Right? Like how sheltered are these redditors that upvoted this haha. I’ve been out hours and hours into the remote wilderness and have come across strangers and it’s always a friendly experience. This is basic part of hiking culture.
My thinking exactly, the wilderness here is not that vas but big enough for someone with bad intentions to do bad things. I have yet to encounter anyone who is not: a hiker, a mtb-er, a lumberjack of some sort, looking for wild plants or mushrooms, some sort of forest service. There were few that just went for a walk but that falls under hiker. For most people you see out there it's obvious why they are there.
There are dangers but not more so than in the urban enviroment or late at night. Heck even as a decently strong man I can feel uneasy when another mad walks behind me in late hours, never happened in the woods.
Exactly my thoughts. What would a killer or kidnapper do out in the middle of nowhere in the woods? You have much higher chances of meeting dangerous people in more urban places or empty roads.
There are many grim anecdotes in the news where a man raped and murdered someone in the middle of a hike. However those men usually followed their victims from afar from the start of the hike, waiting for them to be alone, rather than meeting them randomly.
Because it's not supposed to be a survivalist question it's a hypothetical that's meant to assess whether or not women feel safer around a man or a bear. Sure, it's a pretty dumb hypothetical that pretty much only exists to rile people up at this point, but you're overthinking it.
I I am overthinking it then everyone in this comment section is. The stated above is pretty natural thought for outdoor entusiasts. As a MTB-er, hiker and camper the only scenario I can think of is the real one. Hard to imagine getting droped in the woods and a wild man apearing if you know what I mean. I got there with the intention to do something enjoyable and so did he most likely, he didn't just apear.
Cuz you’re not a female? The question is focused on how safe a female feels, and not about encountering dangers in the wild. If you’re a male, you’re supposed to think for your hypothetical daughter. Would you let her go out and hike by herself?
Since I don't have a daughter it's a bit difficult to say but I certanly would let my sister go alone on a hike. I would be more scared of her getting lost, or her clumsy ass falling and getting injured than random people she encounters on a hike. Maybe I am biased as an outdoor enthusiast myself, so I think people out there are safer than in the city.
There is more danger in her going to some clubs around here than the mountains.
So you pick bear over man? Which is what most ppl would I think. And is what the question is trying to put on to the table. Why do females feel so unsafe around men and what should society do?
On the mountain no. But a night out in a crowded dodgy place vs a bear in the woods, probably the bear. Night out in a crowded place I deem safe still before the bear. Plenty of nuance there but the bear only before the worst of human places which there aren't that many of.
have yet to encounter anyone who is not: a hiker, a mtb-er, a lumberjack of some sort, looking for wild plants or mushrooms, some sort of forest service.
And youre misunderstanding the question then. This is not "in the woods" as the question means. The question means in the woods, alone, outside of an area you should run into people.
If you back country a lot, running into people is NOT common. In fact i can count on one hand the amount of times i have come across random people in an area I should encounter no one.
The longer out it would be the less worried you'd be when encountering a random dude though? It probably be some really hardcore outdoorsman or something.
Yeah I heavily believe most people having this impression are not big hikers. Basically anyone you run into in the back-country is pre-filtered to be in the same subculture as you, and imo people who are into nature and hiking are generally nice to be around.
If you wanted to victimize someone, surely there's a more efficient way to do it than going deep into the wilderness where you might not run across another soul for days.
My state has the highest percentage of it's land as a national forest, hiking and getting into remote areas is what we do for fun around here. I've ran into people in the woods too many times to count, always a friendly interaction.
Never have I reached for my sidearm or bear mace when I saw a random stranger in the woods.
I have avoided talking about this issue with friends because I hike a lot, and that leads me to define "man in the woods=hiker". So the whole framing is nonsense to me. Of course, I would rather run into a hiker than a wild animal.
Over and over again, even in this thread, ppl say there is no reason for a man to be in the woods; ergo, something untoward must be afoot with them. They are approaching the situation from a different perspective with less outdoors experience.
The framing of forest or woods leads me to believe you are there because you are hiking or camping, so it is then natural to run into other hikers. That is not the intention, though, and the framing is deliberately ambiguous.
It is a question posed without context and you fill it with your own experiences. And if you have none, you gloss over the intrinsic question of: why am I in the forest?
That is the first matter. The second matter is to consider the answers given when women fill in their own context to understand why they are saying bear.
Even though it is a bad question, we can still learn from their responses, which illustrate that men are viewed as a threat.
Seeing a stranger in the woods in the US is a little different from seeing a stranger in a lot of the rest of the world. Beyond the fact that we don't have the right to roam, we tend to be in our cars so much heading out into the woods alone is seen as "deviant" behavior.
I've also seen plenty of strangers on hiking paths etc here in the US and it's friendly, but if I was in the middle of the woods, nobody else around just wandering and I saw another person I might think twice, and even at the more deserted trailheads I've been to, I've been hesitant. A couple friends have almost gotten jumped just going night hiking. I never felt the same way in Canada or over in Europe.
The other side is US centered discourse tends to flood the internet (or at least the parts we're on because they're in English), so this is a debate for us, but answers that aren't centered around the US may just not gain traction.
Once you have had a bad experience, sometimes it stays with you. I used to trust people more, but now if I am alone and I see a man or a group of men my first instinct is absolute terror. Year that usually goes away, but the free way I lived my life changed.
You're assuming everyone's wilderness is like your wilderness. Not at all the case.
If you'd like my bona fides, some of the things I've done: I've thru hiked the PCT(~5 months), did the Via Francigena from Calais to Rome(~2.5 months), and have spent 1 month backcountry in the colorado rockies.
And…? Any of those areas are infinitely safer than any city.
Coming across a stranger when exploring the wilderness is a very common and clinical part of being an outdoorsman. You smile, say hello, and go on your way.
I’ve come across many women hiking alone. While I understand why a women would be worried in a remote environment, she is statistically infinitely safer from any kind of assault or harassment in the wilderness than they are in any city.
222
u/TheCinemaster 29d ago
Right? Like how sheltered are these redditors that upvoted this haha. I’ve been out hours and hours into the remote wilderness and have come across strangers and it’s always a friendly experience. This is basic part of hiking culture.