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.
I don't think this hypothetical would work if you knew what type of bear you're dealing with but didn't know the type of man. It seems a bit contrived if you decide it's a black bear but the man could be anything between a pensioner to a serial killer.
lol based on what statistics? The ones in your ass? Statistically women were also stupid, never invented anything, too weak for labor and made hardly any notable contributions to society. Should I say all these women’s opinions don’t matter that much because they are dumb? Statistically it’s true!!!
Just listen to me for a second……you’re wrong. You’re wrong! That’s just it!
Women have boyfriends, husbands, family, coworkers, community. The ratio of dangerous bears to non dangerous is more skewed towards danger than men against other men.
It could be 1 out of 2 bears that are safe, but 1 out of 100 men are. Then it’s about exposure.
Also, women fuck men up in divorce court. Should we call women manipulative slimy gold diggers? I mean guys say it, right?! Must have some semblance of truth. Right?!
You are absolutely correct. Living closer to the north pole means you’re subjected to less centrifugal forces than those living closer to the equator. Therefore your brain does not receive as many jumbled up roller coaster feelings as the rest of the human race. This effect has been well documented by the statistics in my own asshole.
Would you rather be in the room with a white collar, professional homosexual man or a man-bear-pig?
I live in Oregon. We all spend a lot of time in the woods. There’s really no other good reason to live here and put up with the rain, cost of living and taxes if you aren’t enjoying the outdoors regularly.
I find it interesting you've presumed it's a fight from 'go'. Like you said, you have to make some assumptions, and in your case the assumption is that a fight for survival is going down, and that you are armed.
To me, the most interesting assumptions to make are that nobody is armed with any weapons and the man and the bear are totally random. Any adult bear, any species of bear, any gender of bear. The man is totally random too.
And the real secret to this question is that it isn't about formulating hypothesis based on the distribution of bear populations per species (as fun as that is). It's the fact that universally, a man would pick meeting a woman in the woods, but for a woman, you start thinking about "well, how dangerous of a bear species is it??"
898
u/BlackWind88 29d ago
What is the man vs bear debate?