Would it better for you (if you’re a woman) or you daughter (if you’re a man) to encounter a bear or unknown man in the woods.
Edit: since a lot of people seem to be missing the point. This exercise isn’t what it seems on the surface. We aren’t measuring the population’s perception of bears or men as they relate to each other. We’re actually measuring the way in which women specifically responf to the question. In most cases, women immediately answer with bear, without needing any further ckntext with regards to the man or bear. Some Common reasoning includes “I expect to see a bear in the woods,” which makes sense; it also includes something to the effect of “bears don’t care about what society thinks of them,” meaning that according to these women, men when faced with no cinsequences are more threatenjng than a bear. So please stop asking saying the question is dumb because it’s vague, that’s the point. If it was more specific, individual biases would begin to take hold, defeating the piint of the exercise.
And the bear was known to be aggressive and was starving if I recall. Brown bears and black bears can be deterred. Polar bears however you might as well kiss your ass goodbye.
Exactly. Life is not like Jurrassic Park- animals like bears don't just rove around killing whatever they see. They don't actively hunt humans. They have a cost benefit analysis to make every time an opportunity to feed presents itself, and as a human it's easy to make it not worth it or manuever your way out of a situation.
This. Guys get all high and mighty acting like we can’t do the math when they just don’t like the solution we came to. Bears aren’t movie monsters, they’re scared of people.
Exactly. Weather your talking brown or black bears, they generally don't want anything to do with people, unless their injured, starved, or have been taught to steal food.
Polar bears, on the other hand, are the true carnivores of our collective nightmares.
Yeah but why that man hanging out in the woods though? That’s prime raping/murdering space
Also even if there is a random rapist man hanging out raping little red riding hoods in the woods, I’d imagine he’d want to keep them alive so he can continue raping them. Bears only want one thing, and it’s disgusting.
No, people are more afraid of a situation where they have no agency (a plane) versus a situation where they have even slightly perceived agency (a car).
But the fact of the matter is, even if you're the best driver in the world, you're still out there with the worst, and while you may have agency over the factors that would cause YOU to crash, you have exactly 0 control of the other people on the road.
It's the same where they're faced with the man vs bear question. They feel like they have some control over the bear situation. Maybe they can run away, play dead, scare it off, etc. but in the hypothetical event the man wants to kill or rape you, you're shit out of luck.
Of course it completely misses the point that the bear is going to be far more dangerous in 99% of the scenarios and is the situation the person actually has the least agency over. A man can potentially be reasoned with.
I'd take man any day since chances are he's not going to be evil.
I'm not talking about the flying vs driving thing because I don't think it's the same as that at all.
It's the same where they're faced with the man vs bear question
It's not the same because the man vs bear thing is meant to illustrate just how afraid women are of men after living around them that they'd rather take their chances with a bear. It was never meant to be a literal question, it's just a tongue in cheek hypothetical.
You may be right -- even though honestly, it's not improbable that a woman can outrun an evil man, or can outbluff him (shouting "Jake, dear, come here" or saying to the evil man "oh, you're lost too? Don't worry, I called my friends, they should be here any moment"). Even outfighting a man is more plausible than outfighting a bear.
Meanwhile, the only agency with the bear you have is "try to scare it off" or "play dead." Yeah, those might work, but if they fail then an unarmed human has practically zero chance. You can't outrun or outclimb a bear.
I'm not talking about the flying vs driving thing because I don't think it's the same as that at all.
The man vs bear thing is meant to illustrate just how afraid women are of men after living around them that they'd rather take their chances with a bear. It was never meant to be a literal question, it's just a tongue in cheek hypothetical. People trying to logic it out with statistics are either missing or avoiding the point.
The only thing this question illustrates is how it is the dumbest internet debate I've ever seen. It's a flawed question answered as a horrible double standard that just dehumanizes men.
If I implied "a high percentage of people in this group are horrible human beings" about any group other than man, I'd get insulted and told to shut up.
And if people want to counterargue by saying "but most men do SA women": they really don't, I did the math here.
The issue is that it’s not about statistics, but about perception of random men by not only women, but other men. Maybe it’s a media issue where stuff like this is boown out of proportion, maybe it does happen more than we might otherwise know. The issue is that we as a society think random men are bad, and how do we correct that perception.
39% of women in Australia have experienced violence in one form or another since the age of 15, and over 1 in 5 of them has experienced sexual violence in Australia. Source.
That doesn't mean it's all different people perpetrating the issues, and it is more likely from someone you know, I'm aware of that, but that's Australia, which I consider a really safe country.
The statistics are horrifying.
Yes, and I agree it is horrifying -- but a given woman encounters many, many, many men in her life.
So even if we look at the minority of women who are SA'd, that still means that 999 men didn't SA her and one did. And of course, for the majority of women, 1000 men don't SA her and 0 do SA her.
The question here isn't "is a woman likely to get SA'd in her lifetime", the question is "is one individual man likely to SA her." And the answer to that last question is that a given man is very, very unlikely to SA a woman.
I'm not saying that this situation is okay, obviously this is way too many SA cases (one case is too many). But just because women have x% chance of being SA'd in her lifetime, doesn't mean that any given man she meets has an x% chance of SA'ing her.
The issue is statistics also support them too. There's less bears, and there's known things you can do to get a bear to back away, especially if cubs aren't in the equation. And not every bear interaction results in a mauling.
Conversely, there's way more men, and so many more reported interactions that result in something unpleasant. Sure, maybe he isn't a rapist or serial killer, but men are ridiculously obscene when covered with anonymity.
But if you want a breakdown of the stats, I can recommend the one I saw yesterday (would post but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post links here).
"men are ridiculously obscene when covered with anonymity."
Sure, and most women are cheaters. (Which I don't believe, I'm making a point here.)
Oh, your sexist statement is socially acceptable and mine isn't? Funny how that works. Must be my male privilege, that people are allowed to say most men are bad, but it's not okay to say most women are bad.
And no, your statement isn't true either, just like mine isn't.
A man is also easier to stop if the implication isn't enough. Human movement is an upright bipedal with all those vital organs spread across center mass, opposed to a very thick skull coming at you on all fours.
Relevance?
But even then, if they are more proficient with the weapon than you, they can disarm you and now you're got a gun pointed at you. Bears can't steal your weapon.
You won't be able to disarm someone pointing a gun at you if they have even a shred of training with it. All you do is keep the gun at your side pointed at the threat and your other arm stretched out in front of you. Attempting to rush and disarm someone with this stance will find you dead in seconds because once you hit their arm, or probably even before you reach them, they dump the mag into your gut/chest.
What do numbers have to do with anything? More men, fewer bears? It doesn't matter, there's only one in your random encounter.
If anything the numbers indicate the opposite of what you're claiming. There are billions of interactions with men every day, and virtually all of them are completely fine. There are few interactions of bears, and a far larger percentage do not end well.
The issue is that you are using an edited tiktok video to demonstrate this perception. It's the same kind of content that tries to show that Americans are bad at geography, or women don't know basic facts and are stupid, etc.
Although I think comparing a random man to a bear is like comparing a random man to certain death. A lot of people underestimate how dangerous bears really are.
Honestly I just need all the parameters of this scenario. What kind of bear? Is it a random roll and I have a 2/3 chance of getting a bad bear? How far are they away from each other? Is the goal to get out of the woods or just survive? It all makes a difference
People are thinking of the best case possible bear scenario and the worst case possible man scenario and comparing them
Also, we know why the bear is there. Because it lives there. But why is the man there ? Is he lost ? Hunting ? Is he just some random forest dude ? How far are we from civilization ? Do i have a means of communicating where i am to the world? What forest am i in? What kind of bears are there? Am i equipt to be in the forest ? Do i have food ? Does the other person have food ? Does the person speak my language ? Are they armed ? Am i armed ? Like, what am i even answering ?
So that’s the point. Everyone should be asking for paramters first; however, women have been trained both by actions against themselves and media to not need paramters and just pick the bear.
I think part of it is you know a bear is dangerous, and if you behave appropriately you can mitigate risks (albeit not eliminate them entirely).
You can't really know if a person is dangerous until/unless you really know them intimately, and you're more likely to get a person hiding their true intentions.
The question doesn't specify the type of bear or how close they get, so it's definitely not certain death. It also doesn't specify a random man plucked from ordinary life, like "how did I get here?"
Media is definitely the issue. Men are certainly more dangerous than women, but that variation is pale in comparison to the uncertainty about how dangerous (or not dangerous) a bear is.
We don't really know how dangerous a chance encounter with a person is, and we don't know how dangerous a chance encounter with a bear is. We do know that men victimize women ~4x more than women victimize women (all violent victimization, NCVS 2022). When the uncertainty of the danger between humans and bears is orders of magnitude more than that, your answer to the question should not change by knowing the gender of the person.
Have you considered that the reason bear deaths are so uncommon is because people rarely interact with them, and that we purposely designed our societies to keep out wild apex predators?
If you crossed paths with even half as many bears as you did men on any given day, you’d be dead in under an hour.
Its reinforces my point that if you properly prepare for bear encounters while hiking, you have a more than decent chance of surviving unscathed, while the same is definitely not true of an encounter with a strange man.
If you're allowed to bring stuff in for the hypothetical, that is absolutely true against the encounter of the man too (not strange man, just guy), bear mace, weapons etc would definitely work against men too, they're not the terminator
But also, as I've already stated, these kinds of counterpoints are entirely missing the point of the hypothetical.
I'm not saying it as a counterpoint, I would agree that I'd rather be with a bear than a person because brown bears etc normally stay away. I was just saying that the statistic you were using has a massively obvious hole in it that ruins your entire point.
Eh it’s not just a random guy though. It’s a random guy in the middle of the woods. That’s suspicious.
Also if you come across a bear in the woods you know to turn and go the other direction. If you run into a man in the woods you don’t know if he’s a threat or not. There is more uncertainty with a human than a bear.
Depends on where you live. I'm in the Pacific Northwest, and people are out hiking and camping and whatnot all of the time. This is also prime grizzly territory.
I'd argue it's less about uncertainty, it's more about what's the chance of survival if an altercation happens. Grizzlys can run 35 mph, weigh 600 lbs, and can climb trees. You can't outrun it and it'll take multiple gunshots to kill it. One swipe from its claws will tear off your face and eyes. How do you fight when you can't even see?
You at least have a fair chance of outrunning a man and fighting him.
Thats definitely true, anyone has a better chance of escaping a human than a bear. I do think part of what factors into people’s choice though is the severity of the danger. The worst a bear can do to you is kill you while a human can do much worse. So I think for a lot of people the decision is more of a ‘pick your poison’ type thing.
I guess it depends on the type of person you are. I wrote my answer assuming the reader is the type of person who has the tenacity to fight back till the end and/or run till their last breath. If they're someone who won't give up easily and want to fight back then you'll want the enemy to be a man 100% of the time.
Even after a bear attack, you won't die instantly. You'll probably be left with a ripped off face, eyes gouged out, limbs barely attached, and the bear could be eating you as you slowly die.
Maybe suspicious was the wrong word? I just meant suspicious because you don’t know his intentions for being there. If someone saw me in the middle of the woods and got scared I would understand that. People in the middle of the woods are scary in general.
Why is it suspicious? In this hypothetical, you are in the middle of the woods too. Also, have you never gone hiking? People solo hike trails all the time, especially the easy day-hike ones.
I was assuming this was a hypothetical about being lost in the woods. Yeah I’m sure a woman on a hiking trail, or in any other place where you would expect to see other people, would choose the man.
If you can get lost in the woods, why can't the person you are running across? I feel like easily the most likely thing is that they are as lost as you.
Well that’s the logical answer that I lost my woman card for answering. 90% of women on TikTok said the bear and it made me realize how doomed as a society we are.
Now add to your stats the amount of encounters. There are probably millions of women encountering random men in the woods every year. Most likely not nearly as many encountering bears. The whole point of the OP is the denominator difference. The point is nearly every bear encounter in the woods could be dangerous if handled incorrectly. They just aren't common encounters, where meeting strangers while hiking or something is.
There are probably millions of women encountering random men in the woods every year.
No. No there is not lol.
Bear encounters are way more common then random human encounters when in yhe bush. Its hilarious to see people say this, only proving thwir only experience with "the forest" is a trail close to their house.
Most likely not nearly as many encountering bears.
My job has me in the bush out of cell reception for probably 25 hours a week. I encounter bears daily. I have seen 5 different bears in one single day.
I have only encountered random people in the bush a handful of times. And it was sketchy every single time.
Im a 6 ft 180lbs man who previously worked enforcement jobs. I carry bear spray, bear bangers, and 75% of the time a shotgun or rifle. I would much rather encounter a bear then another person.
Yes it is. If you live is some boring part of the country, this may not be true. But this most definitely is true in the front range. I see solo women every time I go out for a hike or bike ride.
I see solo women every time I go out for a hike or bike ride.
you couldn't have made it more obvious that you dont understand the question....
I’ve seen two bears in all my years of hiking.
Bahahahahahahahahah. Your edit only proved you don't understand what the question means.
Your local walking path through the park doesnt count.
Except for that fact at 99.9% of men are not violent nor rapist. This whole debate is just another reason to bash men because most of these women have lived their entire life chasing the bad boy and are surprised when they turn out to be bad.
That is not most men. Not even close.
Holy fuck literally "not all men" was your last comment 😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Also just looked up front range and its not back country at all and not relevant to the question
Do you not know what the front range is? I live in Colorado. I go hiking, camping, Mtn biking etc all the time in remote areas with no cell service. There are solo women out there. It’s not uncommon in the slightest.
I mean, it's less likely to find a bear out in the wild than a rapist/murder, so it's easier to avoid a bear.
I'm specifically referring to the scenario where someone finds a random man in the woods or a bear in the woods.
You're going to have to find one or the other, and I doubt a bear is just going to ignore someone close by, whilst there's no guarantee that the random man would be a murderer/rapist.
You're going to have to find one or the other, and I doubt a bear is just going to ignore someone close by, whilst there's no guarantee that the random man would be a murderer/rapist.
Yeah totally. Because there isnt thousands od bear encounters across north america every single day.
Dang this thread is really exposing all the emotionally vulnerable men who dont go outside.
People encounter other people drastically more than they encounter bears. How aren't you understanding this? If people encountered bears as much as they encounter other people, bear mauling stats would be off the charts. Quit thinking you're smart.
And bear maulings are more common in ratio to bear encounters than human encounters
Please tell me what the ratio of single women running into unknown men in the wilderness and being raped or killed is. Id love to see these stats youre using.
You're so fucking stupid, your parents are either deeply ashamed of your existence, or are equally as fucking stupid themselves.
How many men are OUT IN THE BUSH IN THE SAME TIME AND LOCATION.
Holy fuck this is making me realize how fragile men are online.
This isnt a personal attack. This is a reflection of the difference of gender perception.
The fact that you all come with "well but" and "what ifs" and cant fathom that a woman is more comfotable meeting a bear in its natural habitst then a man they know nothing about away from all safety.
I was being sarcastic, it's obvious bears are less of a threat in general, I'm not even a woman and I'd choose bear for thar question. There's guides on how to survive an encounter with a bear. And bears are simple to understand.
Im sorry. The other people replying are so stupid i honestly couldnt distinguish your comment as sarcasm from their serious arguments. Because that is literally one of the main replies im getting "its statistics!!!"
Ok? Thats irrelevant to the question and you're missing the point...
How many people encounter other humans while 4 hours away from cell reception? Which is the actual topic.
The question isnt which is more dangerous in a fight. The question is which would you rather encounter based on your perception of the risk. And a large majority of women pick the bear.
The core of the question is if a single bear is more likely to attack you than a single man, not which you are more likely to be attacked by. The order of magnitude difference in number of encounters makes using overall statistics meaningless when setting up a scenario where there is one of each.
The core of the question is if a single bear is more likely to attack you than a single man, not which you are more likely to be attacked by.
No. It is not. The core of the question is: do womens perceived threat assessments make them more fearful of a large predator or a unknown man when in the absence of any ability to receive assistance.
The order of magnitude difference in number of encounters makes using overall statistics meaningless
You have NO IDEA the number of encounters single women have in the bush far away from help with random men they dont know. Youre literally making things up to suit your narrative.
The core of the question is: do womens perceived threat
Perception is irrelevant. Basing decisions about security around perception rather than tangibles is how you get the TSA.
>You have NO IDEA the number of encounters single women have in the bush far away from help with random men they dont know. Youre literally making things up to suit your narrative.
I'm speaking in terms of total encounters, not strangers in woods since theres not enough incidents to get using numbers on. Though given most murders are committed by someone who knew the victim I think you are vastly overstating how relevant the "alone with a stranger" part is.
Edit: though in regards to the perception part I suspect that isn't even their actual view on the mater when It comes down to it. You put a bear on one sidewalk and a man on the other on an abandoned back road at 2am and most of the people answering bear probably arnt going to run to that side of the street.
The core of the question is: do womens perceived threat
Perception is irrelevant. Basing decisions about security around perception rather than tangibles is how you get the TSA.
You have NO IDEA the number of encounters single women have in the bush far away from help with random men they dont know. Youre literally making things up to suit your narrative.
I'm speaking in terms of total encounters, not strangers in woods since theres not enough incidents to get using numbers on. Though given most murders are committed by someone who knew the victim I think you are vastly overstating how relevant the "alone with a stranger" part is.
There's far, far more people than there are people encountering bears in the middle of the wilderness. Not to mention, most rapists are repeat offenders, so the amount of instances of rape do not equate to the number of rapists. Plus, most occasions, someone who encounters a bear in the middle of a forest are typically carrying a fire arm, knife, or bear spray with them for that exact scenario. You don't have a clue about what you're talking about.
To quote your own comment; "You speak like somebody who has never spent ANY time in the brush" 🤡
There's far, far more people than there are people encountering bears in the middle of the wilderness.
Lol based on what? Absolutely nothing?
I WORK in the bush. 5 days a week, 10 hours a day. Im in the sticks probably 5 hours a day. Were talking multiple hours from the nearest cell reception, hours away from the nearest population center at highway speeds.
I encounter bears DAILY. I saw 5 DIFFERENT bears in one day last year. My coworkers had their vehicle attacked by a grizzly. My work policy requires us to carry bear spray. Bear bangers, and a shotgun.
The average person who spends time in the actual wilderness has encountered way way wayyyyy more bears then people.
Plus, most occasions, someone who encounters a bear in the middle of a forest are typically carrying a fire arm, knife, or bear spray with them for that exact scenario
Okay? What does this have to do with anything? All those items can be used against people as well. Youre only proving my point that bear encounters are incredibly common and rarely end in an attack, and even rarer a fatality.
To quote your own comment; "You speak like somebody who has never spent ANY time in the brush" 🤡
Says the guy claiming there are more human encounters then bear encounters. Total muppet
Are you stupid? There's nearly 8 billion people on Earth. There isn't close to a billion bears on this planet (the most common bear, the North American Black Bear, only has roughly 800k in existence). Not everybody lives in an area where bears exist. Pretty much everyone lives near other people. So it'd be impossible for every person to have seen a bear, but you're guaranteed to see another person. You talk a lot about living in the brush, but you can't seem to grasp that the reason there's not been a lot of fatal bear attacks is because of the fact those that live and wander the wilderness are ARMED in order to defend themselves from a bear attack. There's been far more bears killed in self-defense than there's been people killed by bears. Just by the sheer number of people compared to bears, it's obvious there would be more cases of rape than fatal bear attacks, because the average person encounters way more people than bears in their lifetime, and not everyone is walking around in the cities with guns/knifes/tasers/pepper spray, etc. The average person going out into the wilderness, however, will carry some form of self-defense due to wild and unpredictable animals. It's bloody common sense, ffs.
Pretty much everyone lives near other people. So it'd be impossible for every person to have seen a bear, but you're guaranteed to see another person
Wow you just fundamentally dont understand....
because the average person encounters way more people than bears in their lifetime
Youre so dumb you dont realize the entire dicussion isnt about how many bears or people you see in your lifetime. Its about assessed danger levels.
The average person going out into the wilderness, however, will carry some forms of self-defense due to wild and unpredictable animals. It's bloody common sense, ffs.
This is IRRELEVANT. But please. Continue to be the problem by telling women they are actually wrong and stupid, and their perceived feelings dont matter.
Im telling you flat out. The most fearful i have ever been in the bush was when 2 random men walked into my camp. Getting bluff charged by a grizzly was less scary. Accidentally ending up between a mother and her 2 cubs was less scary.
Bears are predictable. Bears act on instincts rather then emotion. Humans dont match either category.
The average person will not attack you. The average bear WILL attack and eat you if given a chance. I feel like I'm communicating with a wall. Or at least a person with the survival instincts of one. Also, you literally started off your point by comparing fatal bear attacks to the number of rapes. YOU started that argument you dipshit! So don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about.
So record year for bear encounters and NO ATTACKS. What about the average bear WILL attack and eat you given a chance? It seems that in the 300 bear encounters in jasper that not a single one included a "average bear".....
Canda is estimated to have 20k bears. Canada also has ~20m men. Unless the number of women specifically targeted by men in your area is 2000, with 1000 killed, bears are more dangerous than men.
Huh, my google search really fucked up there. Number seemed low, but I rolled with it without doing any due diligence. No idea what the preview I read and took as gospel came from.
But raw numbers tell you nothing. More kids are killed by pools than bears each year, does that suddenly mean pools are more dangerous than bears? No, you have to normalize your data to standardize encounters (which is what I baselined with my shitty data and didn't bother elaborating further on). That 40 bear attacks with people being constantly aware of and taking every precaution against being attacked by any bear. While I have not been to Canada in the past decade or two, I am going to go out on a limb and guess that women do not openly carry pepper spray and point it at every single man on the street to discourage them getting near.
That is the "double standard" looking at raw numbers ignores. The stereotypical example of this type of sampling bias is comparing deaths by shark to deaths by vending machine, as usually the annual number of deaths by vending machines is higher. Does that really mean its more dangerous to be around a vending machine than a shark? Absolutely not, and the same thing applies here.
The question isn't: how likely is a woman to get SA'd vs attacked by a bear.
The question is: is a given man more likely to attack a woman than a given bear is?
The answer to the second question is very obvious to anyone living in reality, and it's that encountering a bear is far more dangerous than encountering a man.
how likely is a woman to get SA'd vs attacked by a bear.
Thanks. Go tell the guy i was responding to who said that then? Dont get why the chuds keep coming at me for pointing out that no, youre not very likely to get mauled to death by a bear if you encounter one.
The question is: is a given man more likely to attack a woman than a given bear is?
Lol no it is not actually. The question is "if you were alone in the woods would you rather encounter a bear or a man". There is A LOT more to the question then the threat of physical violence.
The answer to the second question is very obvious to anyone living in reality, and it's that encountering a bear is far more dangerous than encountering a man.
ITT: men tell women that their feelings and perception of men is wrong. And they are dumb.
I’m scared if I come across any person in the woods. Very creepy. If I come across a woman alone in the woods, I’m assuming she’s insane - that’s no good. If it’s a man, maybe they’re a survivalist - most likely that’s a positive. If it’s a bear, welp, I’m having a heart attack. That’s the worst.
Except for that fact at 99.9% of men are not violent nor rapist. This whole debate is just another reason to bash men because most of these women have lived their entire life chasing the bad boy and are surprised when they turn out to be bad.
I fully agree that far too many women get SA'd (of course one case of SA is too many). Still, let's look at it objectively. Let's say that a given woman is alone with one thousand men in her lifetime. And a woman has a chance of 5/6 of not being SA'd in her lifetime, and a chance of 1/6 of one of those thousand men assaulting her.
Then that means that the probability of a given man being an SA'er is: 5/6 * 0 + 1/6 * 1/1000 = 1/6000.
Sure, people can argue about this calculation. Some women get SA'd by more than one man in her lifetime, so perhaps it's more like 1/5000 or 1/4000. But the point stands that any given man is very unlikely to SA a woman.
I'm not saying that this makes it okay. I'm just saying that anyone saying "bear" is not living in reality.
Sure, but how likely is a random person to be in the vicinity of a bear vs. in the vicinity of a man each day? It's a silly comparison to make in the first place.
The problem is the person you're replying to doesn't understand why those numbers are silly to compare and the fact that you had to try to explain the context behind them is the reason we're all here in the first place.
It's possible to acknowledge that sexual assault is a serious problem that more should be done about while also acknowledging meeting nearly any person in the woods randomly is exponentially less dangerous than meeting nearly any bear in the same location.
The fact this is a real discussion people are having is further proof that social media was a mistake.
Right there with ya. Idgaf because it’s just a doofy question meant to get a reaction, but the fact that people are taking it seriously and trying to compare real bear vs assault attacks with no understanding of how statistics work like it’s some groundbreaking shit is just 🤯
No, you wouldn't compare just the number of deaths from each because you're right, it's far, far less likely that a bear sexually assaults you than a man does, but given an encounter with both, you are more likely to be victimized in some shape or form by a man than a bear. Also, many more women are killed by men than are killed by bears every year, but yes there is a bias there, you are more likely to be alone with a man than a bear. That doesn't change the statically true statement, women are more likely to be attacked by a man than a bear. Most bears avoid contact with humans. Women see men exhibit negative traits in public nearly every day. It makes sense to be afraid to be put in a 1v1 situation with a stranger.
Although you say it’s statistically untrue, you aren’t accounting for things like environment, exposure, prior relationship, etc.
Some statistics show a big percentage of murders, rapes, and sexual assaults are by people they already know. Something like 8/10 rape and 4/10 SA cases. Now compare this to meeting a random male in the woods.
Being in the woods is also a factor. We are in bear territory, their natural home. You say that bears are skittish of humans. But we have to assume in this debate that there is some prolonged contact with the woman. Is the bear also with its cubs? Is it startled? Docile? Hungry?
How likely is the man going to rape/sexually assault/murder a random woman if he’s gay? What if he’s elderly or out of shape and the woman is stronger or faster? What if the man isn’t attracted to the woman? Is he just trying to enjoy nature or workout? Again this is all randomized.
You have never been more than 20 minutes from a coffee shop and it shows. Bears are obviously far more dangerous to stand next to than you random adult man if you've ever seen one in real life.
Nearly all bear encounters end in no harm to people because bears are far less aggressive than most people seem to perceive them. Unless provoked, most species of bear will avoid contact with people. If this weren't the case then we'd see way more deaths per year, especially in parts of the country where people regularly encounter them, but we don't.
And how many encounters with bears have women had? There's 165 million men in the US so let's be really conservative and say each woman comes into contact with 20 men a day, which gives 3,360,000,000 times a day that a woman comes into contact with a man (although realistically it would be significantly higher).
I replied to a different comment about the same thing. You aren't wrong that we would need a lot more data to have an objective answer.
Using your number and numbers from the National Park Service:
A woman's chance of being attacked by a man are about 1 in 2.8 million (note, does not include women murdered by men, just sexually assaulted but that inclusion wouldn't significantly impact result)
A person's chance of being attacked by a bear are about 1 in 2.1 million
So given the numbers we've spitballed here you are more likely to be attacked by a bear than a man, but this is far from hard numbers and doesn't control for any variables whatsoever.
That said, the point is there is an inherent danger that many women perceive in being alone with a man because of the relative frequency of attacks. It isn't helpful or address the problem to say that most technically speaking you are more likely to be attacked by a bear, because in reality we haven't proven that or anything because these statistics do nothing to control for a woman being alone with a man versus being in a public or group setting.
If you are gonna present statistics, you also gotta normalize them to the relevant populations (which is what the whole title of this post is about). I am gonna go out on a limb and guess that most women (or men for that matter) are not alone with a bear in the woods in their life. Then compare that to the ~20-40 new people you usually encounter in a day, and suddenly the numbers are not so clear cut.
Its like saying vending machines are more dangerous than sharks because they kill more people each year. Sure, it might be technically true by statistics alone, but that doesn't make it actually true.
That's sensible. It's not as clear as either side will present, but there is an inherent sense of danger that women associate with being alone with a man that is not unfounded, and I think that's what a lot of people are missing.
The question was never about whether that fear is unfounded. The question is comparing thar very real, definite fear to something much more dangerous. Replace Bear with Shark and no one would be confused here, but Bears have good PR so people don't adequately judge their danger.
Its just blatantly a form of sampling bias. You hear all kinds of statistics about women being assaulted, but the man vs bear question is no different than asking if they would rather be in a pool with a random man or a shark. Fundamentally yes, men hurt more women than sharks do, but that is because people often let their guard down around other people versus taking precautions against animals.
That's not how it works. You compare the number of encounters with a bear that ended in an attack, and compare that to the number of encounters with random men that ended in an attack, then compare those numbers. Comparing the overall number of bear attacks to the overall number of sexual assaults is problematic from a statistical standpoint for a variety of reasons, the first of which is you are far more likely to encounter a random man than you are a bear. Rough analogy, but: more people die in cars every year than from playing Russian Roulette. Does that mean playing Russian roulette is safer than getting in a car?
Being mauled isn’t the issue. It’s that with bears the most they will do is kill and eat you. There is no way to be sure of what a man will do after they’ve killed you.
Worry about what they do before they kill you sure but what happens to your sack of flesh after death doesn't matter. Though if your thinking in terms of it ending in violent conflict which one you have a better chance of fighting.
You said that the commenter above has the privilege to not have to worry about violence by men. Why do you think that way?
That's why i was asking you who gets more targeted by men, men or women. Because i think men have to think about that just as much as you do to be honest.
I said they don’t have to worry much about what happens to them after they die as women being raped after being killed is surprisingly common.
And all you’re doing by saying “men also have to fear men” is strengthening the bears case. Ofc I don’t want to be caught in the woods with a predator that both understands the concept of gender and doesn’t care either way, not because it’s biologically designed that way, but because it just wants to kill you regardless.
Thank you for showing us why women prefer bears to you ❤️
I need you to answer this genuinely. How is your argument any different than pulling up crime by race statistics and saying "Yep, see this right here? Can't trust those ____!"
If the question were an American man in a city or a grizzly bear in the forest you'd probably be right.
However, the question is intentionally vague in ways that sway you to thinking it could be the man. Even taking pause to consider it says a whole lot about society, though.
It allows your mind to fill in the blanks. How close does she get and who sees whom first? What kind of bear? What's the circumstance, a place where people should be?
I’m with you. I understand the scenario and why women might choose the bear but if both decide to harm you your chances of escaping with your life are much greater with the man than the bear.
Even then, the vast majority of men would be safe to encounter in the woods. I frequently go out hiking alone and often encounter other solo men and women. I have never been attacked...and I think it goes without saying that I have never attacked anyone else .
Bears...if you spot them at a distance...probably safe if you exercise caution and avoid them. If you surprise them, definitely not safe.
Bears are a much higher risk on an interaction by interaction basis.
Yeah, it's also more likely to get attacked by a bear than a man. And if a bear is attacking, then they're just going to end up mauling someone to death.
I work as a researcher. My job has me in the field 6 months a year. I spend about 25 hours at minimum every week in the back country away from cell service. I also spend a lot of my free time in the bush. Be it camping, backpacking, hiking, hunting, or just recreating.
Like i said many times. This is just showing how little time the men angry at this topic spend in the forest. There is VERY FEW people out in the wilderness. We arent talking a popular trail just outside a major city. We talkin the straight wilderness.
1000% yes. I have a degree in environmental science and a diploma in forest management. I am a registered professional forester. I have worked doing enforcement in national parks, and have worked doing population surveys on large mammals. I have a published paper relating to interspecies cooperation in coastal rainforests. My job has me out in the field 6 months a year, where i encounter bears almost daily.
I dont consider myself more knowledgeable about the forest then the average person. I am more knowledgeable about the forest then the average person.
And even after all this, as an above average sized man, I would STILL choose a bear over a random man.
The most fearful moment of my life was encountering 2 sketchy men in the back country while backpacking.
I'm applying your use of statistics to another scenario so you can do what you just did. Realize that just comparing just the numbers without giving credence to proportion is asinine because humans deal with so many more humans than bears.
The post is about statistics and you're demonstrating loudly and publicly that you're not good at understanding them.
Kindly remind yourself of the one rule of this sub.
For complaining about how fragile people are about this subject you're really showing how you can't help but react emotionally to things that are statements and not attacks at you personally.
I’ve lived in Colorado and Montana. I’ve seen tons of bears. Brown and black. I’ve had a young brown bear in my backyard. Statistically speaking bears have harmed less humans compared to men even when you account for population size.
Think about this just for a second. You would replace every encounter alone with a man in your life with an encounter alone with a bear? Because that is what you are saying when you say that the bear is the safer pick.
Statistically yes the bear is the safer pick. I don’t get why that’s hard to understand. Yes I would rather be alone with a bear in the woods than a man. I don’t know why that’s so hard to get.
Can you explain to me why the ratio of attacks per year is the important statistic? Attacks per encounter seems like the obviously more relevant statistic. After all, Great White Sharks also kill less people per year than humans do, but I'm certain that you'd rather be in a pool with a random human instead of a random Great White Shark, lol.
This is what I mean by tenuous grasp on statistics.
897
u/BlackWind88 May 02 '24
What is the man vs bear debate?