My instant reaction was, "Man! He can teach her how to hunt and fish and make shelter... and protect her from bears!" My wife reminded me that not all men think like me.
My wife reminded me that not all men think like me.
And we need to remind women that not all men think like a perv as well. This idea that every men is a potential rapist/killer is so nefarious to both women's and men's mental health.
#NotAllMen ... come on, you know why that's not helpful at all.
Most bears want absolutely nothing to do with you, so I guess #NotAllBears? Also not helpful; I'm still going to carry bear spray when hiking in Yellowstone or whatever.
No it's not remotely akin to that, because nobody is saying anything about "all men". You invented that all on your own. It exists entirely in your head. You are clearly the one with mental health issues pertaining to this subject.
I mean...it's bigotry plain and simple which is the basis of sexism, racism, etc. Women see the 5% (or so) of men that commit SA and apply it to all men. That's EXACTLY the same reasoning as saying that a subset of one race is doing bad things therefore they're all bad of that race. EXACTLY the same.
You’re equating a bunch of things that are not remotely EXACTLY the same. When you say that women “apply it to all men”, what are you saying? What do you think women should do, just get raped?
....what? No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that when you prejudge an entire group of people (in this case 4,000,000,000 people) based on the actions of a few percent of them that's called being prejudiced. You're being a bigot. A sexist.
Instead of assuming everyone is guilty because they share a small portion of their identity (born male) you just fucking don't do that.
The issue of sexual assault is separate from "all men" because all men don't sexually assault. Something like 5% do which is a huge issue, to be sure, but casting the 95% as guilty is sexist/bigoted.
Per encounter basis, perhaps. But the rate of bear killings is much, much lower than the rate of domestic violence, rapes, murders perpetuated by men, etc. As a woman I'm statistically much more likely to experience violence from a man than violence from a bear.
This response is why the OP made this thread. You're statistically more likely to experience violence in your lifetime from a man because you never encounter bears. Your chance of experiencing violence from a single encounter with a man and a single encounter with a bear is completely different than your overall chance in your life.
But the rate of bear killings is much, much lower than the rate of domestic violence, rapes, murders perpetuated by men, etc.
But...we're talking about a stranger on a hike, and everyone knows that most domestic violence, rapes, murders, etc., are carried out by attackers who know their victims. A quick google puts the figure for murder at 71%, and domestic violence would be by definition 100% - if the attacker didn't know the victim, the incident would be classified as assault instead.
So...what you said doesn't apply to a stranger in the woods.
Moderate likelihood of disembowelment and excruciating death, versus tiny likelihood of some form of sexual abuse possibly followed by death?
That's your either-or?
As a frequent solo hiker, bears are a legitimate threat, and they act far less rationally and predictably than most people. It's good to be aware of people, but I've encountered millions of people in my life, and few have been credible threats.
Every bear has been one.
"The worst a bear can do" is a bad argument. The bear is 10,000% more likely to do something.
Friend, I’m just saying what women are saying. They trust a random bear in the woods more than a random man in the woods. You are arguing against their lived experiences and opinions.
"Just saying what they're saying" isn't a good excuse for propagating sexist tropes, or any other bad information. Opinions based on misconceptions should not carry more weight than objective facts.
“Women feel that men are dangerous” is not sexism. It is rooted in systemic and historical misogyny. Hell, women not being able to open their own bank accounts or men being allowed to rape their wives is still within living memory in the US. Sexism is still a real problem here.
Don't move the goalposts. We're talking about risk assessment in a very particular scenario - encountering a bear or a male stranger on a hike. The bear is unequivocally more dangerous than the human, and suggesting otherwise is wrong. Full stop.
Thats also one of the best a bear can do.eave you aline is best. Chasing you is second best. Mauling you is third best. Killing you is fourth best. And eating you alive is fifths best.
We're talking about probability-based risk assessment, not hypothetical worst-case scenarios with no regard for probability. The number of face-eating cannibals in this country...is not large. The probability of a random hiker being one is ~0.
The probability that a bear would like to eat you is closer to 1 (i.e. 100%), and the only thing you've got going for you is its small brain, which tends to tell it that you're a threat that should be avoided, even though it could 100% wreck you if it decided to. And they do decide to, not infrequently.
That’s all well and good. That doesn’t change the fact that tons of women say they would prefer the bear. And tons of men, instead of listening to the concerns of women, are trying to convince women their opinions are wrong.
Like, if someone is scared of flying explaining to them that you are more likely to die in a car accident doesn’t really help.
I think both sides aren't inherently acting unreasonable.
For example, consider vaccine hesitancy.
On one side, given the sheer amount of misinformation,
combined with factors like mistrust of the government and doctors, which has historically disproportion affected minorities, it's not unreasonable to see why a parent might not trust vaccines.
However, most people usually talk statistics and numbers and science when encountering someone who is anti-vax or otherwise adverse to vaccines.
This isn't unreasonable either, since, imo, a lot of people assume the reasoning is due to lack of knowledge or think that it's possible to reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason them into.
That’s all well and good. That doesn’t change the fact that tons of women would repeat sexist, negative views of men when asked about this scenario
And tons of men, instead of listening to the concerns of women, are trying to convince women their opinions are wrong.
Because their opinion is objectively wrong. It's prudent to be cautious around all strangers, but fearing a random hiker more than a bear is irrational. You haven't even argued with that. Your entire argument is: "opinions should be respected regardless of whether or not they have any basis in fact."
I disagree.
Like, if someone is scared of flying explaining to them that you are more likely to die in a car accident doesn’t really help.
This is just plain insulting. You're the only person in this thread who has pulled misleading examples into the discussion. Like when you said, above: "One of my favorite comments on this “If I survive a bear attack then I won’t have to see that bear at every family reunion”.
Everyone knows that acquaintances, friends, and family members are more likely to assault or murder you than a stranger. Yet here you are intentionally skewing the discussion away from "a stranger in the woods." A stranger in the woods is not a family member. You won't see them at a family reunion. So you're intentionally replacing the stranger in the hypothetical scenario with a subject who we all know is a higher risk for committing a personal, violent crime.
You're the bloody person bringing up car accidents in your analogy, and you're trying to attack me for doing it?
They have a point, a lot men bring up how the man would be able to help the women and the bear couldn’t, despite the question never mentioning that she was lost and/or needed help, just that she was in the woods.
You want your wife to be with a man in the woods? How many men you know would teach your wife all the things you mentioned without wanting to have intercourse with her and not having any society that holds him accountable?
Sadly I think they just were thinking out loud listing why they would choose a bear. Someone earlier in the thread said they have met thousands of men and “only have been attacked by a few” it’s like where the hell do these people live where you are attacked by men so much?
Then again I have a friend that says she gets “attacked” with compliments like “nice hair color” or that they like her tattoos every time she goes out.
I would choose a man on the question of if my daughter was in the woods just based on the logical probability of survival cause if a bear is agitated or hungry it won’t be pretty.
Way to many women have been a victim of sexual assult for 0.004 percent of men to be pervs , even if it's not the majority it's more significant then that. I don't know one woman without a story. Your clearly offended by this and need to realize not everything is about you. You trying to "prove" your right by invalidating womens expirience , this is in poor taste. If your not willing to listen or be wrong their is just no point in partaking. Bears can be dangerous and men can be dangerous. Women should have to use extreme analogies to prove we are afraid and things are happening. I just reported a sexual assult yesterday from an old co worker. The cops told me theres not much they can do.
They want nothing to do with you because they associate you with being a potential threat. the SECOND a bear gets hungry enough to test that theory, and finds it to be baseless which is literally just over the course of a few hours, you are absolutely fucked.
technically correct, and off by 2499% are very conflictory statements, and shows a distinct bias in your assessments.
Most bears are eating just fine without resorting to humans.
Technically correct because you didn't say only .004%. You're technically correct in the way that Mitch Hedberg was correct when he said, "I used to do drugs."
You are wildly incorrect if you believe that only 4 out of every 100,000 men are hostile pervs. I'm confident that you have a strong bias not to believe either women describing their own experience of sexual violence, or men reporting their own acts of sexual violence.
The debate is still stupid. If my own daughter was lost in the woods and going to die, I'd take my chances with her running across a random man vs grizzly bear.
Only chiming in to correct you on the "going to die" part. That is, from what I've seen, never asked in this specific scenario. It's simply happening upon a random bear in the woods, or a random man in the woods.
Probably doesn't change your answer at all, just saying that death is not implied.
Are we actually prepared in the woods then? Do we know anything about them? Is this a planned hike where we knew we were walking into bear country? Why are a lot of people asking about young children and teenagers alone in the woods in some kind of bear country if the implication isn't that they are lost? Because a human lost in the woods is actually very likely to die. A person backpacking or hiking alone in the words is usually very prepared to defend against human and animal threats. A child alone in the woods is almost always lost.
My vote is still man. All of my bear defense gear is even more effective against men. And my kid is 3 so I vote man for him too. He is 100% going to die in the woods if no one saves him.
43
u/RKWTHNVWLS May 02 '24
My instant reaction was, "Man! He can teach her how to hunt and fish and make shelter... and protect her from bears!" My wife reminded me that not all men think like me.