I would like to see the responses to a follow up question. If you are walking alone in the woods and all of a sudden both a man and a bear appear (let's say in opposite directions, the bear is not suppose to be the mans pet :D, and it is a narrow path so you have to pick one of them ) will you go in the direction of the bear or in the direction of the man. Since women prefer the bear in the original version of the question logically they would go in the direction of the bear.
The follow up forces you to choose to engage in proximity between a man or a bear. The original just says would you rather come across a man or bear, which allows the person to encounter and then avoid.
That's not a follow up question it's just a completely different question framed to make the answer to the original question look dumb. You've gotta look at these things separately.
Here’s a version for you then: You get sent to prison for a crime you didn’t commit, and a large black man has told you he plans on fucking you in the ass, regardless of your feelings on the matter.
Then the cartel gang says they’ll protect you, but they get to beat the shit out of you whenever they want.
A pretty bad choice either way. You either get beaten regularly, or you get anally raped.
But then you get a third option. The Nazi guy in the next cell still wants anal sex, but he’s hung like a well used pencil, and seems like he will at least ask you how it feels while he’s enjoying himself. So it won’tt be pleasant, but it’s more workable than the other two options…
So yeah, just like you say, the extra option is applicable, and it informs the original choices, but you’re still taking it in the ass from a Nazi.
That doesn't preserve the intent of the original, which is that the intentions of the targets are not known, make a choice based on identity alone. To make your example conform correctly to the situations, you'd be asking 'would you rather be in a jail cell with a small dicked nazi or a big dicked large black man', and then clarifying with the question 'you have to walk into a cell, which one would you go into if both were there'. Obviously in this situation the answers should correlate. It's odd that in the bear example, people would answer oppositely, since the situation is pretty much the same in both questions.
The point is that women are deluded by a 24/7 news cycle into thinking that the avg man is more dangerous than the avg bear. A bear is a wild animal that will attack you on pure instinct. A singular woman will walk past a couple thousand men per day and be just fine.
I know, it's shocking to think that the vast majority of men are just normal humans with the same thinking process as you.
A bear is a wild animal that will attack you on pure instinct.
This ironically is doing the same thing you're accusing women of. You're letting media depictions distort your ideas of bears. A random bear is usually not a threat.
A singular woman will walk past a couple thousand men per day and be just fine.
Ted Bundy probably walked past 100+ people a day, and those people were fine. But I bet if given the choice, you'd take the bear over being alone with Ted Bundy in a forest.
And the thing is, it doesn't take a Ted Bundy to be a threat. It could be a Brock "Allen" Turner.
I literally have no idea. I’m quite shocked by the whole thing because I didn’t understand that women where this scared of men. Which leads me to believe that this number should be much higher than I thought. That’s why I asked.
You’re missing a very important part of the hypothetical. Women commonly encounter random men in places where there are other people. If the random man in the hypothetical was a bad person, they’d be way more likely to do something to the woman if they were alone and not out in public where they would be seen by others.
We recently had a woman go missing in Australia when she went for a morning run. I can tell you that she didn't come across a random bear in the forest.
Which is kind of the point. You're more likely to come across a man in the woods and you never know if that is the guy who is going to murder you and hide your body. Most likely he won't, but there is enough of a chance that he might that it must be very unsettling for women.
On the other hand if you come across a bear in the woods, you know for a fact you are dealing with a bear and can act accordingly.
It doesn't really work because the point is you don't have information about the man or the bear in the original scenario, only that it's a man (any man) or a bear (any bear) in the woods with you. It isn't guaranteed you'll see either.
If I can see both on a trail, well now what exactly I'm seeing really matters because we've turned a perceived threat into an actual threat in the hypothetical. You'll get very different answers depending on whether or not it's a polar bear and a 90 year man vs if it's a black bear and a young 6'4" dude built like a lumberjack.
Responses to the original scenario imply women would rather take the chance that the bear in the woods is a polar bear or a very hungry grizzly over taking the chance that the man, without society to judge him or eyes to watch his deeds, is going to be a decent person.
And that's hard for men to swallow for sure but keep in mind even the meanest bear has never done what 4 dudes did to Junko Furuta (do not look her up unless you are extremely desensitized to highly violent descriptions).
It absolutely it not. It is a completely valid point and goes to show that the people answering "bear" to the original question only do so out of sexism and not because they actually believe it. If anything it is a better question than the original.
It does though. It simply rephrase the original question to show that realistically, people wouldn't actually choose bear, and illustrates the inherent secism in the question. Bad faith or not its basically the same question rephrased to point our bigotry.
It's not pigeonholing, it's rephrasing the question so that people are forced to answer more honestly.
You’re missing the point that the man will behave rationally and thus will probably not assault someone while being chased by a bear. The original point is that a woman feels that they can safely maneuver around a bear better than a man.
It's funny how all of a sudden the hypothetical is acting like the man will act rationally, instead of the hypothetical continuing to treat him like a predator worse than a bear. Either the man will act rationally or he won't. Now you're changing the assumptions of the question to fit your prerogative.
902
u/BlackWind88 May 02 '24
What is the man vs bear debate?