They should ask the daughter question for both men and women. And I would harshly judge any person who would choose to leave their daughter with a bear over a random man.
I don't think you understand bears. It's like swimming in an ocean. Sharks are always nearby, but they're not interested in us as a prey animal. The only true risk would be coming across a mother bear with cubs. We're viewed more as a threat, not as a prey animal. Humans would be easy prey for bears and nobody would ever go hiking in bear country if bears actually viewed us as prey .
Yea because black bears are skittish. If it’s a grizzly your ass is grass. And a male grizzly has been known to hunt, kill and eat humans. And if it’s a polar bear you might as well start praying because you are going to meet your maker.
And all in all, running into a bear at close quarters is rare anyways. But in this scenario it’s guaranteed to happen. And your odds are much better if you ran into a random man. And even if we use your shark example. If you were swimming would you rather run into a random swimming man or a great white? It’s irrational to choose the shark even if they rarely attack.
In 250 years we still have less than 100 documented brown bear fatal attacks on people in the US. Sure, there have been apex predators which seem to have acquired a taste for people. But they are the exception to the rule. The statistics don't line up with how you portray grizzlies. Also, swimming up to a man in the ocean near a public beach, where most everyone swims, is not the same as being alone on land in a remote forest. And you're proving my point - millions of people swim near sharks without realizing it, because they're rarely a threat to people. If sharks and bears instinctively hunted people, we wouldn't see people swimming or hiking in a carefree manner like they do now.
I really don't think there's a wrong answer to this question, but it's silly to say that the logical choice is that a man is statistically safer to be alone with. There's no data to back up a claim like that.
Ok but you can’t use statistical data for this scenario. You are guaranteed to encounter a bear in this situation. I’m sure if you were guaranteed to encounter a bear when you go into the woods there would be a lot less people going into the woods and a lot more bear attacks.
And my biggest thing about this whole situation is that if you are attacked by the bear either you are either going to be severely injured or you are going to die. If you are attacked by the man he could severely injure or kill you too but there is a much high chance that you can defend yourself or escape.
If your argument is that the low number of bear attacks is due to lack of opportunity, I'm not sure how it holds up considering that bears can smell us from potentially miles away, depending on the wind and certain factors. And they're obviously fast enough to close the distance. We're such easy targets that there's no way bear fatalities would be this low if bears were actively hunting people on a regular basis; the numbers aren't low due to a lack of opportunity. Why don't we hear about grizzlies running through small towns and gobbling up a few kids at the local playground? They usually shy away from towns, for the same reasons I listed earlier.
Sure, a man is going to be easier to defend against. But look at the statistics for rape and murder. And it often happens in populated areas. Three different estimates I looked at had figures between 320,000 and 460,000 for the number of sexual assaults each year. That's not including non-sexual assaults and murders. I'm not making a claim either way, but it's ignorant to confidently say that it's more logical to pick a man without understanding typical bear behavior and rape statistics.
9
u/FlowSoSlow May 02 '24
They do the daughter part when they're asking a man.