Tap for context
Some woman on the internet said she would feel safer spending a night in the woods with a random bear rather than with a random man
Men seriously feeling the need to convince the world that they are not as dangerous as a wild bear.
Bear seeing a lone person in the woods:
I get the sentiment, but realistically I’ll still pick the random man. A man could kill or rape me. A bear is likely to kill me.
Actually a bear is very unlikely to come after you. I come from an extremely rural part of Alberta, Canada, and large bears would sometimes wander in and near town. They wouldn’t run around swiping people up and murdering them, they would just basically wander around eating garbage and looking for food. The reality is that if you were in the woods with a random bear, unless it was starving or you were near its Cubs, it likely wouldn’t see you as important.
I’ll tell you what though. The bodies of indigenous women would get found in the woods sometimes. Bears didn’t put them there, men did.
Statistical error. Unlikely to encounter a bear; but per bear encounter, less likely to survive than per men encounter.
Serial killers and rapists are very clever and because there exist serial killers who want to kill indigenous women in the woods, they will likely succeed. Bears have no such desire, and because indigenous women are clever they will avoid the bears.
But I’m willing to bet that the odds of a random man being a rapist/murderer are much lower than a random bear deciding to kill me.
It’s hard thing to think about because our brains want to rephrase the situation into taking account how likely it is to encounter men vs bears in the first place. That’s why this isn’t very applicable to, say, staying safe at night or in bars.
…except it is. This is why, if you have to take a ride home with a strange man, it’s much safer to go with an arbitrary man of your choosing than the one who offers.
Actually statistics show that an encounter with a bear is orders of magnitude more dangerous than an encounter with a man. Obviously. I encounter 1000s of men as I was down the street and I’m not dead yet.
Yes, it’s very unlikely to run into a bear. But if that’s the point you’re making, you’re missing the predicate of the question where the encounter is already assumed.
As my wife put it, if the bear kill me, nobody would ask how I was dressed.
Unless you are Lady Gaga in a meat dress.
“…for the first time in history, we can blame the attack on how someone was dressed.”
Yeah, if I get attacked by a bear the police won’t blame, interrogate, and shame me. I won’t be looked down on as broken or used.
That’s a good point, but I value my life more than my postmortem dignity.
I saw a bear in Canada, it just ran off.
I saw a man there once. Same thing happened.
I think men are out at this point. The question of “Bear Vs. Shark” however is still unanswered?
well a shark can’t swim out of the water, and it would also die. Unless we’re in an underwater forest, in which case we can’t breath. So uh…
Yes… you’re almost there…answer the question
i can’t answer the question unless i’m given more information smh.
If we’re talking a magical forest shark, i’m not sure i want to ask questions about why it’s there. And why it hasn’t died yet, presumably. And if we’re in a wet environment, then i’m curious how that’s accomplished. The ocean is very big.
well, after having thought about it for hours. And i really mean hours (please help me, also don’t mind me, i’m just autistic as fuck and think about these sorts of things a lot)
I have finally put together my ultimate conclusion on this topic. And it is as follows:
For starters, why am i in the woods? Presumably in this example i was just teleported out there at random, with one other entity, either a human or a bear. Now idk much about bear psychology, but if i were a bear, and a human popped up out of nowhere in front of me, i would lose my shit. So chances are im probably going to die.
As for a human, assuming a statistically random sample from the world, lets assume for the sake of this example, someone from within the same geographical area that i am in, because it makes logical sense for the statement here. The chances of them being 1. significant deviant enough that the second they see me, and decide they want to be a problem, is low enough that i’m willing to take it. Paired with the fact that often times abusers and rapists tend to be people you already know (it’s just a basic fun fact about being around people) and in this case, it’s probably someone i’ve never seen before, much less interacted with. I’m assuming the chances of me getting my shit fucked up are probably between 0-5% i feel like that’s pretty reasonable. i can’t imagine much more than like 10% of any given western population are active rapists. So we’ll go with that. And like i said the bear? Probably going to flip it’s shit. And even if it doesn’t it’s still gotta be higher than 10% i would assume.
Now, moving on to the secondary factors, we’re lost in a forest. The very obvious factor here is that being there with another individual greatly increases your odds of being found/getting out, both due to collective knowledge accumulation between the two of you, and the likelihood that other people realize you’re gone being twice as high (roughly) but we won’t consider that aspect significant. So moving back to the productive aspects of having two people. Assuming we’re the female in this case, and the other person is a male, as per the statement rules. That means we have someone who is more likely to be stronger, and more capable of exerting themselves, which could prove useful in a situation like this. However more people is still more better, so we’ll say about a 100% productivity bonus just to be safe here. As aforementioned, we have a secondary source of knowledge here, so we can collectively decide on things, as well as think about them, which often leads to more correct/better solutions/outcomes. As well as the obvious benefit of having someone to socialize with, this is a natural morale booster. Humans are social creatures. Nuff said.
One more thing though, since we’ve established that there are potential benefits to this situation, we must now compare those benefits to the downsides of the other situation, so let’s do that
- being alone (having no additional help, assuming we aren’t immediately mauled and eaten by the bear)
- not being alone (the likely potential that you DO get help, and quite significant amounts of it, with the small additional chance of being raped and killed) Ok i think that pretty much sums it up.
Alright, now moving on to the tertiary aspects of this, let’s modify the original statement. And say that we didn’t just randomly teleport, and that we walked into the woods with someone else (we aren’t counting kidnapping because then this statement wouldn’t really apply would it?) Anyway, now that we’ve pulled foul play off of the table. You’re walking into the forest with someone you probably already know, or someone who you’ve gotten to know thus far. They aren’t a stranger or at the very least, not a complete stranger, presumably you don’t just wander into the forest randomly for no reason, so lets assume you’re going on a hike or something. It’s good exercise after all, so for one thing, you’ve got some level of equipment with you. Probably some level of self defense capability (depending on where you are and how much you care) you did not come into this with the intent of being lost, and you are with someone that you know.
I feel like i don’t have to expand on why picking the bear in this option would be a bad choice…
alright, that concludes my lengthy essay on my opinion of this “thought experiment” feel free to yell at me or whatever, or engage with this, i probably missed something. New information always adds to the fun :) The whole point of a thought experiment is trying out new thoughts and weird ideas after all. Also just for the record, since some of you are probably curious. I have no opinion about these sorts of situations what so ever, because they aren’t real, and don’t exist, so the only valuable thing i can glean from them is through stats and situational analysis.
I’m incredibly bear pilled ngl, as long as I stay a decent distance from it and don’t do anything dumb I’ll be fine, with a random guy idk what might happen, there’s no certain set of rules to follow to get me out of the situation safely - I’ll probably be with a perfectly normal well adjusted guy or I might be with some super transphobe who sees a small visibly trans girl alone in the woods away from all civilisation with no witnesses or some incel who sees his opportunity to get some, regardless of consent. In the bear scenario, all of the power is in my hands to just make sure that I don’t do anything dumb and as long as I don’t I’ll be fine, in the man scenario I just have to trust the luck of the draw to give me a decent man to be alone in the woods with.
I m losing faith in humanity any time this conversation resurfaces and I believe it would be a massive benefit to everyone involved if it never happened
Genderes are a problem, races are a problem, creeds are a problem, sports preferences are a problem, anything will do… as long as we stay divided and subjugated.
Yes, and this whole story shows how far we are going. Society isn’t doing well at all
As both a furry and a gay man I have no choice but to choose the bear
I am unironically bearpilled in this context. Men can be fucking scary with women. At least I’m unlikely to be SA’d before I die, with the bear.
You’re right. A bear wouldn’t sexually assault you, he would simply kill you.
Yes! As opposed to the man, who would SA me and then kill me!
And also possibly eat you.
Look canonically the worst a bear will ever do is two out of three, only men have hit the hat trick
or eat you alive.
Oh my fucking god. I think it can’t get any worse for a mother.
Why by default man is a serial killer and sa? What are the odds that dude is a psycho? What are the odds that bear is a killer? Do you understand how hard it is psychologically to murder someone if you are a normal person?
Somebody’s consumed too much tiktok paranoia porn
Are you referring to me? I wouldn’t touch tiktok with a 10 foot pole, or any of the infinite scroll short form video things for that matter. I’m not on twitter either. Or tumblr.
My POV is based on my personal experience and the experiences of women around me. And statistics!
Odds of a sexual abuser need not be high for the man, they’re simply 0% for the bear.
That post frustrated the fuck out of me. Like I get and agree with the point you’re trying to make. But no, if you were actually given that choice no reasonable person is actually going to pick the bear.
Why wouldn’t a reasonable person pick the bear? Plenty of people have just ordinary, totally safe experiences with bears in their normal lives. Meanwhile, they have ordinary SV committed against them by men in their normal lives. Why shouldn’t they pick the group that hasn’t been a constant threat to them? Its not asking you to try to pick a fight with the bear.
Why wouldn’t a reasonable person pick the bear?
Because you’re comparing a wild animal that can easily kill you with a single swipe, with a random normal person?
Plenty of people have just ordinary, totally safe experiences with bears in their normal lives.
I can, with 10,000,000,000% certainty tell you that way more people have vastly more ordinary, totally safe experiences with random men in their normal lives than with bears.
Because you’re comparing a wild animal that can easily kill you with a single swipe, with a random normal person?
Can easily kill is different than likely to. Plus, the same is true of any human, but they’re also much more likely to have outcomes far worse than quickly being just being killed. Its a random person in the woods, not just a *normal *person (whatever “normal” is supposed to mean). But honestly, I don’t think I’d put it past many “normal” humans (men and women) to commit at least minor SV in the “right” circumstances.
I can, with 10,000,000,000% certainty tell you that way more people have vastly more ordinary, totally safe experiences with random men in their normal lives than with bears.
Sure, but I’m just as certain that women have far more experiences with SV from humans than any violence from bears. Even if they’re actual survivors of bear attacks, they’re likely the victim of far more SV by men.
The bear isn’t likely to want to screw with you.
I’m not trying to make a point tbh. It’s one of those questions where there is no right answer due to many details not being said in the question
yeah, they would
You share your world with random men you don’t know every single day. How often do you walk through a bear encloser at a zoo?
yeah, but nobody asks what you were wearing when you’re attacked by a bear :)
Are we talking brown bears or black bears?
Brown bears are violently territorial and will attack you for being in eyeshot.
Black bears are basically giant racoons and will move away from people - especially if you’re making loud noises and making yourself look big - because they don’t want that smoke. They’ll only get aggressive if you surprise them or get anywhere near their younglings.
I’d probably take a black bear over a lot of dudes. As long as we got a good hundred feet or so of distance, Mr Bear and I ain’t gonna bother each other.
Brown bears aren’t human killing machines. They adjust their territory not to see people. Bears in general stay away from people and don’t care enough to attack.
Totally agreed, the question is so vague it’s absurd. Are we talking a panda or a grizzly? Is the man a locked-in paraplegic or an violent ex con?
Regardless how you answer there’s always another possibility that makes your decision look stupid.
Yeah but that’s a different scenario all togther. Not all men are dangerous rapists, obviously. But enough are prone to assault and SA that it’s statistically safer to have some random bear (possibly grizzly or teddy) than some random man. If you don’t feel like the random guy walking down the street is dangerous, that’s probably because random men on the street don’t regularly harass you, which is unfortunately still a very common occurance to most women.
While I understand and respect your viewpoint, I’m not quite sure you understand what I’m saying here… The question is designed to be a no win scenario, it’s phrased in such a vague way that no matter how you answer someone else can chime in and say oh no, your not imagining the terrible scenario I’m imagining. There’s literally no way of answering it in a way that someone is going to chime in and tell your wrong.
It’s literally designed to be a test designed to gauge your reaction more than it is to be answered seriously.
Without more info one can’t possibly respond in a legitimate manner. And any responses without additional information is more of a mirror to your own personal disposition and fears than it is a legitimate response to the question.
I was in the smoky mountains with my kids camping, and we heard a bear digging around. My kids started crying, they for sure knew they were dead.
I got out of the tent, stomped my feet so the bear heard me and wasn’t startled, and then went “boogaaboogaaa” and raised my arms. Poor little black bear went running off and kept looking back.
And my kids had a really cool story about when their dad chased away a giant scary bear.
This was one of those toxic questions designed to cause people to argue. That’s really its ONLY purpose. It really only has 2 answers, and both can be interpreted as toxic.
My 2 cents though, here in Australia, you’ll occasionally get a question about staying safe when hiking as women.
You’ll have a huge majority of women saying its safe to hike in Australia, and then 1 or 2 women encouraging women to bring knives or weapons. The ones who claim this then get a huge negative response by both women and guys pointing out it makes things more dangerous for everyone and that nobody needs them.
As a male guide also, I’ve actually found it difficult to find other guys to hike with, but it is incredibly trivial for me to find women to join me (in fact, doing one this upcoming weekend).
So, interpret that as you will, but, honestly, the people who are incredibly invested in either of these answers, in my opinion, nobody would want to hike with regardless (bears, other women or men), so the answer doesn’t affect them.
Genuine question: How can you not always carry some kind of weapon in Australia ?
“Question. What kind of bear is best?”
Not the bear market
Do Giant Pandas count?
According to science, logical and rational thinking, meeting a random man in the Woods is much better option than meeting a random bear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aOOuMQkIzU
The thing these arguments never take into account is a fate worse than death.
That’s the point you’re missing.
Think about why someone would prefer the much more likely bear mauling to the much less likely worst case scenario with a man. If you can wrap your head around that, then consider why these women had that answer ready to go with very little thought. Considerations of a fate worse than death is something that women live with from the age where they first notice grown men noticing them. That averages 11 or 12 years old by the way. Maybe younger if their parents were a little more candid with them than the generic “stranger danger.”
I knew I had to have the talk about men when my girls turned nine. They were playing basketball and one of the dads made a comment about a girl and said “she is going to grow up and look like Mia Kalif (I don’t know how to spell her name, the porn star) and be a hot piece of ass.”
Oh, yeah…you mean that nine year old? The fuck is wrong with you.
Think about why someone would prefer the much more likely bear mauling to the much less likely worst case scenario with a man.
the only reason i can think why someone would take that decision, is that they have no apriori knowledge of the situation, and simply assume something they have no knowledge about is going to be easier than that that they do have knowledge about. (which is often naive)
Or, and this is my theory, this is actually one big metaphor about the problems modern society faces, and it’s not actually based on rational thought or decision making, and it’s supposed to be, because the point is to point out the problem as i already stated. The question that leaves is why nobody seems to be talking about the fundamental underlying problem, and instead seems to be talking about bears.
I get it, there’s a problem with this shit in society, why aren’t we talking about it? Like if you want to make change happen, to improve society, we need to sit down and have a two sided discussion, instead of saying that you would prefer to be eaten by a bear, than be around a man “because a thing could potentially happen” this accomplishes almost nothing unfortunately.
Anyway, that’s my current theory, maybe i’m wrong as fuck, idk, i’m welcome to any ideas, i don’t understand why people keep talking about this the way that they are so i could use some background info (and don’t tell me that it’s because men sometimes rape women, and women don’t like being around men as a result, i understand what the thought experiment is for, you don’t need to explain that part to me, unless i’m wrong about it and misunderstand it lol.)
