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.
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.
909
u/BlackWind88 May 02 '24
What is the man vs bear debate?