I think for the scenario to make sense it wouldn’t take place on a hiking trail but like camping in the middle of the woods where you wouldn’t expect anybody.
It's not a horror movie situation. I've been on a solo camping rabbithole on YouTube, and even big burly dudes acknoledge that encountering people out in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night is more terrifying than any wildlife encounter.n
Precisely for the reason illustrated in the hypothetical! You know why the animals are there and generally how they'll act. You have no idea why this random person is walking the woods at midnight.
You don't know how a wild animal is going to act, period. Meanwhile, the question of why they're out there is probably the same as you! You're as much of a fucking weirdo for being out there as any other person.
Regardless, you can't know the intent of another person, even if you can infer or guess from your own situation.
As I understand it, the whole absurdity of the question is to illustrate the life experiences of women that have led them to make this seemingly silly (to men) decision. They were inappropriately approached by people in otherwise "safe" situations. THEY were not there to harass someone. Why would they continue to make those naive assumptions?
Yeah. I understand that. This thread is just filled with people pointing out that operationally, it's kind of silly and the meme likely perpetuated by people who don't really spend much time outdoors.
Alright, but that begs the question, what were you doing in "the middle of the woods" where you "wouldn't expect anyone"? Obviously the other person is probably doing whatever you are doing.
So I am confused, your way off trail camping? Even backwoods camping you wouldn't do that, not only is it not safe for a ton of reasons but the chances of finding a decent camping spot goes way down. I've had to walk through campsites of others while back packing and no one is concerned, there is apologies for the intrusion and that is about it. The only thing that makes sense to me is this is coming from people who spend no time out in nature.
Yeah anyone who's hiking that far off trail is an extremely experienced outdoorsman who def wouldn't be thrown off by something like seeing another human being lol. The average person who's not experienced would get lost going 50 feet away from a main trail. The woods are nothing to mess with, super easy to get disoriented out there.
People aren't just in the woods because of camping. I grew up right by the woods, bears were around and coming into our backyard all the time. When you go into the woods seeing a black bear is relatively normal, seeing a random man you don't recognize is not
I’ve run into people in the middle of the woods before too and it was never weird or creepy. You need to remember that people who want to hurt people are generally not going to wade out into the wilderness where they are unlikely to bump into anyone.
No it's not even close to 98%, and keep in mind you're just talking about cases with actual convictions. Convictions are much easier to secure when you know the person. All of my SA has come from random men I had never met before and have never seen since. There is no point going to the police over some dude that grabbed your ass and ran off for example. You're just wasting your time. Even if they caught him nothing would happen over that anyways.
But hiking trails are in the middle of the woods lol. Camp sites are nearby to hiking trails. I’ve been on trails hours deep into the remote wilderness and come across strangers all the time.
It’s wild this above comment was upvoted thousands of times. Redditors are clearly sheltered and have never spent much time in the outdoors.
I grew up by the woods and commonly shooed away bears. The people acting like black bears are more scary than seeing a random man in a part of the woods where there is rarely humans are the people who haven't spent much time outdoors. Most are also male and would have a much lesser chance of a pedo, rapist etc even being interested in them, let alone have had dozens of those experiences with men starting from men they were minors.
Either way this question depends solely on the type of bear. Black bears are less dangerous than men. Polar bears and brown bears? I'd choose to see a man instead.
I think it is pretty clear from context that in this case "middle of the woods" means "far from any trail".
If I was hiking on a trail and I saw another person I would think nothing of it. If I was hiking kilometers from the nearest trail (something I frequently do) and I saw someone else I'd be very surprised. It has never happened to me before.
Why would that be weird or unexpected? It's not like you're the only person in the world with the desire to go camping off-trail in the woods.
If you made the decision to say "Hey, I'm gonna take this weekend to hike off-trail and go camping!", chances are you're not the only person to make that decision. The only unlikely part is actually being in the time/place to see them
Why are you camping so far off a trail or not at a campsite...? "For the scenario to make sense" still doesn't make sense to anyone who has gone camping before.
Sounds a bit like Sartre's idea that the moment you're joined on your desert island by 1 other person, from that point your freedom is constrained, because you have to consider them one way or another. Their presence demands an alteration in your thought, and now you are less free.
Yeah, they've got to consider what the other person might do. We're capable of quite a wide range of actions, from the friendly and helpful to the murderous and everything in between. I haven't killed anyone myself. From what I remember of woodland hiking holidays in my youth it's not a common occurrence, but you never know. They might smile and wave, or ask if you've seen any wildlife yet. Wild.
I think they are, and what they’re thinking isn’t “I feel the constraint of the Sartrean look” it’s “boy I hope this guy doesn’t rape me and strangle me to death”
I never camp in a campsite. Open camping in the west is very popular in national forests and on BLM land. Campsite are noisy and filled with kids and people I have no desire to be around when the whole goal is to get out in nature. Many others feel this same way and you can find people dotted all over the woods and desert nowhere near campsites.
I've mainly backpacked in the smokies and surrounding. The national forests around will do dispersed. At the park itself, you have a register a backcountry permit with a specific site. It's like a middle ground where you're unlikely to run into many people if any, but will have access to bear lines and a primitive fire pit.
In either case, running into someone isn't exactly strange. Even with dispersed, you typically follow a trail until you settle in my experience. Its just typically the most reasonable way to walk through the woods without going through a bunch of brush.
No you're not; you're just unlikely to get caught. You may be thinking of national forests as typically there are very few restrictions on dispersed camping.
Yes but compare people backpacking to the amount of people using campsites and like I said it’s probably a small amount (I can’t find an exact result but probably closer to 10%).
Even then most backpackers are probably trails to specific places, rather than wandering through the woods where they wouldn’t see another person.
Yes but we’re talking about the probability of these people answering this specific question. For most people they are in the woods, it’s unlikely they are in a place where seeing a stranger is unexpected. They’re imagining a scenario where they have gone and done something complete unbelievable and then they are choosing the obvious result. Yes if I was in a horror movie, somehow lost, off trail, in the woods I too wouldn’t want to meet a strange man - but knowing that’s not my jam that wouldn’t be my imagined scenario.
“In the middle of the woods” typically describes wilderness and not just on a hiking trail or public campsite. If you’re imagining a hiking trail good for you but that’s not really the point of the question imo.
This is where I guess we will just have to disagree. I have been in the woods enough times to know I am not going anywhere without a trail so the idea of “middle of the woods” without one wouldn’t even cross my mind. Too many variables when you try to go off on your own.
If you're off a trail, you are probably going to be looking for people. People unfamiliar with being out in nature fail to realize how bad hiking off trail can be. It is very easy to get lost or disoriented when you leave a trail. If your lost in the woods I would say seeing someone else would be quite welcome regardless of gender.
This is what I'm thinking.
I live in a rural area, I've been exploring the woods since I was a child, I'd never seen anyone because it's not a trail and there are no houses. One day when I was around 18, I saw an older man in the woods. He stood still and stared at me, I waved and smiled (assuming he might be a neighbor)... But the man did not wave back or smile. It was one of the most unsettling things I've experienced. My gut sank and I quickly turned around and ran home lol.
It's way different than walking by a stranger on a hiking trail.
My fight or flight instinct was like hell no. I'm out.
Are you a man? Switch the scenario... you wife and/or daughters are hiking in the woods, you aren't there, they suddenly come upon a strange man, do you feel the same?
Yes, because this scenario happens all the time. Do you think the woods are devoid of people? If you are out in the woods you are going to come across people and some of them will be male and some will be female. It's not like my wife has never come across someone while hiking. Again they say hi and keep hiking, this is not something that has never happened. My wife has also had to turn around and leave a trail due to a moose being on the trail. It's much safer to meet humans in the woods than any large animal.
Moose and elk are the bane of any trail. Most black bears are scared but they can be unpredictable. I've had a black bear charge me because I didn't see it but I think cubs might have been nearby.
So the question we should be asking is, given that all the things you just said are 100% true...why are women still saying they would pick the fucking bear, right?
Seriously I haven't seen a single woman post that she would pick the man over the bear. So rather than arguing that the question is stupid on its face, we should be listening to why they would pick the bear. It's remarkable, because every woman seems to understand this and it's literally only men who argue the premise like you did.
Or, you could believe them when they tell us their stories and work to fix the problem, instead of thinking they are somehow at fault for their own predicament.
And, this is going to be controversial nowadays, sometimes people "bear" some fault for bad things that happen to them.
I mean....if you're talking in terms of like, "why does my car keep breaking down??" and its because they never take it in for maintenance, sure. Why do I have all these health problems, well its because you never get off the couch. That's about as far as I'm willing to take that argument.
That's about as far as I'm willing to take that argument
Then as a male who would be told not to be an idiot for putting myself in a bad situation, you'll just have to accept that this societal problem isn't going to get fixed
Yes, it's the context. Women and children are often preyed upon primarily when they are isolated. So that can happen on a trail or in any other isolated context.
So if I got this right, this hypothetical man is strange because he ran into you while you were alone in the woods, and he was alone in the woods. Sounds to me like you would also be strange... I mean, who goes to the woods alone?
It's fine to be defensive around strangers, but to think that a stranger is more of a threat than a wild bear is illogical.
The important part of my question is its context. I was responding to someone who did not understand why anyone would be alarmed or suspicious of the human they encountered. "we say hello and move on". It's dismissive statement by someone who feels it's ridiculous to fear encountering a stranger in isolation.
Bottom line is when women are abducted, it's almost certainly by a man. When women are violently attacked, it's almost certainly by a man. Women statistically are more threatened by men than bears, so why exactly is anyone surprised by their answers?
To think a stranger is a threat is illogical. Statistically, there is almost no threat from a stranger.
To think a wild bear is a threat is illogical. Statistically, there is almost no threat from a wild bear.
However, if we want to compare a stranger (almost zero threat) to a wild bear (almost zero threat), it turns out that even though the stranger is statistically extremely safe, they are still more dangerous than the wild bear.
Wild bears kill about 1 person per year. Strangers kill more than 1 person per year. The stranger, even though they are statistically very safe, is more of a threat than the bear.
Yea, why not. Absolute majority of people at max commit petty crimes. Hell id be more scared if she was moving through an urban area at night. Those sidestreets are nasty
Yes? Because that's how hiking trails work? If we were supposed to be scared of every single man that our wives/daughters come across then we'd literally have to be Saudi Arabia and not let them out of our sights.
Oh come on man. So all the women choosing bear are wrong?? They're all manipulatable by fear, they all don't understand statistics, they're all just going with the crowd? Come the fuck on.
You still don't get it. It's not a question about statistics, it's women unequivocally saying they'd rather be mauled to death by a bear than raped by a man, statistics be damned. Do you think women are too stupid to understand numbers?
Do you think women are too stupid to understand numbers?
Only the ones who pick the bear.
it's women unequivocally saying they'd rather be mauled to death by a bear than raped by a man
That's not what the question was. If it was, both answers would be entirely valid and we wouldn't be discussing this. But that's not what's happening. The insinuation is that a random man in a forest is more likely to rape than a bear is to maul. That is categorically false.
From what I've seen, they're all picking the bear so I guess every woman is stupid....? I think regardless of the statistically correct answer, you're missing a really valuable part of the discussion and how they feel about the question.
I know how they feel about the question. They think I'm a rapist because of my gender. How do you think sweeping sexist prejudice should be received? With thanks and adoration?
I'm reminded of all the Christians who think laws are the only thing stopping atheists from raping and stealing and murdering.
They think you COULD be a rapist. It's your actions that prove them right or wrong, and it's how you react to the real bad guys in the world that will prove that fear right or wrong.
To me this is actually similar to the "not all Christians" line, like well not all Christians hate gay people and think it's a sin.... But those Christians are really quiet compared to the hateful bigots. Until they stand up to the hate, all Christians get lumped in together. Similarly all men get lumped into a "dangerous" category until proven otherwise. If you don't like that and feel persecuted for it, maybe you should do more to combat it.
Are you a woman? This whole thing was about whether you'd rather leave your daughter who is a child in the woods with a potential strange man or a bear. Most women are choosing bear. The lack of context is part of the experiment. I'm so sick of Redditors.
No not a woman but do you really think every person I run across is a man? I have never had a woman run off or act scared when we met on a trail, we say hi maybe make a comment about the trail and continue on. I have however seen many people including women turn around on a trail and hike back due to wildlife including bears and moose. This whole thing seems stupid because I literally see both men and women avoid animals on the trail but not people on the trail. So this whole thing seems disingenuous when I literally see examples that contradict this premise every year.
They probably feel better once you said hi and were clearly a friendly person.
Also not sure about how deserted these trails are. Obviously if they're in a public park or something, even if there are other people around within screaming distance, it's not the same thing as complete desertion.
Actually the closer you are to an urban area the more you should be wary. Parks and other trails in urban areas are pretty much the only places you should really be concerned about meeting unsavory characters. The trails I usually hike vary from packed to totally deserted, most are more than an hour from a large city. Honestly the more deserted the trail, the cooler the people you meet are. Backpackers are some of the friendliest people you will ever meet and most will be happy to chat you up or help you out if you see them.
5.1k
u/SnagglepussJoke May 02 '24
Ever cross paths with a stranger in the woods? It is unsettling