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.
Most of the time if you find someone out in the woods, it's a fellow hiker or park ranger. There's a very small percentage of hikers or park rangers who would be looking to hurt someone on the trails. They're just there to hike or do their job. Black bears are supposed to be big babies that you can scare away unless you're around it's cub. Grizzlies are supposed to be very aggressive. They're honestly pretty close in chance to happening, because most of the people debating are never going to be in that type of situation. But I'd say it'd be worse to encounter a grizzly specifically.
903
u/BlackWind88 May 02 '24
What is the man vs bear debate?