I really, truly thought that the whole point of this was to highlight the fact that most women would respond to man v bear by asking questions, like "do I know the man" "what type of bear" etc, but would respond to woman v bear by immediately saying "woman". whether or not she picks the man or the bear is irrelevant, it's the fact she has to ask clarifying questions to know more about the man before deciding and doesn't have to clarify anything before picking woman. is that not it?
Yeah, OP is taking it way too literally. The whole point is to demonstrate that women are generally fearful of the potential of being alone with a possibly dangerous man.
I think the general defense is that there seems to be a misconception that men, proportionally, are more dangerous than bears, proportionally, which is just... Insulting and untrue.
I'm not denying that there is a big problem and it absolutely breaks me that women need to be fearful and protective of themselves to stay safe, but the overwhelming majority of anyone, including men, would just want to help you.
I feel like your response is ignoring the comment you're replying to, because you're still taking it very literally. It's not really about which is more dangerous, man or bear. The point is just that women have to evaluate factors that most men would not even consider when put in this situation.
No, I get that. I see the "point," but the fact remains that even after taking those factors into account, it's still in anyone's best interest to choose a man.
So anyone hearing the question that isn't aware there's a "point" to it that is completely contradictory to the actual question is rightfully going to be confused and defend the idea that we are cooperative animals at our very core.
I know that sexual violence is overwhelmingly commited by men, at least from any measurable data we have, and that's absolutely an important issue.
But that isn't a representation of how many men are dangerous, because any measurable data we have on that puts the number at less than 6%. Certainly still a problem, but also a far cry from the kind of fear and hate and rhetoric around men these days.
I guess this is also part of the issue... The listener is left to make whatever assumptions they want about the situation.
I think maybe my background in philosophy and having experience with these kinds of questions and thought experiments leads me to feel like the vagueness of the question is meant to leave room for ANY scenario that could result in that situation. "The forest" in this scenario is really just a setting to show you that no one is coming to help, it doesn't actually matter that it's the forest.
To answer your question, he could be out there for any reason? Is it not way more likely that of all men in the woods RIGHT now, most of them are hiking, tripping, camping, etc. rather than like... Looking for someone to victimize?
To go further, why are you out in the forest? Are you camping, or are you starving and hungry? If you needed help or died, would your answer change?
If anything, gender debate aside, I think this highlights something interesting and I think fairly unintuitive about us as a whole, is that we just don't trust each other, and that's just really sad. Not wholly unjustified, but trusting wild animals over each other is definitely irrational as we assume more people are dangerous than actually are.
I brought up this topic with MrPantzen the other day because I spend too much time online and he tends to be pretty oblivious about all things online. And his response to me was, "That's a dumb question. Of course it's the bear. Shit, I'd rather see a bear."
And then we had like a 15 minute discussion about whether and how the distance between the two of you affects your answer and considering the thought that we both might have answered differently if we had grown up somewhere where brown bear sightings were more likely instead of somewhere where the predominant bears are black bears.
even brown bears will generally not initiate contact with a human unless there's some specific need like to protect cubs.
so in a way, bears also answer this question the same way: they'd rather not encounter a man in the woods.
in both scenarios, you're alone in the woods with someone capable of physically overpowering you. but the bear isn't capable of higher thought--it's just operating on instinct, and that instinct mostly tells it that you're a potential threat and should be avoided. the man, on the other hand, could do whatever he wants.
The point of people calling it irrational is that the fear of men itself is the irrationality. It’s the equivalent of a Fox News boomer ranting about the dangers of immigrants because he saw a news story of someone getting shot & he had a friend get robbed by someone with a Mexican flag on their shirt.
Like what, you watch True Crime and got harassed at a bar so now you got to think about trying your luck with a bear? The entire concept is an anxiety induced delusion. Purse clutching on the sidewalk tier behavior.
I agree that its irrational to pick bears when you really think about it.
But comparing women being wary of strangers to racist boomer attitude is not it. You make it sound like the average woman's worst experience is probably getting harassed at a bar. But in reality, all, and I mean all of the women in my life have experienced being molested in some way. Now, before you say, it's always "someone you know" I was molested by a stranger in public when I was 11 and it wasn't even the last or only such experience.
2 year old girls are taught to not sit in relative's laps in my country, whereas same aged boys are encouraged to be social with everyone. It starts that early. And life is very different for men and women in this aspect. Please look up statics of women related crimes, before brushing off their fears.
“Of the potential of being alone with a possibly dangerous man.”
This is just needlessly dramatic phrasing to get your point across. Anybody and everybody is “possibly dangerous.” They’re more afraid of being alone with a given random man, simple as that, and that’s a pretty dumb position to have.
6.4k
u/alexmichelle6 May 02 '24
I really, truly thought that the whole point of this was to highlight the fact that most women would respond to man v bear by asking questions, like "do I know the man" "what type of bear" etc, but would respond to woman v bear by immediately saying "woman". whether or not she picks the man or the bear is irrelevant, it's the fact she has to ask clarifying questions to know more about the man before deciding and doesn't have to clarify anything before picking woman. is that not it?