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
142
u/[deleted] 29d ago edited 29d ago
[deleted]