On being alone in the woods with a man or a Bear... amirite?

OP, I think you are totally misunderstanding the purpose of the question

by Brittanymacejko 2 weeks ago

Every man who got offended by the question is a man who didn't understand it.

by Desperate_Peak 2 weeks ago

Love that. Please explain why. I didn't mean for that to come off In a non dismissive or condescending way.

by Jaylan59 2 weeks ago

Bears are actually famously unpredictable and hard to read, even for experienced people. Moreso for normal people. And I think the word torture is very broad here. Yes, the bear will not intentionally torture you, but it might very well eat you alive. That is, start ripping off your flesh when you're still conscious.

by Overall-Thought489 2 weeks ago

It's not about what is more likely to happen, it's about options no matter likely they are. If a woman encounters a bear, they will either walk away unscathed or certainly die (assuming even injury will kill you eventually if you're alone). Rough second option, but it's reliable, you can resign yourself to that fate. But a man in the woods? Maybe they're normal and kind, probably even most likely, but if they're not, Jesus they could do some awful things. Like incomprehensibly awful and traumatic. They might even do them and let you live your entire life afterwards, eternally scarred by what they've done. To a lot of women, especially those who've experienced trauma already or are just aware of that, that potential feels worse than the reliably dangerous bear.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

It's supposed to be vague. You don't know this man, what he's doing out here, what he has on him, his intentions. Anything. The worst thing a bear can do is kill you. But a man? They can do so much worse.

by Hour-Sundae 2 weeks ago

So assume the worst. Got it.

by Jaylan59 2 weeks ago

It's more about the worst being an option to consider

by Hour-Sundae 2 weeks ago

So you would rather most likely die? I feel like there's less hope in a random bear attack vs a random man I'm passing in the woods.

by Jaylan59 2 weeks ago

The question doesn't specify the type of bear, how far the bear, what the bear is doing, or anything. You can stumble onto a bear and live a lot depending on the factors at play. Similar to a man. There's really no way to say which scenario is worse because there's a lot of scenarios in that question. This isn't a logic question. You could say it's a simple test of bias from lived experience or your worldview

by Hour-Sundae 2 weeks ago

Men are plenty capable of horrendous acts just using their own bodies, plus they can be unpredictable. Bears need a reason to attack you, even if you don't know what that reason is. Some men will attack women just because they can, and you can't always tell who is that kind of man.

by tobyfeeney 2 weeks ago

Really ? Are people still going on about this stupid question. Who cares if the woman chooses the bear Frankly i rather be alone in the forest with a bear than with a man, and i am a man.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

I think the question is stupid b/c it doesn't help with a solution to its perceived problem. Great, you'd pick a bear. Is that a solution? Do you think you can live with bears? Buy a house from a bear realtor? Own an authentic German-bear luxury car? If not then maybe we should focus on the improvement of society.

by Nraynor 2 weeks ago

I don't think you understand what question..

by stellaohara 2 weeks ago

I think the point is that if the bear attacks the woman, people aren't going to ask what the woman did to provoke the attack

by saraiwatsica 2 weeks ago

They 100% will. Investigating a bear attack often tries to determine if the person tried to interact with the bear, feed it etc.

by Skilesathena 2 weeks ago

Bazinga!

by Jaylan59 2 weeks ago

"His own human capabilities" gives a lot. "His own human capabilities" includes raping and murdering. The whole point is that women do not feel safe around men. Statistically, men are more likely to attack someone than sharks and bears.

by Hassieorn 2 weeks ago

Only if you just count the raw number of incidents. If you adjust for how often women encounter men vs bears or sharks, the answer is very different. If you live in a city, you probably enbcounter 3000+ men per day for your entire life. Meanwhile you may encounter 2 or 3 bears and sharks in your whole lifetime, and then only if you deliberately go into their habitat.

by horacio67 2 weeks ago

Wonder if that has something to do with the number of bears and the number of men.

by Jaylan59 2 weeks ago

Let's do some math. There are ~4 billion men, and 1/3 of women have been SA'd. Assuming they're all different perpetrators (which they're not ofc) that means 1.3 billion men, or 1/3 of men have commit sex crimes. I'll round thst down to 1 billion for repeat offenders. There are less than 2 million bears worldwide. There were 9 bear attacks in 2024, and if we extrapolate that number to living memory there would have been 720 bear attacks in the last 80 years. This means that 0.00036% of bears have attacked people, compared to 1/4 of men. Math is so cool. And you're so wrong.

by Hassieorn 2 weeks ago

Come on man it's 2025 bears don't exactly live just outside or on the edge of the world's capital cities Or even beyond by the hundreds or thousands per mile.

by Jaylan59 2 weeks ago

👌

by Jaylan59 2 weeks ago

Statistically there's about 7 billion more people condensed in pockets around the world. We don't exactly have a method to track animal on animal crime.

by Akeem95 2 weeks ago

It's not about animal on animal crime, it's about animal on human vs. human on human crime. Pay attention.

by Hassieorn 2 weeks ago

My point is that it's not a valid argument that "statistically" you're more likely to get attacked by a man. In fact you're statistically more likely to be attacked by an animal.

by Akeem95 2 weeks ago

A bear will either, Attack and eat you. Run away. Warn you to back off if it feels intimidated. No one knows what a man will do. He could be safe and a good person, or he could attack you viciously, either physically assaulting you and leaving you for dead, raping you, kidnap you or just kill you. Even men say "I choose the bear" these days when they hear what some men are capable of.

by Alainabrekke 2 weeks ago

In that case I'd still choose bear.

by Dock76 2 weeks ago

It's bears all the way down.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

The bears would also chose the bears for her

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

but this already IS the question. women are not imagining the man to be some guy with a rifle and armor, they're picturing it to be a man who is "not dangerous beyond his own human capabilities." which includes acts far worse than what a bear would ever do.

by Anonymous 2 weeks ago

Says you.

by Jaylan59 2 weeks ago

The math doesn't math on the question. The way the question is generally presented it compares bear encounters to male encounters and the chance of violence. What the question doesn't take into account that that "Bear vs unknown man attack" isn't the number they think it is. 80% of assault cases are from someone the victim knows. So the odds a stranger man attacks are you actually 1/5th what the question assumes. The real question is "bear vs creepers in your life". But that doesn't sound as good b/c it doesn't cast a wide enough net to try and encompass all men under an umbrella of violent abuser. This isn't to support the incel boys either. They can die of ebola with their "put enough friendship tokens into a girl and get sex" mentality. It's to point out that this argument isn't good and really didn't add to the conversation or solution of violence.

by Nraynor 2 weeks ago

Lol. Wild all over the place position.

by Jaylan59 2 weeks ago

I think this question should be changed to: Would you (A Woman) rather walk in the woods alone and come across a bear or an unweaponed, unarmored, and not dangerous beyond his own human capabilities man? I don't think that question would help at all. Firstly because a naked man in the woods is less reliable than a clothed man, but mostly because I think women choosing the bear aren't imagining the man to have weapons or armor. The question is about the reliability of male strangers, not the complexity of human weaponry.

by Albadicki 2 weeks ago

What about ManBearPig?

by Cool_Chair 2 weeks ago

If we are going to change the question ID go.for " would You rather be in the forest alone with a dangerous man or a dangerous bear?" And " would You rather be alone in the Woods with a non dangerous man and a non dangerous bear? And " would You rather rather be alone in the Woods with a regular man and a regular bear?" Id also así.how.damgerous do You think a regular bear is and how dangerous do You think a regular man is

by okshlerin 2 weeks ago

There are not non-dangerous bears.

by horacio67 2 weeks ago

I think I'd still always choose the bear, even if he was non-dangerous.

by SpiritedSpeech6583 2 weeks ago

I would definitely choose a non dangerous bear over a woman.

by okshlerin 2 weeks ago

Kind of love that.

by Jaylan59 2 weeks ago

Exactly! You won't bear fist kill it and you won't outrun it.

by Jaylan59 2 weeks ago

As a woman, if I see a bear, it'll either attack and kill me or leave me alone if I don't approach it. I know if I enter the woods, there's a possibility of seeing a bear. If I see a man in the woods and I'm attacked, I might get SAd, killed, etc. AND might not be believed if there are no witnesses and/or I don't see his face or have proof it was him.

by Immediate_Crew 2 weeks ago

Have you ever seen how bears kill large prey? They break your arms and legs so you can't escape, then start eating your guts while you're still alive. They may also bury you so no other animals can eat you, and return to snack on you over the next few days. It's quite likely you'll still be alive for a day or two (they prefer to eat prey alive as it stays fresh better).

by horacio67 2 weeks ago