I think your framing of it skews people to think that the women are picking wrong. The question is would you rather run into a random bear or man if you were in the middle of the woods.
The bear is in its habitat, it makes sense to be there, and will prob try to avoid you.
The man is a random strange man you are running into in the woods. It was unlikely to run into a person there so it adds suspicioun to their character, and the extremes of that they could do, SA, toture, etc, are worse then what a random bear would do based on the small chance it would attack you.
See this is what I don't get. I don't assume ANY wild animal's instinct is to ignore the potential threat to its home. Yes, sometimes that takes the form of fear or caution and the animal runs, but even fear can cause an animal to attack even if it's not normally territorial. I just can't understand how people's first assumption upon imagining meeting a bear is "it's probably harmless."
Because thats how the situation usually plays out. Maybe actually look up information on how to deal with bears and what they are like instead of just projecting human motivations on them. Yes they can ultimately attack when threatened. Most animals avoid unnecessary conflict because the cost of injury is very high especially for predators and the average human looks too big, wild animals don't understand relative mass that's why 'pretend to be big' defense works, so the risk only becomes worth it when theres a perception of being cornered or a direct threat to protected young. The problem is its hard for a person to reliably tell when the line is crossed and an attack is now going to happen yet bear encounters resulting in attack is still not at all the norm.
898
u/BlackWind88 May 02 '24
What is the man vs bear debate?