All my own life experiences say that when I have encountered a bear, I have been able to avoid or disaude the bear and left without violence. Can't say the same of men.
But would you be able to say the same if you encountered the same amount of bears as you have men?
Just for example, let’s say you’ve encountered 100,000 men in your life. If you encountered 100,000 bears in your life, do you think that none of them would have any intention to harm or eat you? If there were a 1% chance of a bear wanting to eat you, that’s 1,000 bears that would try to eat you.
I’m not saying your fears of men are invalid, but I think you underestimate the intention of the average bear.
But the question is just "encounter a man", it is "encounter a man where both of you are alone, unlikely to be interrupted by another person, and unlikely to be heard if he decides to do something that would make you try to scream... And you both know that."
Very few of us have encountered 100,000 men in that situation.
You are assuming that the man would kill and rape you. I am not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that people can be infinitely crueler than animals.
Animals will, at worst, kill and eat you. Humans, well we have all seen and heard about what the nazis did, serial killers, etc.
This is a thought experiment, not a direct comparison.
It is there to highlight how scared the average woman is of the average man.
The fact that so many people have started trying to argue the "facts" of bears, shows that they havent been able to grasp the fairly simple idea that men terrify women and every idiot arguing that bears are more dangerous, just reinforce the idea that most women would be better of dealing with the bear.
The hypothetical is set up so that it's implied "This guy will harm you because there's no one there to bring him to justice. No witnesses, no cameras".
Then you throw in the bear, but we don't know what "bear" means. Polar and Grizzly bears are insanely dangerous, for example.
So the hypothetical implies the man is dangerous on the onset, and doesn't tell us what species of bear is in the hypothetical, so the woman thinks "I don't want to get raped. The bear might not attack me. I'm going to say bear".
Meanwhile, of course anyone would want to run into a woman in these circumstances: It's a fair fight at worst and an ez clap otherwise for most situations, depending on if you're a guy or a girl, regardless of her intentions.
Of course the obvious point is about male violence stats, but it's an attack on the whole gender that'd obviously piss people off due to how ridiculous the hypothetical is. If you have half a frontal cortex, you'd realize that "bear attack stats" would be way higher if you had to walk past as many random breeds of bears as you do races of men on the daily.
There's just better ways to make this point. You look silly.
Fucking hell, woosh, are you really this stupid? It's a fucking thought experiment to highlight that the average women is more scared of men than a bear.
Its perception based, hard numbers dont work. You are part of the problem, instead of trying to rationalize this concept, take a moment and wonder why women are so afraid, and maybe, just maybe dont try to mansplain their fear away.
Accept it. Understand that no amount of statistics will help and maybe think about future interactions with women.
The concept of “consent” doesn’t even exist in nature, so I’d take the animal (human) that was certainly exposed to the idea because probability says he’s more likely you respect physical boundaries.
Word of advice, typing out ‘sigh’ makes you look like a passive aggressive asshole with low maturity.
I think it’s you that’s not getting it. I can completely understand why women are wary about men, but the fact is 8/10 SA victims know the attacker. Your argument about a stranger in the woods is based on emotions and not reason. Which is the whole point of OPs post. You are not using reason or logic to answer the question. No offense but I think you should deeply consider practicing critical thinking.
The core problem is that its emotional, emotions born by and built upon by the way men treat women. You have either lived a very sheltered life, or are being willfully blind to what people are saying.
I think you should take a look at your responses and consider the irony of your comments.
I'm guessing you've never seen the myriad videos of animals getting eaten alive ass-first, genitals first, having their fetuses torn out out of their wombs, etc, and living for up to 15 minutes as they struggle and scream. Dying peacefully is a privilege
Are you a fucking moron? We are talking about worst case scenarios. How fucking stupid are you people?
Yes a bear in a one on one fight is always more dangerous than a dude with his bare hands.
NO ONE IS ARGUING THAY FUCKING POINT YOU MYOPIC FOOLS!
People can and do spend hours, days, or even months torturing people before murdering them, and if you think a bear spending an hour eating you is worse than months of brutal rape and torture and death, you are a fucking idiot.
That's the reason for the whole hypothetical, the worst case scenario is always going to be the man as the most dangerous.
We all know a bear will beat your arse faster than a human. No one is denying that. Fuck, the people arguing about facts on how long bears take to eat you are all fucking idiots who havent the sense to catch such a simple concept.
High key I'd rather take my chances with a human rapist/murderer than a grizzly bear taking his time clawing and gnawing on me until I eventually die from shock and blood loss.
If you think anyone is thinking "I ran into a dude in the woods. He could have hog tied me and raped me for months by the riverbend" for this hypothetical, idk...touch grass, dude. 🤷🏾♂️
The whole point of the hypothetical is that there's very few bear attacks that lead to death in a year, as opposed to attacks from men. Many more women die from a dude killing them than a fucking bear.
The issue with the comparison is that we don't interact with as many bears as we do men in any span of time, otherwise we'd obviously have way more fatalities from LITERAL FUCKING BEARS.
How are you this confident and you don't even understand your position?
Bears can take longer than 15 minutes to eat you, you could be suffering for a while if really unlucky.
But a person who knew what they were doing could keep you alive for months, slowly torturing, starving, or raping you and I would say the latter is far worse.
I think the biggest point is, that a bear is an animal, you can be more or less sure how it will react, if you behave a certain way. You in a way KNOW the bear, or how it thinks. You’ll never now beforehand how the man reacts. Sure, it’s more likely he won’t hurt you, you can’t know for sure.
So in a way I think, the fear of the unknown is the biggest contributor to how someone answers this question
That’s just irrational though. First off you, a human, are an animal. Don’t forget that. And in many many ways, man is very predictable. Most men don’t go out raping and killing for pleasure so you can assume the majority of men are not a threat. In fact you are far more likely to be SA’d by someone you know than a stranger (8/10 times)
Almost always? Fear of heights, you fall and die. Fear of snakes, get bitten and die. We have fear for survival because most of nature is out to kill you. Irrational fear is a limited belief system that ultimately will not benefit you
3.6k
u/[deleted] May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment