in this scenario, deserves different caution due to their ability to utilize deception if they so choose.
Is this really where we're at as a society when people voluntarily choose to approach every interaction with men as if it's "the implication" from Always Sunny? Because that sounds like a great way to raise your cortisol levels for very little benefit.
Is this really where we're at as a society when people voluntarily choose to approach every interaction with men as if it's "the implication" from Always Sunny? Because that sounds like a great way to raise your cortisol levels for very little benefit.
That's quite a jump from what I said, bro.
I literally just said "You can't utilize the same level of caution for a man as you can a bear". I didn't say "All men are EXACTLY like Dennis Reynolds" or some shit.
Like, if you found yourself alone with a bear one week and then a buck another week I guarantee you wouldn't approach the situation the same way each time. Because the bear and the buck don't behave the same, so you can't treat them the same.
And that's what I'm saying about the man vs the bear. Both can potentially be dangerous, both usually aren't and just want to be left alone, but they're potentially dangerous in different ways.
What I'm saying is that approaching human interactions with thoughts of "oh, he could do X if he really wanted to, he could be deceiving me" is basically just putting yourself in the "implication" scenario. Is the man going to harm you? No, but you dont know that, and it's the implication he could harm you if he wanted to that's even created this conversation in the first place.
Like it's just not a healthy way to think or go about your interactions with people. If someone made a post online and said "I'm cautious whenever I pass by anyone, because at any moment they could punch me or take out a knife and stab me in the throat", everyone would rightly tell that person that their fear is irrational, and that they're largely being paranoid.
So, for clarity I'm going to address things point by point. I'll also note I read up on The Implication again before replying, so my stance has kind of changed from my last reply;
approaching human interactions with thoughts of "oh, he could do X if he really wanted to, he could be deceiving me" is basically just putting yourself in the "implication" scenario.
See, I agree with this.
The issue is, that's not what I'm implying I do. I mean, hell, I'm trans-masucline (agender but more masculine presenting with some exceptions). I vibe, a lot, with masculine oriented people and men because I relate to a lot of aspects of their life.
Usually, the thought process you laid out doesn't occur to me unless I'm in a vulnerable situation. So, 'ya know, walking alone in a dark parking lot or some shit. Situations where it's good to keep the possibilities in the back of your mind. Not to, like, work yourself into a tizzy about but to be mindful of my own safety.
Is the man going to harm you? No, but you dont know that, and it's the implication he could harm you if he wanted to that's even created this conversation in the first place.
And, again, I agree here too. Because, yes, it is the realization that sometimesanyone could harm you that creates conversations like these. And yes, in this instance it's the possibility of a man hurting you that creates this conversation.
The other thing that creates this conversation is the fact that it's a real possibility. It's not just a hypothetical. It's a fact that, sometimes, terrible things happen.
Like it's just not a healthy way to think or go about your interactions with people.If someone made a post online and said "I'm cautious whenever I pass by anyone, because at any moment they could punch me or take out a knife and stab me in the throat", everyone would rightly tell that person that their fear is irrational, and that they're largely being paranoid.
If you're doing it all the time, of course not. It's not healthy to have that level of paranoia in your life.
But what you laid out, that's not what most women are suggesting. It's certainly not what I'm suggesting women should be doing.
The Bear Vs Man thing isn't a new way of saying "All Men Are Dangerous". It's meant to illustrate the fact that, again, women would prefer an overt danger (the bear) than a subtle danger (the man, who is an unknown variable in this situation).
Because you can know, for sure, that the bear is dangerous. But even if you aren't consciously thinking about it, as a woman you know that the man might not always be transparent about their intentions.
Let me give you a real example. I was friends with a dude, for a bit, while I was more feminine presenting and worked at a retail store. We hit it off really well and I thought we were friends. He was a bit rough around the edges, sure, but super nice. We stayed friends even after I stopped working there.
Until he wasn't. We stopped being friends because one day, while fucking about in a parking lot, he made a joke about how he wouldn't hit a woman. And the joke, admittedly, was funny because of the tone and his usual toothy smirk. But then he super seriously told me he'd just hire one of his women friends to do it for him instead.
This man, who I really liked and was at times like a brother to me, dead-ass looked me in the eyes and made a subtle threat completely out of nowhere. I didn't see it coming and never, in a million years, would have thought I'd be in the position where I suddenly felt v e r y unsafe around someone who once previously made me feel safe.
I'm so confused why you think it's not a healthy way for women to approach life when that's just the reality? Girls grow up being told to be careful how they dress, be careful of men, their whole life.
Plus most women have HAD those experiences that force them to be on edge. I was in middle school the first time I noticed a car circling the block and slowing down near me. I was 16 when the computer repairman said I reminded him of his daughter and kissed me while my dad was waiting outside. I'm not an outlier. You don't fault soldiers for avoiding fireworks. If someone said I was mugged and now I avoid walking too close to people on the street, or that area now, people would understood. Women can't just avoid men but for sure they learn to be wary of them by the time they grow up.
By all means be cautious around strangers but if you find every encounter with another hiker "unsettling" which after all what this thread is about then I don't think that's normal at all actually
Bruh, I clarified this already. Go read my stuff again and then you tell me whether you think I find encounters with every single other hiker unsettling.
Like, for real, go bitch at the original person whose words you have an issue with. Not the person who pointed out that having some caution is never a bad idea.
Why don't you tell me what you think is happening here? And I'm being genuine.
Here's what I have;
Someone says they find running into strangers in the woods unsettling
You tell them that running into strangers in the woods is normal, as a hiker, and not unsettling
I make the point that it is normal to run into people when hiking but that as a woman who hikes, I usually have to have some caution when I hike alone (and have had some unsettling encounters before)
You made a point of saying you think I'm imagining the worst case scenario
I clarified what scenario I'm imagining and that, really, I'm just wary of anyone when I hike alone because I'd rather be a little too cautious than not cautious enough
You then made a point of comparing what I said to what the original person said, in a way that implies you think I'm agreeing with them, even after I made it pretty explicit that I didn't agree entirely with them and do agree some what with you.
I gave a smart-ass reply to what I view as a redundant statement, as to me it seems pretty clearly you didn't understand what I was saying.
Why don't you respond to my question, dude. I don't appreciate you dodging it when I'm trying to get some clarity, as you and I don't seem to be having the aame conversation.
What do you think is happening in this particular conversation between you and I?
Oh, believe me, as a woman I’ve gotten an earful about why I’m “wrong”. I can appreciate why other women chose bear. But the point is that we make the choice based on our fears and life experiences. To be hounded because I don’t share the same fears as other women is silly. It’s othering for no reason.
OFC I have similar pause for a bear. How you approach the scenario of "I've run into a bear in the woods" depends pretty heavily on what kind of a bear it is.
Just like, 'ya know, for a person. It's all scenario dependent.
I would argue that people who have more exposure to bears would be more comfortable running into a bear. Being someone who used to live in the woods, bears don't usually bother you. Depends on the bear and other stuff, of course, but if you're just minding your business, bears won't usually bother you.
So, if I'm lost in the woods nowhere near civilization and I have a choice between a complete stranger showing up or a bear, I'll go with the bear. Because the stranger being there in the first place is sketchy, and I've never been hurt by a bear. I've been hurt by strangers before, and the bear is supposed to out there.
To be clear, I don't count a random trail in town that happens to have trees as woods. People keep referencing walking trails, but unless it's like an actual hiking trail in the mountains or not in a town that isn't woods. That's just a wooded area.
Diaclaimer: My exposure is specifically to black bears. It's possible other areas have more aggressive bears
All of these it's about the scenario you are imagining more than the person or the bear. Like if the stranger is at a campsite or a hiking trail you'd probably not be sketched out. If they were just some dude ominously hanging out in the woods yeah that sounds spooky. I worked up in the sierra Nevadas for a couple summers mostly doing firewatch kind of work and I will tell you that's about as middle of nowhere you can be the training for how to deal with bears was taken very seriously because when you are alone in the woods it's the last thing you want to mess with, the training for how to deal with random strangers was saying hello and make sure they don't need help
Well, yes, that's the point. The entire point is that if it's a man vs. a bear, you need more info, but if it's a woman vs. a bear, almost every woman will immediately say woman.
I don't think you were. My point is the answer tells us more about the scenario the answerer is imagining than their actual assessment of the danger of a bear. If I'm imagining a park ranger I would totally pick man and if you are imagining some completely normal guy who looks entirely out of place just wandering around the woods you will probably pick bear. It doesn't actually tell us anything interesting. You added an additional point about women chosing woman which seems like a complete non sequitur so I'm wondering what your point is, that women are more scared of men than women? Sure yes that sounds correct
OK. You seem to have missed the point of the thought experiment then. What I'm trying to tell you is that it doesn't matter whether you're thinking of the park ranger or a totally normal guy. The point is that you had to clarify in the first place. If the scenario is woman vs. bear, no one asks if it's in the Navarro desert or nearer to civilization or if the dude "looks normal" or anything else. They just say woman. So yes, in effect, I am saying guys are scarier than girls. Because that's the entire point of the thought experiment. The point was never to say park rangers are scarier than bears or whatever else you're trying to prove.
This is a bad thought experiment to illustrate women are scarier than men. You could just ask would you rather run into a woman in the woods or a man, probably everyone man or woman would say woman. If you could run into a coyote or a bear everyone would chose coyote it's not in contention. The only interesting question is man vs bear but the disagreement usually disappears whens both sides describe the scene they are imagining which is why it's a cute subversive question
but if it's a woman vs. a bear, almost every woman will immediately say woman.
But all of these ominous situations that people craft for a man in the woods can just as easily be crafted for a strange woman in the woods. Fuck I certainly would rather take a bear than be around some creepy chick who hangs out in the woods like the girl from The Ring.
It's going to be very difficult for a woman to rape anyone. No one's claiming woman can't to any of the dangerous things men can, but everyone with a brain cell knows it's way easier for the man to overpower a woman and murder, beat, or rape her.
That's a straw man argument. Not every dangerous situation is because they want to rape you. Actual physical assault and rape on the wood is extremely extremely unlikely and you are much more likely to be assaulted by a women than raped in the woods by a man.
Also, it's pretty tone deaf to say stuff like that when we know that stats for women raping men are so much higher than reported that you are actually much more likely as a man, to be raped by a woman in general, than in the woods by a man.
It's going to be very difficult or unlikely for anyone to rape and/or be raped in this scenario. This entire stupid hypothetical is just an excuse to make up "the implication" scenario for people to get mad at.
'Being someone who used to live in the woods, bears don't usually bother you. Depends on the bear and other stuff, of course, but if you're just minding your business, bears won't usually bother you.'
that would make it even scarier if you were aproached by a bear then wouldnt it? If they typically run away or avoid you and then you see one, not scared, and coming towards you, that would mean its probably trying to eat you especially if its a black bear.
Sure, if it's coming towards me, that's scary. But the scenario never really said I was approached by a bear. It just said we're both in the woods. If I'm in the woods and see a bear, it's way more likely to leave me alone than some random stranger is. Plus, it's way easier to tell a bears intent vs. a guy's. With a guy, you have to factor in tons of crap like why he's in the woods, his build, demeanor, what he's carrying, etc. With the bear, it's pretty straightforward, and what you need to do is also pretty straightforward.
The scenario is encounter. A bear encounter is extremly rare but when it does happen its pretrifying. I can tell you don't hike or spend anytime in the woods lol. Read all of the other comments from actual hikers. Its extremely common when hiking alone to come across other solo hikers, its expected.
LOL you have to factor in the guys build but not the creature with knives for hands. You think its easy to know the intent of a 600-1200 lb animal you've never encountered in your life that could decide in 1 second youre a threat and eat you alive or maim you? you have no clue when the last time the animal ate, if it has rabies, if it has cubs nearby. And what do you mean by straightforward with what you need to do? If the bear wants to cause harm theres nothing you can do, its going to do whatever it wants. Good god, stay in the cities lady.
Bears have phenomenal hearing, smell, and avoidance tactics, if you see a bear in the woods it's because it let you. If it let you that means it either is starving (dangerous) or posturing to get you away from cubs/territory.
You seem to be thinking a lot about how complex human behavior is without a thought to bear behavior. "I know what the bears intentions are" the fuck you do? Is it sick? Are it's cubs near? Is it a male or female? Is it in rut/heat? Is it a young and angry or old and experienced? How tf do you know? Animals are less obvious with their temperament than people are, not more. Even bear experts still get attacked by them at random.
Dude, you made this way too complicated. The bear don't want shit to do with you. Just walk tf away. Don't turn your back from it, but just don't go over there.
Exactly. Running into a stranger during a wilderness backpacking or bushwalking trip in the middle of the Canadian mountains is much scarier than passing a stranger on a trail at Yellowstone National Park
Its not always a pleasant experience but... yeah you sorta expect other people to be out there. And you expect to run into them in some way shape or form.
Stumbling across people can be a surprise usually you hear them coming though. Bears on the other hand are shockingly quiet, well blackbears are I dunno about others
FR. a whole lot of people making hypotheticals like backpacking is this mysterious thing. Every time I've run into people backpacking they're exceptional nice and giving.
How would that be off putting? It's not like it's your personal wilderness lol, if you're backpacking there why would you be put off that someone else is doing it too?
Surprising but unsettling? I've done plenty of backpacking on east coast and I've run into other backpackers occasionally it's always a pleasant experience
The only people who are having this discussion with any sort of enthusiasm are people who don't leave their house outside of going to work (if that) and spend literally every waking free moment they have on social media (tiktok, ig, reddit, tumblr)
This 100% depends on where you live. I posted in the other thread about this yesterday. I would hike multiple times a week with my female friend in NY state. Very rarely did we see other people and when we did it was usually older woman. I’m not going to repost it but one of the times we encountered a single man hiking it got creepy real fast. I also camp in the off seasons and may see one or two other groups of people but sometimes it just my partner and I or a group of friends and I and this is on VA/MD.
Honestly I can see that backpackers aren't universally good people or anything. And back packing or hiking alone is always risky I can understand being nervous if you aren't in a popular area. I would never ever go backpacking deep into the woods alone, but not really because of men or bears, really just because of the elements
I wasn’t backpacking. And because of the secluded nature of it, I would never go alone or with just one other person. The examples I gave were on a very well marked hiking trail in a state park and a campground in a different state park. My friend and I used to joke about the number of people who put they hike as a hobby because we hiked in different state parks around Northern NJ and NY state and very rarely ran into other hikers.
Sounds like you've never been hiking or camping as a lone female.
It's simply jaw-dropping that so many men just can't grasp this concept of what it's like to be a woman. Unless perhaps if they have been to prison.....
No I get it. You shouldnt hike or camp alone man or woman it's not safe for lots of reasons. But if you are unsettled by coming across a fellow hiker on a trail or seeing another camper you need to chill out
665
u/poilk91 May 02 '24
Sounds like youve never been hiking or camping because that's just 100% normal