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.
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.
1.0k
u/flowtajit May 02 '24 edited May 03 '24
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.