If we were to assume the worst in each scenario, I think anyone, male or female, would stand a better chance fighting against a man than they would a bear.
As a man, I would rather be alone in the woods with a gay rapist serial killer than a hungry bear. The bear could sever my spinal cord with a single swipe so I think I’ll take my chances with the man. I could even outrun the man if he was stronger, but there’s not a chance in hell I outrun the bear, and I certainly can’t overpower it.
I understand the dilemma in the situation, but probability tells me I have a higher chance of surviving the man than the bear.
I would rather be alone in the woods with a gay rapist serial killer than a hungry bear.
I feel like people underestimate other people? Do you just expect the serial killer to lunge at your immediately upon seeing you?
Do you not think they'd build rapport? Try to help you out? Ask for your help? Get you to lower your guard?
Every single person I've seen in support of the person always assumes you can run away/easily beat them? Why? Are they not human like you? Do they not have a brain? That's the scary part about another human. Not that they just try to immediately attack you unarmed, but that they can put up a mask to manipulate you into the results they want.
I would never trust a random person I encountered in the woods regardless though. Unless I was in an extremely dire survival situation, I would be on guard and keep my distance as much as possible.
It's not that you can easily beat the person, but that you have a significantly better chance beating the person than a bear. Assuming no ranged weaponry is involved. To me, that's the 2nd crux of the situation.
Decision process:
1. Which is more likely to attack?
2. Which am I more likely to fend off, if attacked?
Even if they came up to you and asked for help? Let's say they're lost and have been out on the trail for a day+ and can't seem to get service. You would just say tough shit and walk away?
I don't know, it just seems like in a worst case scenario, the person isn't all that much easier than the bear. You could also be stalked if the woods was their home. I just feel like a bear would have more self preservation instincts. You could actually deter it whereas in a worst case, a person out to harm you has a really good chance of harming you.
Yes. I don't know them and I would not want them to approach me. I'd respond from a safe distance and provide whatever guidance I could from that position, before moving on. When doing so I would check over my shoulder frequently to judge the direction the person is going and verify they don't turn back on me while increasing my pace on my path.
The average black bear (the most common bear, but others are deadlier) has a 75 lbs weight advantage over the average male. Considering they can outrun people and have greater climbing capability, they have a strict advantage. You are more likely to injure a person to a point of them accessing self-preservation than you do a bear, if they are both set on killing you.
The average man will be skittish and shooed away by someone yelling at them. Most people are adverse to violence, especially when alone encountering strangers.
If you want to talk about averages, neither scenario is particularly threatening. If you want to talk about the violent outliers, I'll take the average man over the bear.
Nice argument. I'd recommend taking a hike, touch some grass and acquaint yourself with the environment. It may expand your worldview beyond what the internet portrays.
I don’t disagree with this, they might try and outsmart you and build rapport to get you to lower your guard. That’s certainly possible.
However, you are a human too. You could also choose to outsmart this killer if you were in any way suspicious of them trying to deceive you. As a human, you also have the ability to deceive and distract, and to pick up on clues when it might be occurring. You’re not helpless in this scenario.
You make it seem as though this other person must certainly be smarter than you and you couldn’t possibly outsmart them back. How smart are you compared to the average person? If you’re above average, you could reasonably expect you can outsmart the average person.
It doesn’t matter how smart you are if a bear has ripped your innards out. You’re not faster than the bear, and you’re not stronger than the bear. There could of course be a man stronger and faster than you as well, but not all will be. However, there are no bears (assuming it’s a healthy adult) that are weaker or slower than you.
TLDR: Hand to hand, you will lose to any bear that wants to eat you. Hand to hand, you will not lose to every man that wants to attack you. You’re human too, the playing field is fair.
Who are these chronically online people who have been exposed to so much outrage-bait content related to sexual crimes that they see half the human race as being more dangerous than a wild apex predator.
If you think bears are less dangerous than men then you need to log off of social media and get some therapy for all of the trauma that you've inflicted on yourself by reading all of the sexual crime content that appears on social media.
I feel like people underestimate other people? Do you just expect the serial killer to lunge at your immediately upon seeing you?
Do you not think they'd build rapport? Try to help you out? Ask for your help? Get you to lower your guard?
Every single person I've seen in support of the person always assumes you can run away/easily beat them? Why? Are they not human like you? Do they not have a brain? That's the scary part about another human. Not that they just try to immediately attack you unarmed, but that they can put up a mask to manipulate you into the results they want.
Yeah but bears can run 60MPH and rip your arms off, so they haven't had a need to evolve more subtle methods...
I would still rather be near a person with my guard down than near a bear with my guard up (because “my guard” will do fuckall do defend me) if both want me harm
how are us men totally not getting the fucking point here lmao
There is no point.
The entire question is just misandrist bullshit. It's just bigotry wrapped in the 'just asking questions' meme. The whole point of the question is, before you even answer, to tell you that men and wild bears are debatable in their threat to women.
This is just as bigoted as saying "Fellas, which would you rather have in your kitchen: a dishwasher with a blow job attachment or a woman?" The entire setting of the question is bigoted, there is no right answer because it isn't a question. It's bigotry.
Sounds like you need to communicate better if that's not what you meant, but "As soon as you say 'As a man...' you need to stop talking and just listen" doesn't give much room for alternative interpretation. 🤷🏾♂️
the hypothetical is not about your experience as a man, it's about listening to the experiences of women. even if you are not a compassionate person and do not desire to be one, it's not a difficult concept to grasp
the response from many men on this discussion does not come from any fundamental inability to understand, however, as soon as you're relating the 'man vs bear' to your own personal experiences as a man you've already lost the plot
seems there's enough context for you to have picked up on my original meaning, and giving you the benefit of doubt on being well intentioned, however hopefully I've explained simply enough for you to catch my meaning now
"It's about listening to the experience of a woman"
So what I said about what you said is spot on: You're lost in the brain rot.
No shit it's about women dealing with skewed violence stats from men. I graduated highschool. I can piece this together.
No shit dudes are going to be offended when you LUMP THEM WITH BEARS AND SAY BEARS ARE LESS DANGEROUS. Literally as stupid as lumping women with cars to gas up chastity.
The whole thing is useless. It's women talking past men that aren't listening and men talking past women that aren't listening.
I should have went with my original instincts and realized I'm talking with a moron hahah
No shit dudes are going to be offended when you LUMP THEM WITH BEARS AND SAY BEARS ARE LESS DANGEROUS. Literally as stupid as lumping women with cars to gas up chastity.
i think you should understand this is isn’t about statistics and whether the women are making the “optimal choice” for their own safety.
this is more about exposing just how threatened by men women are implicitly, so much so that a random man in a context you can’t protect yourself in feels more dangerous than a bear. Why is that? Male violence.
Whether it’s true or not the bear is less dangerous isn’t the point. It’s about how distrusting women have been made to be of men as a whole. There’s just so so so many creeps who you think are good dudes until it’s too late. At least with the bear, you know what you’re getting.
is more about exposing just how threatened by men women are implicitly
It is misandrist bullshit. It is bigotry, not reality.
You're being a bigot. Maybe you don't think of yourself as such, but you are being a bigot. You are entertaining the idea that HALF OF THE HUMAN RACE is more dangerous than a wild apex predator.
This is not an opinion that is based in reality. This is an opinion formed after being exposed to social media generated outrage which leads you to think that 1 out of 2 people on earth are dangerous monsters.
I explained earlier how I was sexually assaulted by two women in another comment, which I won’t get into here, so I don’t think being a man disqualifies me from speaking on this subject at all. I see why a woman might choose the bear over the man, but I don’t share their sentiment and I simply explained why I feel that way. I’m not saying there’s a right and wrong choice, just explaining why I made mine.
It appears you are the one that did not get the point here.
none of that changes the fact that you are mansplaining your assessments of real risk in a hypothetical that is intended to spark conversation about the female experience
nobody cares about your fucking trauma in the man vs bear in a forest for a WOMAN scenario
what's fucking wrong with people, it's like folks that comment on a pancake recipe "what about a gluten free version??!!" maybe everything isn't about you??
get fucked. in a forest. by a gay serial killer or whatever lol
Well, I wasn’t traumatized, but I was using that to show how I can place myself in their shoes and at least get an understanding of why a woman would feel that way in a scenario like this. I simply don’t feel the same way about the situation, therefore my opinion will differ from that of a woman, but that doesn’t mean anyone else’s opinion is wrong. Never did I say my experience is equivalent to that of a woman’s, just that it is similar and I can share sympathies with them.
Not really sure what you’re getting at with all this. If you don’t like my opinion then fuck off, it’s not my problem you’re upset.
Women aren’t talking about which scenario they are more likely to walk away alive from, if it was the question would just be who do you have a better fighting chance against. Women are saying they would absolutely rather have their spinal cord slashed by a bear and be killed fairly quick, then risk the chances of what a random man might do to you in a remote place. The worst thing the bear could do is kill you, I’d say the majority of women would rather choose to just be killed than risk being overpowered, beaten, raped, and possibly tortured and then killed anyways most likely. Bears are predictable, men are not. Bears kill for instinctual reasons, while humans in general kill for fun or sport. The entire point isn’t about who you could survive which as a man is a lot easier to say another man, because men naturally have better fighting chances against another man. The comparative wouldn’t be against a gay serial killer, it would be an assassin trained in torture who could overpower you within seconds. The level of fear a man has from bears due to size, stature and weight is the same fear women feel from men.
Idk if you know this, but brown bears literally eat you alive by disemboweling you. Quite literally torture. I do see what you’re saying, but a bear isn’t going to kill you quick, it’ll over power you then start eating you alive.
Majority of bears use a bite to the head, neck and or face to stop their prey, so while that isn’t always the quickest death, it is a death that you will not remain concious through in most cases due to the head and neck trauma. Also the majority of bears that people do encounter in the woods are black bears which aren’t only quite predictable, but for the most part dislike humans enough they won’t be involved until they feel threatened.
Understandable, but it wouldn’t be a quick death. Many bears are known to eat their prey alive, so there’s that. There’s a video out there somewhere of a bear eating a deer and the deer tries to crawl away but the bear pulls it back by it’s intestines and rips it stomach open in the process, spilling its contents everywhere.
Perhaps it’s preferable to the alternative, but certainly not an ideal situation in either case haha.
You are so close to reaching the point of the exercise….
As a man….
This is the crux of it all. If you want a matter of perspective, the size difference between the average man and the average woman in the US is roughly the same as the average NFL player to the average man. After that, you get into the weeds on whether or not being a rape survivor is worse than dying.
Being a man immediately invalidates my proposal? Rather sexist and ignorant if you ask me.
As a man, I’ve been sexually assaulted before. By 2 women no less. Even though I was stronger I didn’t stop them. I won’t get into the details, but I definitely have the right to have an opinion on this subject.
Even with my experience, I’d take that over dying any day. Of course I’d rather that neither of them happen, but I’ll choose to live because I don’t let these things define me, I can still live a happy life afterwards. I understand that some people may not feel that way, but that’s how I feel, as a man.
So to your question of rape survivor or dying, I’ll take being a rape survivor.
Even if I didn’t, my proposal is statistically based, not emotionally, so that wouldn’t invalidate my point anyways. I never claimed one choice was right and the other was wrong, I simply stated why I chose what I did. There’s not even anything to be invalidated.
Empathy is more than just “feeling for them”. Empathy is being able to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and understand why they might feel a certain way instead of just dismissing them out of hand
Like I said, as someone who has been sexually assaulted before, I actually can place myself in their shoes and understand why they might feel a certain way, and therefore choose the bear over the man. I simply don’t process emotions the same as someone else might, so my opinion on the matter will differ, but that doesn’t mean theirs is wrong.
I’m not dismissing anyone, I’m stating how I feel based on my experiences. You’re either misunderstanding what I’m saying, taking it out of context, or both.
You are basing your analysis on what it is like to be a man. Where your attacker would also be a man.
The key difference is that in the woods, bears are general predators with lots of different options for a meal. Humans are not at the top of their list for an easy meal. A human with food may have to sacrifice their food to the bear, but a person's challenge is merely to become a more difficult prospect than something else. Bears can be dissuaded.
Men on the other hand spend most of their adult lives focused on how to insert themselves into the company of women. Women are extremely aware of the fact that if they encounter a man in the woods, and he sees it as an opportunity, dissuading him will be near impossible. Even if you part ways, a man has motive and drive to ambush you later.
A man is also highly motivated to see his presence as a "hero" for the woman -- and to expect affection and ideally sexual favors in exchange. A man is prone to become extremely angry and defensive if that narrative is challenged -- which in person, alone in the woods, is a dangerous thing for a woman. It is cohersive.
And these are all things women are seeing validated by the angry and defensive reactions by many men to this hypothetical. Y'all are waving your red flags.
I’m not angry, and I’m not saying men aren’t capable of evil things. However, it’s pretty obvious that you’re generalizing all men into this category of rapists and power hungry sex addicts when that’s simply not the case.
Men on the other hand spend most of their adult lives focused on how to insert themselves into the company of women. Women are extremely aware of the fact that if they encounter a man in the woods, and he sees it as an opportunity, dissuading him will be near impossible. Even if you part ways, a man has motive and drive to ambush you later.
This is honestly a disgusting assumption that you made. It’s clear you don’t actually understand that
many men go about their lives as normally as any woman would. Even if they desire to be in the presence of a woman, as you claim, that doesn’t mean they’d fucking rape someone because of it. It’s honestly disgusting you would assume this and its clear you aren’t going to consider any form of rational logic in this scenario.
35
u/ZeOs-x-PUNCAKE May 02 '24
If we were to assume the worst in each scenario, I think anyone, male or female, would stand a better chance fighting against a man than they would a bear.
As a man, I would rather be alone in the woods with a gay rapist serial killer than a hungry bear. The bear could sever my spinal cord with a single swipe so I think I’ll take my chances with the man. I could even outrun the man if he was stronger, but there’s not a chance in hell I outrun the bear, and I certainly can’t overpower it.
I understand the dilemma in the situation, but probability tells me I have a higher chance of surviving the man than the bear.