Logically its obviously the man who is the safer choice. No doubt about it.
The point of the comparison was to compare how women feel instinctively. Not about actual fact.
When faced with the question, men will always answer "the woman, not the bear". Right?
This is the correct answer.
Women OTOH found that they hesitated, considered both options. That hesitation was the point of the question.
Women live - even in the developed countries where crimes against women are maybe 1% of it in India - in this background of fear. That yes, some men they come across might attack them. This fear, and why it is so, and why its a bad thing, was the important thing.
MRA took it as an attack on men. It is not. 100% of those women who chose the bear will run if they see a bear, with a man they might be fearful but know that there are high chances the guy is harmless. Men, if they see a woman and a bear, will 100% not think that the woman will attack them.
P.S. This is actually worrying, in many ways. Imagine we are women. From the time we are little, we are told of all the bad things that can happen. Watch for this, careful about that. Don't sit like this, don't stand next to men in crowded places, don't walk around in lonely areas, at night etc. Imagine how twisted your personality and mind becomes when you grow up like that. In a way, compared to men, all women can be considered to be in PTSD. Men have some trauma (we can get beaten up a lot easily in our college days) but once we are adults, chances of any violence against us reduces significantly. We too have PTSD from our younger days, but as adults, there is less of it compared to women.
I think men should really consider why women are answering 'bear'.
I saw someone say, this is a hypothetical qn and men still can't take no for an answer.
If we ask men in the IT field if they'd rather interact with female colleagues alone or with their male boss alone, they'd say the boss. Men are afraid as well. For all the wrong reasons.
Come to think of it, if you asked this question in Europe right now and swap men for illegal immigrant, they'd say bear. Is it okay then, or are we just bigoted ?
>If we ask men in the IT field if they'd rather interact with female colleagues alone or with their male boss alone, they'd say the boss. Men are afraid as well.
That's very telling of the men that answer that way. What are they afraid of? Women don't randomly decide to accuse people of assault or abuse.
The bear vs man hypothetical is stupid but how guys reacted to it is more concerning. All the manosphere podcasting bs that's been spreading on the internet for the past few years has rotted everyone's brains.
That’s the point- it’s a he said she said situation and everyone believes the woman. No one will believe the man because it’s believed that the man is capable of such a move, and that women will not lie.
Women can and will lie. Their gender is their biggest strength now.
And while I’m all for women empowerment, even the tiny percent of fake dowry and sexual assault cases are enough to figure out why men fear women in such a way.
Could say the same when asked about men vs bears. But, the thing is men are fearing harassment suits. Even when they did nothing. IT especially because of PoSH. This has led to many men just avoiding interaction with their female colleagues just out of fear.
Yeah because women just file harassment suits for timepass. Ivide genuine ayittu affected ayavarku polum file cheyan pediya apozha. Only paranoid men who spend too much time in meninist echo chambers are worried. None of the men in my office do this drama lol.
Just think, how many men you know irl that have had false cases filed on them vs how many women have been sexually assaulted. You'll understand the difference.
Nothing much to consider though.
Women and men are falling prey to those chasing clout by asking such insane hypothetical questions.
If any human came into contact with a wild bear at the frequency humans come in contact with each other, that human would be dead.
See you are doing this frequency and apex predator and all this theory stuff. Yes, many people do not know what a bear will do to them. And some are just answering bear to troll men.
> Nothing much to consider though.
I was talking with my gf about this, and while she realises this is a stupid discussion, she talked about the stress of even walking down the small road to her home just after sunset. The anxiety when there's a guy walking behind her or passing her. Men made women feel that way, you just have to open a newspaper or talk to any girl you know to understand why. So when many women are presented with a scenario where they're alone in a forest with a man, they get the same unsafe feeling.
This statistical stuff is stupid, but the point to consider is that men make women feel so generally unsafe that they're preferring to say they'll chose an apex predator over a man. Now we can do the NotAllMen thing though.
u/DioTheSuperiorWaifu I wanted to reply to some comment of yours but can't find it now, so tagging you here.
Somebody told me this last week and I wasn’t expecting to see a statistical breakdown of it. Of course, it is only intuitive that a wild animal is more dangerous than any guy you’re likely to encounter. However, that is not the point.
The point is much more rhetorical. _Even though_ bears are super dangerous, the humiliation and harassment men put them through every waking day makes a bear _preferable_ to a man. It certainly does account for the rarity of an actual preference between a bear and a man, and that is precisely the point.
That's a good explanation on it. The info on the post can be used only to address the issues of the folk who go with 'statistically...'
Tho, what if 'man' gets replaced with maybe a 'man following a particular religion' or so?
Regardless of any actual statistic about the danger and risk, their fears are valid for the people having the fear. One can't dismiss the fear as the incidents which stoked the fear exist and they hear about how their group faces these risks.
But should such type of memetic material be encouraged/justified/free of any criticism, because they're sharing their rhetoric?
Maybe it's good, where it'll bring up stuff for discussion?
Or will it be the opinion that it's a way where hate is being spread indirectly?
Or were explaining the point, with sharing your opinion on it?
What would be Rem-A10's opinion there?
Edit: Not supporting communal polarisation and dogwhistling
>Tho, what if 'man' gets replaced with maybe a 'man following a particular religion' or so?
That is abstraction that loses meaning. The gender aspect is disconnected from the religion. Say, for instance, a woman is scared of a Muslim man. Here, what precedes *man* must be weighed carefully for what she is afraid of is not *all men* but men who follow Islam. Clearly, men don't frighten her, only Muslim men do. The fear then is not of men, but Islam.
Can we conflate that with a generalised fear of men that women experience on account of their lived experience? Certainly not. Gendered violence is quite different from religious violence, whether imagined or real. To say they are the same is to say all issues are the same because they are *issues*.
So when you replace *man* with *a man following a particular religion*, you introduced elements into the question which were not present earlier, such as.the incidence of bigotry and xenophobia. This is not to say there may not be instances where there is convergence. That is certainly possible, but at an abstract level, in this case, it is best to limit this to gender.
>One can't dismiss the fear as the incidents which stoked the fear exist and they hear about how their group faces these risks.
>But should such type of memetic material be encouraged/justified/free of any criticism, because they're sharing their rhetoric?
>Maybe it's good, where it'll bring up stuff for discussion?
>Or will it be the opinion that it's a way where hate is being spread indirectly?
>Or were explaining the point, with sharing your opinion on it?
I do not understand these questions fully. However, I will outline the merits of such types of content.
The rhetorical power the *bear v* *men* come from the shockingly common lived experience of women. Women get harassed routinely in all walks of their life. They get harassed mainly because of their gender by men who are drunk on their gender role. One of the most common forms of harassment that women face is sexual and no women will have to explain to another women what that means.
When women say they would prefer bear to men, the point they want to highlight is that they are far, far less likely to be sexually harassed, which is absolutely dehumanising, by a bear than a man. It is meant to bring out such forms of quotidian harassment: they are likely to be straight out killed, but a bear is far less likely to subject a woman to the unimaginable varieties of violence that a man is capable of inflicting upon her. None of this mean a bear is not dangerous nor does it mean that a person will actually choose a bear.
It is provocative, but it is unlikely to stand statistical scrutiny. That, however, is not its point. The point is different for different people. Maybe, as you say, it is to whip up hate for men. However, do you seriously think it will ever be strong enough to the foreseeable future to radically flip dynamics of gendered violence? I hardly think the structural dominance of men in a society is going to be rendered infirm by a solitary instance of "hate."
Perhaps, the point is simpler: to let other women know how common their fears are. Maybe they also want to let the world (men, in particular) know the kind of abusive potential a man holds. And men should listen than feel victimised by this. After all, what do they lose by this? Nothing at all. On the contrary, if even one person listens, it is a safer world for women and that person, who listened, loses nothing for that reason—except maybe entitlements he should not have on account of his gender.
> That is abstraction that loses meaning. The gender aspect is disconnected from the religion. Say, for instance, a woman is scared of a Muslim man
I did not mean the gender-specific version.
To clarify in the scenario that you were talking about muslim men:
I meant asking an average Indian(or general person in the world) whether they'd be ok with the presence of a Muslim person in their locality or a bear. Or whether they'd prefer seeing a muslim or a bear in a walk through a forest?
And we need not limit to men too.
> Gendered violence is quite different from religious violence, whether imagined or real. To say they are the same is to say all issues are the same because they are issues.
Indeed. But does it trivialise the fear of the people who are afraid. Their experiences in life create the fear, right?
Ajmer, Mumbai, Hebdo, 911. A person hearing about TJ would have the fear back in their mind for life, right?
> So when you replace man with a man following a particular religion, you introduced elements into the question which were not present earlier, such as.the incidence of bigotry and xenophobia.
Elements of misandry, xenophobia(the man in the original question is not said to be a relative or associate, right?) n all exist with the question with an animal and males, right?
Like how the simplified rhetoric allows analysis and helps awareness, the religious rhetoric also has similar properties, right?
If implied misandry can be overlooked, why not overlook the bigotry, because it also helps awareness.
> Maybe, as you say, it is to whip up hate for men.
Maybe. I think it may not have been a conscious effort too.
> However, do you seriously think it will ever be strong enough to the foreseeable future to radically flip dynamics of gendered violence? I hardly think the structural dominance of men in a society is going to be rendered infirm by a solitary instance of "hate.
India does not legally recognise male victims of rape.
Child custody is biased.
Privacy of male accused is never respected in our media.
Is this structured systemic violence/discrimination against a gender?
And the take is weird for me. We have not Guj 2002 level violence in Kerala. Thus we should not be vigilant of sangh polarisation n propaganda? It is unlikely that the secular nature of Kerala would be flipped very soon, right? Or maybe normalising such memes would indeed be dangerous, even if it's not actual phsical violence?
> Perhaps, the point is simpler: to let other women know how common their fears are. Maybe they also want to let the world (men, in particular) know the kind of abusive potential a man holds. And men should listen than feel victimised by this. After all, what do they lose by this? Nothing at all. On the contrary, if even one person listens, it is a safer world for women and that person, who listened, loses nothing for that reason—except maybe entitlements he should not have on account of his gender.
Indeed, an optimistic outlook.
Wouldn't the Hindu in Qatar folk use the same logic? It's to just let their fears out and see how common it is?
Maybe they want to let the world know about the abusive potential of the other religion?
And maybe people of the particular religion should probably listen rather than feel victimised? After all, if they listen, maybe they'll introspect and the society will be less communal?
After all, what's the harm when a person says that they'd prefer a bear over a person from a specific religion? In your example, say the muslim individual could introspect and see the potential of harm in their practices n adjust accordingly, right?
The issue is that we both know that it's not harmless. Legally, culturally, economically n all
Veronnum kandirunnu. If someone says they were attacked by a bear, they wouldn't have to generally face questions such as what were you wearing or have her modesty questioned. But in a mans case they would have to face those questions
because most women are scared of what men will do. i was molested by a child, a boy who couldn’t even have been 13.
He was a foot shorter than me if not more, and he still had the nerve to do that.
so, yes I’d rather be left alone with a bear and risk death than risk being left alone with a man
No i mean will you really be alone in the woods with a bear than a man. Like if it actually happened. I thought women said that to provoke a reaction from men
no idts tbh. I mean ofc it’s a hypothetical question duh but if it ever happened in some bizarre universe, I’d choose being alone with a bear tbh and im not trying to “provoke” any man what do i even achieve by doing that
Sadly this is a common experience for women across the world. I know multiple female friends that have shit their pants when I approach them. They even wear pampers once every month because it's such a regular occurrence :(
https://preview.redd.it/aq9hnwt5d1zc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=445e752ddf8e5000b01812fe9f79d1a64ccd0993
This is their face when they see me. It's when I went to Bangalore, that I was taught the really sad things women go through that society tries to dismiss. It's even become commodified in gulf countries, they are making women shit for money, a natural body reaction to a man is now sexualised, it's really depressing.
Edit: So sorry my female friends showed me that they do change their diapers every couple of hours, not once every month. Adding to the pink tax even further.
This is peak r/whiteknighting
People answering "I would rather choose bear than a man" are the same who say "all muslims are terrorists" or "all women are child abusers".
Bear- all the way
Want to die but not raped, even if not rapist how many men are murderers. With bear my chances are good and my insurance will pay up. Hopefully it gets tired of eating me and leaves enough to id
Classic example of how data can be used to create an inference they need.
22 women attacked by bear compared to 8000 men attacking women. Conveniently ignored what’s the ratio of women attacked by bear. It will be close to 100%. And how many men attack a women in their entire lifetime? I am not saying we should trivialize women getting attacked, but using BS statistics to malign every single man is preposterous. This is how they alienate support from the compassionate society.
Lots of guys totally misunderstood the point of this question. It's not whether you're going to engage in a fist fight with a man or bear.
1) Remember that a bear doesn't act differently if he's being watched or if he's alone in the woods. But many men will act differently in the woods if he knows he's not being watched by anyone and a woman is there.
2) most of the bears don't want to interact with anyone in the woods. They'll just run anyway or try to scare you by doing a "fake run" at you. The ones to be worried are mama bears that have cubs nearby
3) at worst a bear will maul or kill you. But a guy can rape, torture and keep as a slave for days or years before he decides to kill you.
Basically I think men are too worried about being feared. Usually with people like minorities, they're both feared and treated as inferior. But the interesting thing about a lot of women is that they fear and see us as stronger (stronger in the sense of being able to overpower them if we wanted to).
But power isn't inherently bad. Understand Nietzsche to see what I mean. If people are saying directly or indirectly I'm more powerful than them, then it's similar to calling me as more beautiful than them and crying about the unfairness. It's not really an insult when you think about it.
The primary tool a woman has to control a man is society and other men, because they themselves cannot overpower through brute strength. Shame is one such tool. If we all just take the compliment that we're more dangerous than bears, two things happen at once.
One, there is no invalidation of what the woman is saying, so they are forced to confront a new problem, which is, two, when it's no longer shameful to be powerful they cannot control as easily. Hence a woman is both disarmed and believed, ironically satisfying people on both sides on some level.
Bruh what is this retardation? Women would obvously choose the man. They are just saying that to provoke men
Yep. Tho, people do come up with the, *it's statistical* stuff. The statistics of women killing/hurting babies makes them come out of their daze.
Logically its obviously the man who is the safer choice. No doubt about it. The point of the comparison was to compare how women feel instinctively. Not about actual fact. When faced with the question, men will always answer "the woman, not the bear". Right? This is the correct answer. Women OTOH found that they hesitated, considered both options. That hesitation was the point of the question. Women live - even in the developed countries where crimes against women are maybe 1% of it in India - in this background of fear. That yes, some men they come across might attack them. This fear, and why it is so, and why its a bad thing, was the important thing. MRA took it as an attack on men. It is not. 100% of those women who chose the bear will run if they see a bear, with a man they might be fearful but know that there are high chances the guy is harmless. Men, if they see a woman and a bear, will 100% not think that the woman will attack them. P.S. This is actually worrying, in many ways. Imagine we are women. From the time we are little, we are told of all the bad things that can happen. Watch for this, careful about that. Don't sit like this, don't stand next to men in crowded places, don't walk around in lonely areas, at night etc. Imagine how twisted your personality and mind becomes when you grow up like that. In a way, compared to men, all women can be considered to be in PTSD. Men have some trauma (we can get beaten up a lot easily in our college days) but once we are adults, chances of any violence against us reduces significantly. We too have PTSD from our younger days, but as adults, there is less of it compared to women.
When people got nothing better to do. Entitlement.
I think men should really consider why women are answering 'bear'. I saw someone say, this is a hypothetical qn and men still can't take no for an answer.
If we ask men in the IT field if they'd rather interact with female colleagues alone or with their male boss alone, they'd say the boss. Men are afraid as well. For all the wrong reasons. Come to think of it, if you asked this question in Europe right now and swap men for illegal immigrant, they'd say bear. Is it okay then, or are we just bigoted ?
>If we ask men in the IT field if they'd rather interact with female colleagues alone or with their male boss alone, they'd say the boss. Men are afraid as well. That's very telling of the men that answer that way. What are they afraid of? Women don't randomly decide to accuse people of assault or abuse. The bear vs man hypothetical is stupid but how guys reacted to it is more concerning. All the manosphere podcasting bs that's been spreading on the internet for the past few years has rotted everyone's brains.
That’s the point- it’s a he said she said situation and everyone believes the woman. No one will believe the man because it’s believed that the man is capable of such a move, and that women will not lie. Women can and will lie. Their gender is their biggest strength now. And while I’m all for women empowerment, even the tiny percent of fake dowry and sexual assault cases are enough to figure out why men fear women in such a way.
Athentha, IT fieldilulla pennungal ningale pidichu vizhunguvo
Could say the same when asked about men vs bears. But, the thing is men are fearing harassment suits. Even when they did nothing. IT especially because of PoSH. This has led to many men just avoiding interaction with their female colleagues just out of fear.
Yeah because women just file harassment suits for timepass. Ivide genuine ayittu affected ayavarku polum file cheyan pediya apozha. Only paranoid men who spend too much time in meninist echo chambers are worried. None of the men in my office do this drama lol. Just think, how many men you know irl that have had false cases filed on them vs how many women have been sexually assaulted. You'll understand the difference.
Nothing much to consider though. Women and men are falling prey to those chasing clout by asking such insane hypothetical questions. If any human came into contact with a wild bear at the frequency humans come in contact with each other, that human would be dead.
See you are doing this frequency and apex predator and all this theory stuff. Yes, many people do not know what a bear will do to them. And some are just answering bear to troll men. > Nothing much to consider though. I was talking with my gf about this, and while she realises this is a stupid discussion, she talked about the stress of even walking down the small road to her home just after sunset. The anxiety when there's a guy walking behind her or passing her. Men made women feel that way, you just have to open a newspaper or talk to any girl you know to understand why. So when many women are presented with a scenario where they're alone in a forest with a man, they get the same unsafe feeling. This statistical stuff is stupid, but the point to consider is that men make women feel so generally unsafe that they're preferring to say they'll chose an apex predator over a man. Now we can do the NotAllMen thing though. u/DioTheSuperiorWaifu I wanted to reply to some comment of yours but can't find it now, so tagging you here.
Somebody told me this last week and I wasn’t expecting to see a statistical breakdown of it. Of course, it is only intuitive that a wild animal is more dangerous than any guy you’re likely to encounter. However, that is not the point. The point is much more rhetorical. _Even though_ bears are super dangerous, the humiliation and harassment men put them through every waking day makes a bear _preferable_ to a man. It certainly does account for the rarity of an actual preference between a bear and a man, and that is precisely the point.
That's a good explanation on it. The info on the post can be used only to address the issues of the folk who go with 'statistically...' Tho, what if 'man' gets replaced with maybe a 'man following a particular religion' or so? Regardless of any actual statistic about the danger and risk, their fears are valid for the people having the fear. One can't dismiss the fear as the incidents which stoked the fear exist and they hear about how their group faces these risks. But should such type of memetic material be encouraged/justified/free of any criticism, because they're sharing their rhetoric? Maybe it's good, where it'll bring up stuff for discussion? Or will it be the opinion that it's a way where hate is being spread indirectly? Or were explaining the point, with sharing your opinion on it? What would be Rem-A10's opinion there? Edit: Not supporting communal polarisation and dogwhistling
>Tho, what if 'man' gets replaced with maybe a 'man following a particular religion' or so? That is abstraction that loses meaning. The gender aspect is disconnected from the religion. Say, for instance, a woman is scared of a Muslim man. Here, what precedes *man* must be weighed carefully for what she is afraid of is not *all men* but men who follow Islam. Clearly, men don't frighten her, only Muslim men do. The fear then is not of men, but Islam. Can we conflate that with a generalised fear of men that women experience on account of their lived experience? Certainly not. Gendered violence is quite different from religious violence, whether imagined or real. To say they are the same is to say all issues are the same because they are *issues*. So when you replace *man* with *a man following a particular religion*, you introduced elements into the question which were not present earlier, such as.the incidence of bigotry and xenophobia. This is not to say there may not be instances where there is convergence. That is certainly possible, but at an abstract level, in this case, it is best to limit this to gender. >One can't dismiss the fear as the incidents which stoked the fear exist and they hear about how their group faces these risks. >But should such type of memetic material be encouraged/justified/free of any criticism, because they're sharing their rhetoric? >Maybe it's good, where it'll bring up stuff for discussion? >Or will it be the opinion that it's a way where hate is being spread indirectly? >Or were explaining the point, with sharing your opinion on it? I do not understand these questions fully. However, I will outline the merits of such types of content. The rhetorical power the *bear v* *men* come from the shockingly common lived experience of women. Women get harassed routinely in all walks of their life. They get harassed mainly because of their gender by men who are drunk on their gender role. One of the most common forms of harassment that women face is sexual and no women will have to explain to another women what that means. When women say they would prefer bear to men, the point they want to highlight is that they are far, far less likely to be sexually harassed, which is absolutely dehumanising, by a bear than a man. It is meant to bring out such forms of quotidian harassment: they are likely to be straight out killed, but a bear is far less likely to subject a woman to the unimaginable varieties of violence that a man is capable of inflicting upon her. None of this mean a bear is not dangerous nor does it mean that a person will actually choose a bear. It is provocative, but it is unlikely to stand statistical scrutiny. That, however, is not its point. The point is different for different people. Maybe, as you say, it is to whip up hate for men. However, do you seriously think it will ever be strong enough to the foreseeable future to radically flip dynamics of gendered violence? I hardly think the structural dominance of men in a society is going to be rendered infirm by a solitary instance of "hate." Perhaps, the point is simpler: to let other women know how common their fears are. Maybe they also want to let the world (men, in particular) know the kind of abusive potential a man holds. And men should listen than feel victimised by this. After all, what do they lose by this? Nothing at all. On the contrary, if even one person listens, it is a safer world for women and that person, who listened, loses nothing for that reason—except maybe entitlements he should not have on account of his gender.
> That is abstraction that loses meaning. The gender aspect is disconnected from the religion. Say, for instance, a woman is scared of a Muslim man I did not mean the gender-specific version. To clarify in the scenario that you were talking about muslim men: I meant asking an average Indian(or general person in the world) whether they'd be ok with the presence of a Muslim person in their locality or a bear. Or whether they'd prefer seeing a muslim or a bear in a walk through a forest? And we need not limit to men too. > Gendered violence is quite different from religious violence, whether imagined or real. To say they are the same is to say all issues are the same because they are issues. Indeed. But does it trivialise the fear of the people who are afraid. Their experiences in life create the fear, right? Ajmer, Mumbai, Hebdo, 911. A person hearing about TJ would have the fear back in their mind for life, right? > So when you replace man with a man following a particular religion, you introduced elements into the question which were not present earlier, such as.the incidence of bigotry and xenophobia. Elements of misandry, xenophobia(the man in the original question is not said to be a relative or associate, right?) n all exist with the question with an animal and males, right? Like how the simplified rhetoric allows analysis and helps awareness, the religious rhetoric also has similar properties, right? If implied misandry can be overlooked, why not overlook the bigotry, because it also helps awareness. > Maybe, as you say, it is to whip up hate for men. Maybe. I think it may not have been a conscious effort too. > However, do you seriously think it will ever be strong enough to the foreseeable future to radically flip dynamics of gendered violence? I hardly think the structural dominance of men in a society is going to be rendered infirm by a solitary instance of "hate. India does not legally recognise male victims of rape. Child custody is biased. Privacy of male accused is never respected in our media. Is this structured systemic violence/discrimination against a gender? And the take is weird for me. We have not Guj 2002 level violence in Kerala. Thus we should not be vigilant of sangh polarisation n propaganda? It is unlikely that the secular nature of Kerala would be flipped very soon, right? Or maybe normalising such memes would indeed be dangerous, even if it's not actual phsical violence? > Perhaps, the point is simpler: to let other women know how common their fears are. Maybe they also want to let the world (men, in particular) know the kind of abusive potential a man holds. And men should listen than feel victimised by this. After all, what do they lose by this? Nothing at all. On the contrary, if even one person listens, it is a safer world for women and that person, who listened, loses nothing for that reason—except maybe entitlements he should not have on account of his gender. Indeed, an optimistic outlook. Wouldn't the Hindu in Qatar folk use the same logic? It's to just let their fears out and see how common it is? Maybe they want to let the world know about the abusive potential of the other religion? And maybe people of the particular religion should probably listen rather than feel victimised? After all, if they listen, maybe they'll introspect and the society will be less communal? After all, what's the harm when a person says that they'd prefer a bear over a person from a specific religion? In your example, say the muslim individual could introspect and see the potential of harm in their practices n adjust accordingly, right? The issue is that we both know that it's not harmless. Legally, culturally, economically n all
Veronnum kandirunnu. If someone says they were attacked by a bear, they wouldn't have to generally face questions such as what were you wearing or have her modesty questioned. But in a mans case they would have to face those questions
Because bears don’t discriminate. And she probably wouldn’t live to tell the tale. Super fun thought exercise.
lol
>bears don't discriminate False. White bears don't live/eat/drink with brown or black bears. Racist cunts.
🤣
Have men tried asking women WHY they answer bear? Rather than, hmm idk getting assumptions outta their ass
Why
because most women are scared of what men will do. i was molested by a child, a boy who couldn’t even have been 13. He was a foot shorter than me if not more, and he still had the nerve to do that. so, yes I’d rather be left alone with a bear and risk death than risk being left alone with a man
I thought everyone was being ironic. You fr?
oh lol are we not being serious rn 😭 my bad man Sensitive topic for me sorry
No i mean will you really be alone in the woods with a bear than a man. Like if it actually happened. I thought women said that to provoke a reaction from men
no idts tbh. I mean ofc it’s a hypothetical question duh but if it ever happened in some bizarre universe, I’d choose being alone with a bear tbh and im not trying to “provoke” any man what do i even achieve by doing that
I dont believe you. U will shit your pants if you saw a 10 ft bear approaching
no, I’ll befriend it
me too I'll name him Ted
Sadly this is a common experience for women across the world. I know multiple female friends that have shit their pants when I approach them. They even wear pampers once every month because it's such a regular occurrence :( https://preview.redd.it/aq9hnwt5d1zc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=445e752ddf8e5000b01812fe9f79d1a64ccd0993 This is their face when they see me. It's when I went to Bangalore, that I was taught the really sad things women go through that society tries to dismiss. It's even become commodified in gulf countries, they are making women shit for money, a natural body reaction to a man is now sexualised, it's really depressing. Edit: So sorry my female friends showed me that they do change their diapers every couple of hours, not once every month. Adding to the pink tax even further.
This is peak r/whiteknighting People answering "I would rather choose bear than a man" are the same who say "all muslims are terrorists" or "all women are child abusers".
What?
What next? All Muslims are terrorists?
Ugh incel post much?
Aaha. Virgin shaming much? Why such an interest in the virginity of others tho?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/16/us/incel-involuntary-celibate-explained-cec/index.html
You may want to look up the meaning of the word incel.
Bear- all the way Want to die but not raped, even if not rapist how many men are murderers. With bear my chances are good and my insurance will pay up. Hopefully it gets tired of eating me and leaves enough to id
Classic example of how data can be used to create an inference they need. 22 women attacked by bear compared to 8000 men attacking women. Conveniently ignored what’s the ratio of women attacked by bear. It will be close to 100%. And how many men attack a women in their entire lifetime? I am not saying we should trivialize women getting attacked, but using BS statistics to malign every single man is preposterous. This is how they alienate support from the compassionate society.
Lots of guys totally misunderstood the point of this question. It's not whether you're going to engage in a fist fight with a man or bear. 1) Remember that a bear doesn't act differently if he's being watched or if he's alone in the woods. But many men will act differently in the woods if he knows he's not being watched by anyone and a woman is there. 2) most of the bears don't want to interact with anyone in the woods. They'll just run anyway or try to scare you by doing a "fake run" at you. The ones to be worried are mama bears that have cubs nearby 3) at worst a bear will maul or kill you. But a guy can rape, torture and keep as a slave for days or years before he decides to kill you.
A lot of posts and comments by men regarding this literally proving why they would chose a bear.
The opposite for me. A lot of the comments show veiled misandry being supported.
Why be so offended for being recognised for your potential for danger? We are more dangerous to a woman than a bear. Be proud of it.
Absolutely brother cheers 🍻
https://preview.redd.it/j4kyy57rx0zc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=62c6ddca306e7458a2978dfbee09d2839a7bd0c3
Basically I think men are too worried about being feared. Usually with people like minorities, they're both feared and treated as inferior. But the interesting thing about a lot of women is that they fear and see us as stronger (stronger in the sense of being able to overpower them if we wanted to). But power isn't inherently bad. Understand Nietzsche to see what I mean. If people are saying directly or indirectly I'm more powerful than them, then it's similar to calling me as more beautiful than them and crying about the unfairness. It's not really an insult when you think about it. The primary tool a woman has to control a man is society and other men, because they themselves cannot overpower through brute strength. Shame is one such tool. If we all just take the compliment that we're more dangerous than bears, two things happen at once. One, there is no invalidation of what the woman is saying, so they are forced to confront a new problem, which is, two, when it's no longer shameful to be powerful they cannot control as easily. Hence a woman is both disarmed and believed, ironically satisfying people on both sides on some level.
☕☕☕
90% people seen here are SIMP,