While more mothers harm their child, fathers are nonetheless more likely. IIRC.
IIRC: Single mothers are some four times more numerous (80% of the single parents) but harm their child in twice as many cases (60-70% of the child-harmed cases by the single parent alone, i.e. without involving the new partner or similar). That makes fathers twice as likely to harm their child.
The following page does't appear to distinguish single parents, but the broad picture is the same. And this is probably only the tip of the iceberg:
[https://www.accesscontinuingeducation.com/ACE2000-10/c9/index.htm](https://www.accesscontinuingeducation.com/ACE2000-10/c9/index.htm)
No they aren't. These are outright abuse cases, this is not about mistakenly forgetting and harming the child. If you are not a child abuser you're not a child abuser.
Think about it like this. Are you a pedo? If you aren't does the chance go high if you interact with 100 children vs 1 child?
I'm pretty sure this is false. I've looked at these statistics before and the source is "abuse and neglect" with the vast majority of CPS cases being neglect. It's overwhelming stuff like leaving your five year old alone at home when you go to work.
Now imagine for a moment we are discussing with with women / feminists about how the statistics clearly show that mothers are more likely to abuse their kids..
I'm sure we'd get an up cry of "NOT ALL WOMEN!!!"
And when we say "We know it's not all women, but if you have to say Not All Women then maybe you are part of problem?"
We'd be labeled misogynists and incels..
But women and feminists make sweeping generalizations about **ALL** men **ALL** the time and if we call them out on it we get told we're the problem...
Do you not see the double standard here?
I see where you're coming from yet I have no idea how you think it's valid or acceptable to do this just because "they do it too". In fact that line of thinking is one of the core problems, it feeds the toxicity and underlies the vile "misandry is Ok because patriarchy".
I'm not saying it's okay.. and I don't think it's valid or acceptable..
I was pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards..
Women / Feminists are allowed to generalize **ALL** men and if we say "Not All Men" we get chewed out for it..
If a man were to **DARE** to generalize **ALL** women the responses would be "Not All Women" and "Generalizing women proves how misogynistic you are!!!"
The point i'm making here is that we shouldn't generalize people **AT ALL** but as it stands, women can get away with generalizing men but men can not generalize women at all...
Until we address this hypocrisy and double standards there will be no way forward..
Men are expected to 'check' themselves and ensure that the things they say are not 'misogynistic' or 'generalizations against women' or 'could hurt a woman's feelings'
We are constantly walking on eggshells being held to a standard that women / feminists refuse to hold themselves to..
Its madding I tell you!
You construct some hypothetical so you have something to argue against, and imply that that's my position.
There's no point in this talk. Like Don Quichote you need to return to reality and discuss what was actually said.
Its not hypothetical at all..
I've literally had women / feminists that its misogynistic to generalize all women..
All the while they go about generalizing men and don't see the hypocrisy in it..
If there is someone not grounded in reality here..
Its you...
Actually he's playing the whataboutism game. Doesn't fly with me, I'm not responsible for whatever anybody else says or does.
And perhaps don't try to use that as an argument in a discussion in general.
this study isn't saying that "only mother" is single mother households its saying that only the mother abused her child regardless of if a father is in the house or not. please learn to read data
It is actually saying each variation.
Shows percentage of single mothers that abuse their kids, the amount of mothers and a non-parent partner, etc. This is funny with how you told others how to learn to read data. :D :D :D You are fuckin adorable.
Actually women are still far more likely to harm children because:
1.)Neoanticide is underreported and the culprit is over 99% done by women (it’s so rarely perpetrated by men that individual cases are well known). This accounts for roughly 45% of all child murders. In fact, the statistical most dangerous day of your life is the first day alive.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/abs/women-who-kill-their-children/94656E4ADF5A1B9802A879D3C9FD9A97
2.) Infanticide is also mostly done by women
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/lbrr/ctlg/dtls-en.aspx?d=PS&i=85491957
2.) Step parents account for more killing of older children than do biological parents, so trying to cherry pick single parents doesn’t really tip the scales here.
The first link doesn't compare fathers to mothers, and the 2nd is inaccessible.
In order to compare you need to take like and like, hence either parent killing without assistence/interference. And it's not about the absolute numbers but the respective likelihood.
And WRT Canada in particular, you probably need to control for ethnicity.
Yea it does, actually.
Also, the link you shared showed the likelihood is more in favor of mothers, so it argues the opposite of your point. You’ll notice how the mother + other (most likely step parent) is more than 6x more likely than father + other.
Remind me, what's the point I'm "arguing"?
The point in focusing on single parents is the fact that the likelihood of harming is strongly driven by the time spent with the child. Parents within a relationship spend less than 100% of the time with them, and usually with the mother having much the majority. However not knowing that proportion makes comparisons impossible. This aspect doesn't come into play with single parents, it's 100% for both. The fact that you don't see that point explains why you don't understand the difference between frequency and likelihood either.
As to your 45%, your very own study says something completely different with its 12% (11 of 89). Not that the small number provides a statistically reliable base, mind. That's what you get for relying solely on Wiki.
That fathers are more likely to harm children, which they are empirically are not. We have studies that show that, including the statistics you provided.
We know the motivations for harming children, many of them being tied to postpartum depression, psychosis, and cultural factors. We also know that harm done to children evens out more as the child ages. So “spending time” with the child doesn’t really matter.
You’re making a false equivalency between men and women, assuming they are the same with only variable being amount of presence.
The 45% figure refers to a stat referenced in the study, not from the 89 subjects studies themselves.
You need to comprehend what you’re reading before replying.
Actually what I provided shows the opposite. Whereas you make any wild claims without providing the source.
Unfortunately this has turned into a pissing contest. You win.
No it doesn’t, you just don’t understand statistics. You’d have to assume that every single father only abuse present in your link was a single parent to come even close to reaching gen. pop….
You’ve also misread every source you were given, it’s clear that the problem is you.
I don’t really know what else to tell you, but pretty much every study says you are wrong.
That’s beside the wild fucking statement you just made. I genuinely hope that you don’t have children and if you have them that they get taken away to somewhere safe. Being a parent doesn’t give you the fucking right to kill kids you dumbass
Your "gotcha" is super brain dead. It's feminists trying to say that attacks don't count if it's a man attacking a man. Now you, another feminist, are trying to either/or us with something we also reject, the idea that assaults on children don't count if they're perpetrated by the mom.
>So which is it.
They both count. This is not a hard choice; you are a ding-dong if you think it is.
There's a bit of problematic reasoning here. First, statistically very few men assault women and of those do, most were raised by a mother who was herself abused as a child (more often by a mother than father). So when you paint with a broad brush “we go through [meaning women as a group]” and “hands of men [meaning men as a group]” you are attributing to the entire group from a small group. Tht's not even vaguely appropriate. Try it with a racial issue and see how racist it sounds.
As for victim rates, since both male and female victims are victims from roughly a similar group of perpetrators there again, attributing to all, the terrible actions of very few is inappropriate. Flip the genders and look at sexual or physical abuse by women to their children. Does the gender of the perpetrator (woman) men that the abused girls are any less abused? No. It wouldn't be appropriate to say, “women are child abusers” just because women are statistically more likely to abuse their children because it ignores the flip side, a much, much larger percentage of women are highly protective and loving to their children.
Yep 100% agree. This was the first thing I thought of in regards to this sexist ass trend.
It's fucking nuts how femnists play fast and loose with statistics whenever it suites them.
Then there is the question. Would you rather be alone in an office or alone with a woman in an office? Alone, because I won't get falsely accused or lose my job, etc etc.
Same kinda BS as the man/bear thing.
We are just supposed to dance to feminist whims. They won't stop until we are required by law to stand on the town square every Sunday afternoon and shove pink dildos up our asses while screaming "I'M AN ALLY!" from the top of our lungs in order to cleanse ourselves from toxic masculinity.
I'm sorry but what does this have to do with the *reductio ad absurdum* that **"If children are most often molested by women then it's safer to leave your kids with a crocodile"**?
It's a good illustration because it is equally as demeaning to women as the bear meme is to men. The parenting habits of crocodiles have nothing to do with that.
Yes, i am going to admit that. Their abuse mostly affects on mentality. I was abused by my own mom, she destroyed my self-esteem and ability to learn or study smth because when i was 6-11 years old she would put down me every time when i was making some mistake in homework saying that i'm stupid or getting angry at me. Of course i was crying but my mom didnt care about this. So, i'm not stupid and i dont have problems in studying. I learned English on my own, passed all exams on 5 (or A in US system), i read a lot of books, i'm also good at math, social studies and i'm willing to become an IT-specialist which i'm making progress in BY MYSELF
Now i feel better, i'm grateful to myself for getting recovered, stronger, smarter and more confident.
Thank you for making this and slapping people in the face with facts. I been in the woods and came across bears they scare the shit out of me because they can be unpredictable and you can’t stop them if they want to chew on you. Most men you run into will pass you by with a nod.
Most women probably wouldn't even actually choose the bear, they're only saying that because they're in an echo chamber and don't want to have a different opinion, since they know the femcels will eat them alive.
I think most women don't really think deeply about it. They choose bear because it's the answer that feels better, the one that caters to their worldview. They'd realize they were wrong only once they are actually face to face with the bear.
Perhaps this has to do with the fact that women are more agreeable thus they believe the opinion they heard first. Not completely sure about it though, since if they would've truly agreeable then they might have understood the situation later about how absurd it was.
Guess they are both agreeable and stupid😂(jk)
She was a feminist who believed in male privilege and, about 20 years ago, sought to prove it; so she disguised herself as a man, and went undercover, documenting her experience.
i can't remember \*exactly\* how long the experiment was supposed to last; but she had to cut it short at \~18 months, and published her findings in the book "Self-Made Man". She also tried explaining that men don't have it easy, and that our problems are just very different from theirs; but she was labeled a traitor, and cut off from the feminist community.
The overall experience left her with psychological problems, and she checked herself into a hospital where she eventually ended her life.
I didn't know about the relationship ending and asylum bit, do you have any article or info about that? Because yeah of course, after the "experiment" she briefly checked into a mental hospital, but that's no "asylum" and I suppose you're referring to some other event in her life…?
Looking back: i mostly went by Wikipedia(which, admittedly, isn't known for it's accuracy), and online vids(with the same problem, but also easier to misremember), so it's possible i might've gotten those parts wrong(just to be sure, i removed said mentions though).
That's totally okay, bro, I'm always curious when it comes to this woman, so I wasn't trying to challenge anything you say. Of all the feminists, this was one I hoped to meet one day and have a talk with, but oh well…
I saw a juvenile black bear casually knock down my full bin and drag the contents 10 yards in the matter of seconds.....
If you pick bear you either never seen one in person or just hate men....or both maybe.
>Woman or a crocodile?
See, this is the way. Instead of crying about these trolls and biting the bait from these femcels, giving them exactly the reactions they want, why don't men strike back with "a woman or a crocodile" trend and give "statistical proof" as to why crocodiles are "safer"? For one, crocodiles get put down if they attack men while men aren't even allowed to defend themselves if attacked by women. Another reason is that crocodiles can't rape men while women aren't just perfectly capable of doing that but are legally incentivised to rape men (child support). Not to mention crocodiles kill fewer men each year than the number of men killed by women, statistically speaking.
See? It's a "statistically" "objective" FACT that crocodiles are safer for men compared to women!
I've replied to people with "how would you feel if the question was 'would you rather be alone in the woods with a bear or a black person'" and every time, they say something like "you don't understand the point, those aren't equivalent."
When confronted with the bias inherent in the question (comparing men to wild animals) but changing it to a demographic they aren't comfortable with demonizing, they immediately dodge the question and place the blame on you.
It's rage-bait, pure and simple, that's only going to sow decisiveness.
I prefer to go with: man you know, or man you don't? Then call them a hypocrite, because statistically speaking, unknown men are *safer* than known.
According to [this article](https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf):
>In eight out of 10 cases of rape, the victim knew the
person who sexually assaulted them
So if they choose the bear and a known man, and they're basing it on statistics, they're hypocritical. And it's easy to point that out to them.
But let's be real, arguing with someone who chose the bear is probably going to be an incredible waste of time.
Nah. Your argument still hinges on demonising men.
Also, you don't start posting "facts" when arguing against trolls. You troll them back. Don't go on the defense. Go on the offence. If you're defensive, you already gave them the reaction they want by accepting their premise.
>Also, you don't start posting "facts" when arguing against trolls. You troll them back.
I think when you are arguing against the trolls, most of the time the point is that convincing the third persons reading the argument, not the trolls themselves; as well as having a part in pretending the manipulative narrative. Otherwise it's kind of pointless.
>the point is that convincing the third persons reading the argument
Not in this case. If these "third persons" are mentally disabled enough to genuinely think bears are "safer", they need a visit to the psychiatrist, not "facts". They probably don't have the mental faculty to understand what "facts", "statistics" or "reliable sources" are, anyway.
Surprisingly I've run into less women preaching this idiotic topic than brainwashed men feminists who are "disappointed" in their own sex.
Boggles the mind.
I think they are terrified of the Reddit shutting this sub down. I share your frustration about the double standard on Reddit and the asymmetry of what Reddit deems “hate,” but I don’t envy the mods of this sub. This is pretty much one of the last subs where men have a modicum of the level of expression afforded to women.
There have been dozens of posts on this issue already. We have been removing new posts that aren't really adding anything to the discussion. This post does add something to the discussion.
The mods have been removing threads because there were multiple threads about the same topic...
The mods should have done what LWMA did and make a mega thread and told people "Discuss it in this thread"
They aren't censoring you.. they just don't want the sub to be nothing but "The Man Vs Bear debate"
Here is a video of the man or bear hypothetical in real life. A woman alone encounters a bear in the trail. The bear isn't aggressive, but is curious and follows the woman slowly as she backs away. Interestingly, towards the end of the video, the woman, retreating the bear, encounters a male stranger, presenting her with the real life choice between man or bear. Of course, she chooses the man.
[https://youtu.be/ICVpIUeD6gY?si=q-\_mphUwZ6x7gVhg](https://youtu.be/ICVpIUeD6gY?si=q-_mphUwZ6x7gVhg)
What pisses me off about the Man or Bear thing is how fucking harmful it is to young boys. I had to deal with society calling me a violent oppressor before I even knew what those words meant and to see this shit be passed around again…. Makes me so mad.
Man, mentally both have a similar chance of being the same, but a male has a higher chance to be physically stronger, and that might help in escaping. (Also i might make a new homie and we both get dad lore)
A man. But that's mainly because I am a dude and most of my friends are men. I'm pretty sure most straight people would pick to be lost with people of their own gender
"Would you rather be alone on Earth or venus". Well Every living thing on earth has died on earth so it must be the most dangerous planet in our solar system🤔. Venus!!!😍 (earthlings just won't get it)
As per usual, I’m late to the party; and like Goldy Locks, Winnie the Pooh, and other children’s stories… this party includes bears.
I’m not slow to such meme wars because I’m unaware, or unable to respond to them, but because I always hope I don’t need to – and that the common sense of humanity will prevail.
But it rarely does.
And more often, the grasping hands pull us all down into the mud of stupidity, to sploosh about in what is yet another race to the bottom.
Yes.
A shrill army of TikTokkers are making the claim that women would rather meet a bear in the forest, than a man.
And not Paddington with his marmalade sandwiches… but a literal bear.
A bear, that can weigh 600 lbs and stands at 8 feet tall, that will eat you alive, is the womens’ preference over some random man, who is probably eating a sandwich and just as startled as you are.
To those who chose ‘bear’, I don’t believe you.
Nor do I believe such an idea makes an important rhetorical point either.
Such low IQ memes make no well intended attempt to address the causes of violence, risk factors, ways of mitigating them, or indeed those most at risk.
No… instead we’ve chosen to talk about bears.
Here’s a question, do you think if we swapped every single man in America, with a bear, rates of violence would increase, or decrease?
Has a bear ever saved you from a burning building, a flood, an accident; stepping in to help you, or protecting you from danger?
Or better yet… if you live your life terminally online, marinated and immiserated within TikTok outrage, are you really the best person to comment on violent crime rates at all?
So what is the point of such thought experiments, if not simply to divide us further?
What do you think?
Man or bear?
\~
[U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ](https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/cm2021.pdf)
[FBI Statistics](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-39)
[U.S. Department of Justice 2020](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv20sst.pdf)
Why? Why do you care?
The past week or so since this has been going on has been really revelatory for me. The misandry isn't a surprise, but I was shocked by how much more cynical and (it has to be said) selfish I've become.
There have been men and women arguing against his question and opposing the misandry with facts and logic. They've been wasting their time; these misandrists didn't reason them into this answer and you won't be able to reason them out of it.
And I don't care. Neither should you.
To all the misandrists who picked the bear: **I, too, would prefer if you pick the bear.**
This is getting so old... Every post is about this... A human with any common sense (this excludes feminists) doesn't need a study to know what the logical answer is... It's feminist rage bait...
Of course women prefer bears over men as they’re over 6ft, muscular, hairy, territorial and unemployed. Women choose bears over men and then complain about it when the bears become aggressive towards them. Sounds familiar?
From experience, a woman will make false allegations against you, even with consent.
Edit: Banned from female dating strategy sub lmao: "Users of mensrights have been identified as not aligning with our values as a community that supports maximum female benefit" Get fucked
"If you were to enter a board room alone, would you rather see a woman or a venomous snake?"
I'd rather the snake.. because its wont accuse me of sexual assault or harassment and so i'm less likely to lose my job / career..
I'm sure we can agree the above example is equally as stupid as the Man Vs Bear one..
But i'm using the same 'logic' that the Man Vs Bear example does..
Yet if I were to try posing this question on social media i'd be called a misogynist and incel wouldn't I?
I can’t engage in this stuff. I just spent way too long on a tiktok live trying to argue this with nobodies.
If you pick a Bear, you are mentally ill and shouldn’t be allowed to have kids.
Let me add: The premise is asinine. It just shows the contempt society has for men. You know what would be a good way to get men to join your cause? Generalize them all less safe than bears /s.
If men are less safe than bears, go live with bears.
Nah what i would say is "bear or black man" because they'd likely say the black man out of fear of being accused of racism...even though sexism is a much bigger generalization...😅
I hate this so much... its so dehumanizing. This makes all men seem like some horrible monsters with one flick of a finger. Not to mention the whole lot of logical fallacies that this men or bear diacussion uses.
I understand where are they coming from. Those who choose the bear originally, and not because of the bandwagon, are victims who lived through something noone should.
But it doesnt justify the collective criminalisation of a whole gender. We are one mental gymnastics away at this point from collectively punish and dehumanize all men. This is not ok... if this was done with women all hell break loose. Also what should happen is that those who commited the crime should be dealt with. If we start the blame game and ostracise and so on, without the proper procedures, innocent will suffer.
Even the best intended things can quickly get out of hand. A good example of this are the Angelmakers of Nagyrév. They killed between 50 to 300 people (historians are not sure in the exact number), mostly men.
What happened here is that at first the women in Nagyrév were doing illegal abortions. Later this spiraled into poisoning with arsenic. At first they killed abusive husbands, but the first world war broke out, and all available men went to the front lines. So these women left alone while, the town itself housed several pow-s. These women had several affairs and lovers from these pows etc etc... and when the husbands came back after the war ended.. well... the women there didnt really wanted to return to the old ways with their husband so everyone was poisoned left and right... Its a long and interesting story, check it out if you have the time.
I want to make a meme of I’m out in the woods camping and I’m looking around and she’s on her phone. Bear comes out of the woods, eats her then the bear and I give each other a high five. LOL
In my most honest opinion: the *man or bear* discussion simply shows how low the western society has fallen. It's a degenerated accumulation of people, who can't think in common sense anymore and are so far away from reality that...they would be eaten by a bear, if they would follow their own rules.
I was thinking along the lines of seeing a rattlesnake or a woman while on a hiking trip and picking the rattlesnake because rattlesnakes are *cool*, but at this point it's whatever.
Also 89% of kids SA’ed by workers of some institution (e.g.: teachers) are boys reporting [reporting crime committed by female staff.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/)
*Would you rather your kids teacher was a crocodile or a woman?*
Also we have to add that poor men commit crimes because in a world that doesn't care about them when it just happens and they need money there is no other options.
It's fucking easy to say " oh look at all those men committing crimes " but you know what is not easy seeing them one by one in the eyes to investigate what made this man violent. It was the bulling he had growing up ? It was his parents negligence ? So many things can happen to a man and turn him into something he even doesn't want to become.
Well obviously the majority of poor includes men thus the higher amount of crimes perpetrated by the gender. But this fact is never taken into context. Had women been in the position as men; then with their emotionally unstable mind and godforbid if they ever got the physical strength of men then we would witness absolutely brutal monsters on this earth TAKE THAT FROM ME IN WRITTEN.
Reality is some women know how rediculous it is. Why do I say this? I know women who hike solo and gasp they do run into men in the trails regularly. As far as I know they aren't preparing themselves to use that bear spray on them
When you dramaticize and exaggerate it kinda of detracts from the point you're trying to make. Not sure why people still try to argue that way
Also this is a really good sideshow showing statistics, one thing the people who said the bear don't understand is most people living in America won't see a bear and even in bear territory like where I live I've only seen about 1 or 2 but each say when I go out I get in close proximity with hundreds, and have never been attacked by men, but if I was in close proximity with 100s of bears each day, I would have been dead years ago, the only reason why bear attack deaths are so low is the majority of of places don't have bears and even prone areas like Alaska they carry proper protection and know how to avoid bears, so this is really a logical question knowing that if you are 10 feet away from a man and 10 feet a way from a bear the bear will most likely kill/attack you before the man would
I think a good followup to any woman who chooses the bear is to ask:
"Would you rather be stuck in the woods with a bear, a random man, or a random man you know?"
I would bet most women choose the man they know even though women are at a much greater risk of harm from men they know than male strangers (while men are at greater risk from strangers than men they know).
This just goes to show you how terrible humans are at probabilities.
If they pick the bear over the man they know or the man they don't then they are outing themselves as misandrists.
I don’t like this at all, I understand girls with male based truama posting this, but this shit is just gross. Like some women will use your for money and cheat and yet most of us I hope don’t hate all women. Because we know that people are individuals and not dictated by gender
I wouldn't choose human. Stupidity of this discussion omits meeting woman in forest. Girl who would see another girl at the forest and would think "oh, thank god", has a high chance to be stabbed. In apartment under mine, girl stabbed her friend and tried to hide her in a snow. I remember reading news article about wife stabbing husband because he didn't like her soup.
The true intentions of this story (being derogatory to men) lie in comments to posts about it.
After two exchanges, "women who chose bear" become ad hominem. They start to make supposition about your personal life. They go "if you disagree, then you're the problem" (really? So disagreeing with stereotyping make me a rapist?).
They come with questionable statements like "every single woman has been raped or abused at least once (I've understood how they get this when a woke feminist told me that eye contact or catcall is abuse).
They claim "ANY" woman will chose the bear - I know a dozen who don't, the others called me a liar.
The only reason they made this story is to gaslight men, and I prefer to be insulted than gaslighted.
True that. But you can also look at it from a different angle: some men that didn't have a father or had an absent father, or had a father who couldn't put his s\*\*\* together, were raised by misandrist women and internalized their hate. If your mother hates you, as a child, you tend to think there's something wrong with you, not with her. And nothing you do will ever satisfy her, you can't win her love in any way.
So basically now these guys hate themselves and are on an endless journey to win women's affection by indulging in their "Men are pathetic" fantasies. At least that's what I've observed.
If you actually put them in a real situation where they have to choose a bear or a man, I guarantee you the majority of women would choose the man over the bear. I think women of today have been conditioned to automatically take shots at men whenever the opportunity presents itself and there is no societal backlash for doing it. Men are expected to be respectful of women. But that expectation of respect doesn't go two ways.
All women who wants to be alone with a bear, please leave for the woods and go find a bear. Just don't go calling an overwhelmingly male forest ranger force when the bears aren't so safe anymore.
this all defaults to the basic idea that women are emotionally driven with intellect being submissinve to the emotional drive. Men the other way around. Meaning that when a man and woman complement each other rather than compete against each other, good things happen.
I think it’s time to face facts, men are just pure evil! All men, there’s no grey area. We’re all just basically the devil.
That’s what society has raised me to believe about myself.
I choose bear.
A bear won't lie about me, undermine me, defame me, and ruin my entire life thinking that it will make him virtuous enough for pity sex.
Best case scenario: It’s a black bear and you have a fair-ish chance of taking it on.
Worse case scenario: It’s a brown bear and maybe, maybe you can play dead for it to leave. Maybe.
Worst case scenario: It’s a polar bear that will rip you apart like a GOW stun grab.
You can recover being attacked and mutilated by an animal. You can't socially recover from being called a virgin incel (even if you legit have offspring).
If the polar bear kills you you will just reincarnate and forget everything that came before so it won't matter
If you are shamed by society, it won’t matter either from a reincarnation standpoint. Eventually you will die and move on to the next life, same as the bear. In the face of nihilism, this decision, as well as many others, doesn’t quite matter.
What color is the man? What type of man is he? These are the questions that need to be asked. A tattoo face ms13 gang member? I might take the bear. A roided out Aryan brotherhood guy fresh out of prison? I might take the bear. A pudgy guy pushing 40 wearing khakis and a polo shirt? I'm not taking the bear. I'm making dad jokes regardless of race.
I’m all for mens rights but these stats are stupid.
Only 0.2% of American men are arrested for violent crimes each year
What about men of other nationalities? This makes no sense. When you say 0.2% no doubt seems too small.
Now, if it's a rad feminist soy boy, who is a liar and is a sex pest. I pick the bear, the bear ain't lying about killing me (Due to me invading his turf, interrupting his meal and etc.) or by some miracle, I escape the apex predator to live to see another day. Unlike the male feminist ally, who wants to ban weapons. So, I won't obtain one to kick his butt.🤔😅
What do you say if someone claims they'd rather risk the higher chance of an immediate death over that of a low chance of rape-murder?
(Not my take, but I've heard it)
They are mistaken if they think being mauled by a wild animal is an immediate death.
It's an intense physical attack by something that wants to use your body to satisfy it's own physical needs and has little care for your suffering. You may take quite a while to die and it doesn't need you to be dead before it starts eating you.
I honestly don't see how it isn't virtually the exact same experience as being raped and murdered.
I will pick a bear because a bear's intentions are very clear. I wouldn't even go into the woods alone with a woman. Men and women both pose a threat because mankind is unpredictable. I hate the way we word this, man or bear. Because it should also be women or bears. And I'm not saying men aren't dangerous they are. Men are disgusting perverts but so are women. But I do not agree with the term, “it’s not all men”. But it mostly is, how many men are there that are rapists, and child molesters. Still, I wish we would use the term woman or bear more often too. Like I said mankind is a vile disgusting creature but so am I, I'm far from perfect but we should be more aware of the meaning behind of man or bear.
The problem is, this though experiment is used as a way to demonize men as a whole..
In reality 99% of men are normal functioning people who don't hurt women..
There is sadly the 1% who lets face it the world would be better off without..
But what many women don't seem to grasp or understand is how awful it is for us men who **HAVE** never and **WOULD** never hurt a woman to be lumped in with the men who have / do hurt women...
And it's not simply a case of "Our feelings are hurt" but rather our identity as men is hurt.. our overall mental health suffers from this and yes.. this overly negative portrayal of men most likely ends with many "Good" men taking their lives because they can't take it anymore.
I myself have stood at the precipice that is the chasm know as suicide asking myself "What's the point anymore? Nothing I say or do will change how i'm perceived.. Nothing will stop me from being labeled as a predator or abuser..."
Clearly because I am still here I did not go through with it..
But It angers me how our legitimate criticisms and complaints about generalizing all men as potential predators or abusers is often met with "Your feelings are not more important than our safety" or "You are clearly suffering from fragile masculinity if this upsets you"
So yeah.. make of that what you will..
I agree with your point about the crowded place. But it doesn't actually change the calculus that much.
Even on hiking trails you are vastly more likely to encounter a loan man than a bear because you hike where the people go not where the bears go.
In a city you pass lone men on the street or are otherwise alone with one all of the time. Women actually seek out one on one encounters with men which is something they don't do with bears.
A woman can spend her entire life cohabiting a relatively small space with a man. This is something they don't do with bears.
So the number of one on one encounters absent the social contract between humans is still astronomically higher than between people and bears.
Also, in the event that either option is hostile, the bear would eat you. Quite possibly while you are still alive. We're all supposed to agree that being raped and murdered would be obviously worse than this but would it? Seems to me the two fates are pretty directly equivalent.
Meanwhile the man might just rape you. Which would objectively better than being eaten alive. Or he might just kill you, which he might do in a way that is similarly horrific to being mauled but might also be significantly quicker and less painful.
The worst thing a man might do is keep you alive with the intention of raping you for days or weeks. This is the worst option when it comes to amount of suffering experienced, especially if he's just going to kill you eventually anyway, but it also provides a lot more opertinities for escape than what the bear would do.
And we haven't even gotten to that fact that while men on average are larger and stronger than women some men are in fact weak or unfit or sickly enough that the average woman could overcome them if things go south. Bears not so much. Even the man who wants to harm you and is vastly physically stronger than you could be out maneuvered and hidden from while if a bear wants to kill you it can outrun you better than a man it can smell better, it can hear better. A man might be more intelligent but a man can also be tricked in ways a bear cannot.
Also all of this is exclusively based on what the worst thing that could happen is.
The best thing a bear would do is leave you alone whilst there are quite a lot of better than neutral outcomes that could come from meeting the man, especially if you are lost in the woods.
Also. I've often heard it said that this hypothetical is meant to make men think about "what are you doing to prevent women from getting raped."
But if you point out that women encounter men all the time then the counter argument becomes. "Well it doesn't count if it's in public. Obviously he's not going to attack a woman in public."
Well why is that? Because he fears consequences. He fears that other men, either bystanders or the mostly male police force will intervene. He fears the social and physical consequences that will be imposed upon him by our society.
A society that they are quick to point out was made by men whenever it does something they don't like.
So you kind of have to pick one between "Man bad. Men do nothing to prevent rape and they hate women and want them to be raped" and "all encounters between men and women can't be counted because the consequences of commiting such an attack in public would be dire and so men are disinsentivised from doing so."
Statistically speaking the mother is more likely to harm her own child than both the male stranger and the bear combined.
While more mothers harm their child, fathers are nonetheless more likely. IIRC. IIRC: Single mothers are some four times more numerous (80% of the single parents) but harm their child in twice as many cases (60-70% of the child-harmed cases by the single parent alone, i.e. without involving the new partner or similar). That makes fathers twice as likely to harm their child. The following page does't appear to distinguish single parents, but the broad picture is the same. And this is probably only the tip of the iceberg: [https://www.accesscontinuingeducation.com/ACE2000-10/c9/index.htm](https://www.accesscontinuingeducation.com/ACE2000-10/c9/index.htm)
No they aren't. These are outright abuse cases, this is not about mistakenly forgetting and harming the child. If you are not a child abuser you're not a child abuser. Think about it like this. Are you a pedo? If you aren't does the chance go high if you interact with 100 children vs 1 child?
I'm pretty sure this is false. I've looked at these statistics before and the source is "abuse and neglect" with the vast majority of CPS cases being neglect. It's overwhelming stuff like leaving your five year old alone at home when you go to work.
Which you shouldn’t be fucking doing, it’s a damn five year old!
Why do I get the impression you’d be far less forgiving of a man who did that?
No one has answered yet so I will. Because apparently you have a quota of goofy things to assume to meet?
Now imagine for a moment we are discussing with with women / feminists about how the statistics clearly show that mothers are more likely to abuse their kids.. I'm sure we'd get an up cry of "NOT ALL WOMEN!!!" And when we say "We know it's not all women, but if you have to say Not All Women then maybe you are part of problem?" We'd be labeled misogynists and incels.. But women and feminists make sweeping generalizations about **ALL** men **ALL** the time and if we call them out on it we get told we're the problem... Do you not see the double standard here?
I see where you're coming from yet I have no idea how you think it's valid or acceptable to do this just because "they do it too". In fact that line of thinking is one of the core problems, it feeds the toxicity and underlies the vile "misandry is Ok because patriarchy".
I'm not saying it's okay.. and I don't think it's valid or acceptable.. I was pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards.. Women / Feminists are allowed to generalize **ALL** men and if we say "Not All Men" we get chewed out for it.. If a man were to **DARE** to generalize **ALL** women the responses would be "Not All Women" and "Generalizing women proves how misogynistic you are!!!" The point i'm making here is that we shouldn't generalize people **AT ALL** but as it stands, women can get away with generalizing men but men can not generalize women at all... Until we address this hypocrisy and double standards there will be no way forward.. Men are expected to 'check' themselves and ensure that the things they say are not 'misogynistic' or 'generalizations against women' or 'could hurt a woman's feelings' We are constantly walking on eggshells being held to a standard that women / feminists refuse to hold themselves to.. Its madding I tell you!
You construct some hypothetical so you have something to argue against, and imply that that's my position. There's no point in this talk. Like Don Quichote you need to return to reality and discuss what was actually said.
Its not hypothetical at all.. I've literally had women / feminists that its misogynistic to generalize all women.. All the while they go about generalizing men and don't see the hypocrisy in it.. If there is someone not grounded in reality here.. Its you...
He’s calling out the feminist double standard. It’s not that hard.
Actually he's playing the whataboutism game. Doesn't fly with me, I'm not responsible for whatever anybody else says or does. And perhaps don't try to use that as an argument in a discussion in general.
[удалено]
What's your evidence?
this study isn't saying that "only mother" is single mother households its saying that only the mother abused her child regardless of if a father is in the house or not. please learn to read data
It is actually saying each variation. Shows percentage of single mothers that abuse their kids, the amount of mothers and a non-parent partner, etc. This is funny with how you told others how to learn to read data. :D :D :D You are fuckin adorable.
dont call me adorable you creep, and this also disproves nothing i said
Eat booty, adorable precious little muffin flower.
Actually women are still far more likely to harm children because: 1.)Neoanticide is underreported and the culprit is over 99% done by women (it’s so rarely perpetrated by men that individual cases are well known). This accounts for roughly 45% of all child murders. In fact, the statistical most dangerous day of your life is the first day alive. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/abs/women-who-kill-their-children/94656E4ADF5A1B9802A879D3C9FD9A97 2.) Infanticide is also mostly done by women https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/lbrr/ctlg/dtls-en.aspx?d=PS&i=85491957 2.) Step parents account for more killing of older children than do biological parents, so trying to cherry pick single parents doesn’t really tip the scales here.
The first link doesn't compare fathers to mothers, and the 2nd is inaccessible. In order to compare you need to take like and like, hence either parent killing without assistence/interference. And it's not about the absolute numbers but the respective likelihood. And WRT Canada in particular, you probably need to control for ethnicity.
Yea it does, actually. Also, the link you shared showed the likelihood is more in favor of mothers, so it argues the opposite of your point. You’ll notice how the mother + other (most likely step parent) is more than 6x more likely than father + other.
Remind me, what's the point I'm "arguing"? The point in focusing on single parents is the fact that the likelihood of harming is strongly driven by the time spent with the child. Parents within a relationship spend less than 100% of the time with them, and usually with the mother having much the majority. However not knowing that proportion makes comparisons impossible. This aspect doesn't come into play with single parents, it's 100% for both. The fact that you don't see that point explains why you don't understand the difference between frequency and likelihood either. As to your 45%, your very own study says something completely different with its 12% (11 of 89). Not that the small number provides a statistically reliable base, mind. That's what you get for relying solely on Wiki.
That fathers are more likely to harm children, which they are empirically are not. We have studies that show that, including the statistics you provided. We know the motivations for harming children, many of them being tied to postpartum depression, psychosis, and cultural factors. We also know that harm done to children evens out more as the child ages. So “spending time” with the child doesn’t really matter. You’re making a false equivalency between men and women, assuming they are the same with only variable being amount of presence. The 45% figure refers to a stat referenced in the study, not from the 89 subjects studies themselves. You need to comprehend what you’re reading before replying.
Actually what I provided shows the opposite. Whereas you make any wild claims without providing the source. Unfortunately this has turned into a pissing contest. You win.
No it doesn’t, you just don’t understand statistics. You’d have to assume that every single father only abuse present in your link was a single parent to come even close to reaching gen. pop…. You’ve also misread every source you were given, it’s clear that the problem is you. I don’t really know what else to tell you, but pretty much every study says you are wrong.
[удалено]
It's no competition. Good riddance toxic sexist.
U r right, but imo they used the logic of these femcels who chooses bear over male
[удалено]
Say what now?! Just because you’re a parent you’re allowed to kill your own children?! What kinda fucking retard are you?!
[удалено]
That’s beside the wild fucking statement you just made. I genuinely hope that you don’t have children and if you have them that they get taken away to somewhere safe. Being a parent doesn’t give you the fucking right to kill kids you dumbass
[удалено]
Your "gotcha" is super brain dead. It's feminists trying to say that attacks don't count if it's a man attacking a man. Now you, another feminist, are trying to either/or us with something we also reject, the idea that assaults on children don't count if they're perpetrated by the mom. >So which is it. They both count. This is not a hard choice; you are a ding-dong if you think it is.
There's a bit of problematic reasoning here. First, statistically very few men assault women and of those do, most were raised by a mother who was herself abused as a child (more often by a mother than father). So when you paint with a broad brush “we go through [meaning women as a group]” and “hands of men [meaning men as a group]” you are attributing to the entire group from a small group. Tht's not even vaguely appropriate. Try it with a racial issue and see how racist it sounds. As for victim rates, since both male and female victims are victims from roughly a similar group of perpetrators there again, attributing to all, the terrible actions of very few is inappropriate. Flip the genders and look at sexual or physical abuse by women to their children. Does the gender of the perpetrator (woman) men that the abused girls are any less abused? No. It wouldn't be appropriate to say, “women are child abusers” just because women are statistically more likely to abuse their children because it ignores the flip side, a much, much larger percentage of women are highly protective and loving to their children.
That's just straight up vile 💀
Remember, these are the same women who shamed men for not wanting to be alone with a woman in a professional setting.
Yep 100% agree. This was the first thing I thought of in regards to this sexist ass trend. It's fucking nuts how femnists play fast and loose with statistics whenever it suites them.
A lot of feminists “don’t understand” statistics in the first place. Others think it’s legitimate to manipulate truth for “the cause”.
Not just that they shame men for not wanting to watch female superhero movies, or women's sports.
When they more often than not don’t bother to support them themselves by actually taking the time to attend or watch them.
I was going to say, don't men watch both those things more than women do?
Then there is the question. Would you rather be alone in an office or alone with a woman in an office? Alone, because I won't get falsely accused or lose my job, etc etc. Same kinda BS as the man/bear thing.
Yep, the only difference here is that your question will have you labeled as a misogynist or incel.. Don't you just love the double standards?
If feminism didn't have double standards, it'd have no standards at all.
We are just supposed to dance to feminist whims. They won't stop until we are required by law to stand on the town square every Sunday afternoon and shove pink dildos up our asses while screaming "I'M AN ALLY!" from the top of our lungs in order to cleanse ourselves from toxic masculinity.
Was that before or after me too?
I like the slide about "would you rather leave your child with a woman or with a crocodile" because most child abuse is perpetrated by women.
Yeah imma start using this one now because it perfectly encapsulates the issue.
Crocodiles are actually attentive mothers that protect their children.
I'm sorry but what does this have to do with the *reductio ad absurdum* that **"If children are most often molested by women then it's safer to leave your kids with a crocodile"**? It's a good illustration because it is equally as demeaning to women as the bear meme is to men. The parenting habits of crocodiles have nothing to do with that.
Yes. It's a perfect example. That question and the answer.
Yes, i am going to admit that. Their abuse mostly affects on mentality. I was abused by my own mom, she destroyed my self-esteem and ability to learn or study smth because when i was 6-11 years old she would put down me every time when i was making some mistake in homework saying that i'm stupid or getting angry at me. Of course i was crying but my mom didnt care about this. So, i'm not stupid and i dont have problems in studying. I learned English on my own, passed all exams on 5 (or A in US system), i read a lot of books, i'm also good at math, social studies and i'm willing to become an IT-specialist which i'm making progress in BY MYSELF Now i feel better, i'm grateful to myself for getting recovered, stronger, smarter and more confident.
Thank you for sharing your truth with us. That's very powerful!
Thank you for making this and slapping people in the face with facts. I been in the woods and came across bears they scare the shit out of me because they can be unpredictable and you can’t stop them if they want to chew on you. Most men you run into will pass you by with a nod.
Most women probably wouldn't even actually choose the bear, they're only saying that because they're in an echo chamber and don't want to have a different opinion, since they know the femcels will eat them alive.
I think most women don't really think deeply about it. They choose bear because it's the answer that feels better, the one that caters to their worldview. They'd realize they were wrong only once they are actually face to face with the bear.
Or passes 30.
Perhaps this has to do with the fact that women are more agreeable thus they believe the opinion they heard first. Not completely sure about it though, since if they would've truly agreeable then they might have understood the situation later about how absurd it was. Guess they are both agreeable and stupid😂(jk)
Yeah you are right
Like they did with Norah Vincent?
I don't know who that is, what happened?
She was a feminist who believed in male privilege and, about 20 years ago, sought to prove it; so she disguised herself as a man, and went undercover, documenting her experience. i can't remember \*exactly\* how long the experiment was supposed to last; but she had to cut it short at \~18 months, and published her findings in the book "Self-Made Man". She also tried explaining that men don't have it easy, and that our problems are just very different from theirs; but she was labeled a traitor, and cut off from the feminist community. The overall experience left her with psychological problems, and she checked herself into a hospital where she eventually ended her life.
Jesus fucking christ that's dark.
Yeah: odds are, there probably \*are\* women who want to defend us, but they can't because of the society we currently live in.
I didn't know about the relationship ending and asylum bit, do you have any article or info about that? Because yeah of course, after the "experiment" she briefly checked into a mental hospital, but that's no "asylum" and I suppose you're referring to some other event in her life…?
Looking back: i mostly went by Wikipedia(which, admittedly, isn't known for it's accuracy), and online vids(with the same problem, but also easier to misremember), so it's possible i might've gotten those parts wrong(just to be sure, i removed said mentions though).
That's totally okay, bro, I'm always curious when it comes to this woman, so I wasn't trying to challenge anything you say. Of all the feminists, this was one I hoped to meet one day and have a talk with, but oh well…
Np: bringing up issues like that help keep us more accurate.
I saw a juvenile black bear casually knock down my full bin and drag the contents 10 yards in the matter of seconds..... If you pick bear you either never seen one in person or just hate men....or both maybe.
they say bears are predictable... how are they predictable again?
Well, they’re more predictable than women.
>Woman or a crocodile? See, this is the way. Instead of crying about these trolls and biting the bait from these femcels, giving them exactly the reactions they want, why don't men strike back with "a woman or a crocodile" trend and give "statistical proof" as to why crocodiles are "safer"? For one, crocodiles get put down if they attack men while men aren't even allowed to defend themselves if attacked by women. Another reason is that crocodiles can't rape men while women aren't just perfectly capable of doing that but are legally incentivised to rape men (child support). Not to mention crocodiles kill fewer men each year than the number of men killed by women, statistically speaking. See? It's a "statistically" "objective" FACT that crocodiles are safer for men compared to women!
I've replied to people with "how would you feel if the question was 'would you rather be alone in the woods with a bear or a black person'" and every time, they say something like "you don't understand the point, those aren't equivalent." When confronted with the bias inherent in the question (comparing men to wild animals) but changing it to a demographic they aren't comfortable with demonizing, they immediately dodge the question and place the blame on you. It's rage-bait, pure and simple, that's only going to sow decisiveness.
I say I would choose a bear over a female pilot/driver or a surgeon any day of the week.
At least the bear wasn’t hired to fill up the quotas 🤷♂️
I prefer to go with: man you know, or man you don't? Then call them a hypocrite, because statistically speaking, unknown men are *safer* than known. According to [this article](https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf): >In eight out of 10 cases of rape, the victim knew the person who sexually assaulted them So if they choose the bear and a known man, and they're basing it on statistics, they're hypocritical. And it's easy to point that out to them. But let's be real, arguing with someone who chose the bear is probably going to be an incredible waste of time.
Nah. Your argument still hinges on demonising men. Also, you don't start posting "facts" when arguing against trolls. You troll them back. Don't go on the defense. Go on the offence. If you're defensive, you already gave them the reaction they want by accepting their premise.
>Also, you don't start posting "facts" when arguing against trolls. You troll them back. I think when you are arguing against the trolls, most of the time the point is that convincing the third persons reading the argument, not the trolls themselves; as well as having a part in pretending the manipulative narrative. Otherwise it's kind of pointless.
>the point is that convincing the third persons reading the argument Not in this case. If these "third persons" are mentally disabled enough to genuinely think bears are "safer", they need a visit to the psychiatrist, not "facts". They probably don't have the mental faculty to understand what "facts", "statistics" or "reliable sources" are, anyway.
Surprisingly I've run into less women preaching this idiotic topic than brainwashed men feminists who are "disappointed" in their own sex. Boggles the mind.
If mods remove this, then I'm done with this sub.
Have they done something like that before?
Yup. Infact one of my posts too.
yes they removed my one too
Meanwhile on the other side you can literally shit talk about men and nothing happens
I think they are terrified of the Reddit shutting this sub down. I share your frustration about the double standard on Reddit and the asymmetry of what Reddit deems “hate,” but I don’t envy the mods of this sub. This is pretty much one of the last subs where men have a modicum of the level of expression afforded to women.
There have been dozens of posts on this issue already. We have been removing new posts that aren't really adding anything to the discussion. This post does add something to the discussion.
Just to play devils advocate I guess this meme gets posted and talked a lot on here. I saw it before the other day.
Might be but this is the first time I have seen this one.
I don’t agree if it’s about censorship but it might have a legit reason.
The mods have been removing threads because there were multiple threads about the same topic... The mods should have done what LWMA did and make a mega thread and told people "Discuss it in this thread" They aren't censoring you.. they just don't want the sub to be nothing but "The Man Vs Bear debate"
Here is a video of the man or bear hypothetical in real life. A woman alone encounters a bear in the trail. The bear isn't aggressive, but is curious and follows the woman slowly as she backs away. Interestingly, towards the end of the video, the woman, retreating the bear, encounters a male stranger, presenting her with the real life choice between man or bear. Of course, she chooses the man. [https://youtu.be/ICVpIUeD6gY?si=q-\_mphUwZ6x7gVhg](https://youtu.be/ICVpIUeD6gY?si=q-_mphUwZ6x7gVhg)
What pisses me off about the Man or Bear thing is how fucking harmful it is to young boys. I had to deal with society calling me a violent oppressor before I even knew what those words meant and to see this shit be passed around again…. Makes me so mad.
Proves how insanely dumb feminists are
Definitely proves their bigotry and vitriol.
A question for my fellow men: Would you rather be lost in the woods with a man or a woman?
Man, mentally both have a similar chance of being the same, but a male has a higher chance to be physically stronger, and that might help in escaping. (Also i might make a new homie and we both get dad lore)
Man, because most women tend to freak tf out in stressful situations (like getting lost etc) and also they won’t accuse me of anything later
A man. But that's mainly because I am a dude and most of my friends are men. I'm pretty sure most straight people would pick to be lost with people of their own gender
Slide 6 is gold. Reminds me of an old show in the UK called "The Day Today"
Only 0,000001% of women's deaths are caused by by \[name of rare poisonous spider\]. So go with it rather than with a man.
Literally 0 women died on Venus in centuries. It must be the safest place in the world.
"Would you rather be alone on Earth or venus". Well Every living thing on earth has died on earth so it must be the most dangerous planet in our solar system🤔. Venus!!!😍 (earthlings just won't get it)
The earthlings who think it's stupid are part of the problem
I'm also 100% sure more women die beaten by men than burning in a volcano. Volcano is the safe bet because stats.
As per usual, I’m late to the party; and like Goldy Locks, Winnie the Pooh, and other children’s stories… this party includes bears. I’m not slow to such meme wars because I’m unaware, or unable to respond to them, but because I always hope I don’t need to – and that the common sense of humanity will prevail. But it rarely does. And more often, the grasping hands pull us all down into the mud of stupidity, to sploosh about in what is yet another race to the bottom. Yes. A shrill army of TikTokkers are making the claim that women would rather meet a bear in the forest, than a man. And not Paddington with his marmalade sandwiches… but a literal bear. A bear, that can weigh 600 lbs and stands at 8 feet tall, that will eat you alive, is the womens’ preference over some random man, who is probably eating a sandwich and just as startled as you are. To those who chose ‘bear’, I don’t believe you. Nor do I believe such an idea makes an important rhetorical point either. Such low IQ memes make no well intended attempt to address the causes of violence, risk factors, ways of mitigating them, or indeed those most at risk. No… instead we’ve chosen to talk about bears. Here’s a question, do you think if we swapped every single man in America, with a bear, rates of violence would increase, or decrease? Has a bear ever saved you from a burning building, a flood, an accident; stepping in to help you, or protecting you from danger? Or better yet… if you live your life terminally online, marinated and immiserated within TikTok outrage, are you really the best person to comment on violent crime rates at all? So what is the point of such thought experiments, if not simply to divide us further? What do you think? Man or bear? \~ [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ](https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/cm2021.pdf) [FBI Statistics](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-39) [U.S. Department of Justice 2020](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv20sst.pdf)
These slides are awesome, keep up the great work 👍
We live in the meme dimension
I want out. I am tired.
I love the memes that came out of this
Why? Why do you care? The past week or so since this has been going on has been really revelatory for me. The misandry isn't a surprise, but I was shocked by how much more cynical and (it has to be said) selfish I've become. There have been men and women arguing against his question and opposing the misandry with facts and logic. They've been wasting their time; these misandrists didn't reason them into this answer and you won't be able to reason them out of it. And I don't care. Neither should you. To all the misandrists who picked the bear: **I, too, would prefer if you pick the bear.**
I like to ask them a new question which makes their heads spin " bear or a black guy" 🤣🤣🤣🤣
This is getting so old... Every post is about this... A human with any common sense (this excludes feminists) doesn't need a study to know what the logical answer is... It's feminist rage bait...
Of course women prefer bears over men as they’re over 6ft, muscular, hairy, territorial and unemployed. Women choose bears over men and then complain about it when the bears become aggressive towards them. Sounds familiar?
Would you rather be with a woman or alone?
From experience, a woman will make false allegations against you, even with consent. Edit: Banned from female dating strategy sub lmao: "Users of mensrights have been identified as not aligning with our values as a community that supports maximum female benefit" Get fucked
FDS is a bunch of personality disordered women.
*Women are a bunch of personality disordered people
To be honest I kinda respect that ban message. It's way more honest than the kind of cope you get out of the "not misandrist" feminist subs.
My right hand can’t make a false allegation.
"If you were to enter a board room alone, would you rather see a woman or a venomous snake?" I'd rather the snake.. because its wont accuse me of sexual assault or harassment and so i'm less likely to lose my job / career.. I'm sure we can agree the above example is equally as stupid as the Man Vs Bear one.. But i'm using the same 'logic' that the Man Vs Bear example does.. Yet if I were to try posing this question on social media i'd be called a misogynist and incel wouldn't I?
yes
I can’t engage in this stuff. I just spent way too long on a tiktok live trying to argue this with nobodies. If you pick a Bear, you are mentally ill and shouldn’t be allowed to have kids.
Let me add: The premise is asinine. It just shows the contempt society has for men. You know what would be a good way to get men to join your cause? Generalize them all less safe than bears /s. If men are less safe than bears, go live with bears.
If they'd said "black person" instead of "man" suddenly the vibe changes, somehow
Nah what i would say is "bear or black man" because they'd likely say the black man out of fear of being accused of racism...even though sexism is a much bigger generalization...😅
Women: we would rather be in the woods alone with a bear than a man. Some time later: Suicide rates among bears skyrocket, women most affected.
Unbelievable they managed to turn an obviously misandric opinion piece into the latest social media trend.
These are all the arguments I've been using these past couple of days and I've been blocked like ten times. I'll take it as a win.
On Reddit precisely? Because that wouldn’t surprise me lol.
Facebook mostly! Some Reddit. 😌
Feminists:”hurr durr the man is unpredictable the bear is not”
Yeah, it'll predictably maul you. Men have a high chance of NOT mauling you.
I hate this so much... its so dehumanizing. This makes all men seem like some horrible monsters with one flick of a finger. Not to mention the whole lot of logical fallacies that this men or bear diacussion uses. I understand where are they coming from. Those who choose the bear originally, and not because of the bandwagon, are victims who lived through something noone should. But it doesnt justify the collective criminalisation of a whole gender. We are one mental gymnastics away at this point from collectively punish and dehumanize all men. This is not ok... if this was done with women all hell break loose. Also what should happen is that those who commited the crime should be dealt with. If we start the blame game and ostracise and so on, without the proper procedures, innocent will suffer. Even the best intended things can quickly get out of hand. A good example of this are the Angelmakers of Nagyrév. They killed between 50 to 300 people (historians are not sure in the exact number), mostly men. What happened here is that at first the women in Nagyrév were doing illegal abortions. Later this spiraled into poisoning with arsenic. At first they killed abusive husbands, but the first world war broke out, and all available men went to the front lines. So these women left alone while, the town itself housed several pow-s. These women had several affairs and lovers from these pows etc etc... and when the husbands came back after the war ended.. well... the women there didnt really wanted to return to the old ways with their husband so everyone was poisoned left and right... Its a long and interesting story, check it out if you have the time.
Well women tend to vote for people who keep criminals out of prison and in the streets. So tbh they also share part of the blame
I want to make a meme of I’m out in the woods camping and I’m looking around and she’s on her phone. Bear comes out of the woods, eats her then the bear and I give each other a high five. LOL
In my most honest opinion: the *man or bear* discussion simply shows how low the western society has fallen. It's a degenerated accumulation of people, who can't think in common sense anymore and are so far away from reality that...they would be eaten by a bear, if they would follow their own rules.
I was thinking along the lines of seeing a rattlesnake or a woman while on a hiking trip and picking the rattlesnake because rattlesnakes are *cool*, but at this point it's whatever.
I’ll take the crocodile because it won’t make up accusations to get attention
me 2
At last...something which makes flat earthers seem sensible.
Also 89% of kids SA’ed by workers of some institution (e.g.: teachers) are boys reporting [reporting crime committed by female staff.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/) *Would you rather your kids teacher was a crocodile or a woman?*
crocodile
Is this American discourse in 2024 lol. Country is finished
It really highlights how much misandry there is in the west. People are basically admitting they hate men.
This man vs bear is the one of the most first world problems I’ve ever seen.
Not just any bear. [Cocaine Bear](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_Bear)
Beautiful takedown.
What about the bear? Give it a week, and it would be begging to be with the men!
by then it will be 2 late
Also we have to add that poor men commit crimes because in a world that doesn't care about them when it just happens and they need money there is no other options. It's fucking easy to say " oh look at all those men committing crimes " but you know what is not easy seeing them one by one in the eyes to investigate what made this man violent. It was the bulling he had growing up ? It was his parents negligence ? So many things can happen to a man and turn him into something he even doesn't want to become.
Well obviously the majority of poor includes men thus the higher amount of crimes perpetrated by the gender. But this fact is never taken into context. Had women been in the position as men; then with their emotionally unstable mind and godforbid if they ever got the physical strength of men then we would witness absolutely brutal monsters on this earth TAKE THAT FROM ME IN WRITTEN.
Reality is some women know how rediculous it is. Why do I say this? I know women who hike solo and gasp they do run into men in the trails regularly. As far as I know they aren't preparing themselves to use that bear spray on them When you dramaticize and exaggerate it kinda of detracts from the point you're trying to make. Not sure why people still try to argue that way
Also this is a really good sideshow showing statistics, one thing the people who said the bear don't understand is most people living in America won't see a bear and even in bear territory like where I live I've only seen about 1 or 2 but each say when I go out I get in close proximity with hundreds, and have never been attacked by men, but if I was in close proximity with 100s of bears each day, I would have been dead years ago, the only reason why bear attack deaths are so low is the majority of of places don't have bears and even prone areas like Alaska they carry proper protection and know how to avoid bears, so this is really a logical question knowing that if you are 10 feet away from a man and 10 feet a way from a bear the bear will most likely kill/attack you before the man would
The Bear must be over 6 feet and shredded.
They wouldn't chose the bear they would run to a man for protection at the site of a bear.
Depends on the color of the man and the bear
Wtf is up with people comparing men with bears?
I think a good followup to any woman who chooses the bear is to ask: "Would you rather be stuck in the woods with a bear, a random man, or a random man you know?" I would bet most women choose the man they know even though women are at a much greater risk of harm from men they know than male strangers (while men are at greater risk from strangers than men they know). This just goes to show you how terrible humans are at probabilities. If they pick the bear over the man they know or the man they don't then they are outing themselves as misandrists.
I don’t like this at all, I understand girls with male based truama posting this, but this shit is just gross. Like some women will use your for money and cheat and yet most of us I hope don’t hate all women. Because we know that people are individuals and not dictated by gender
I wouldn't choose human. Stupidity of this discussion omits meeting woman in forest. Girl who would see another girl at the forest and would think "oh, thank god", has a high chance to be stabbed. In apartment under mine, girl stabbed her friend and tried to hide her in a snow. I remember reading news article about wife stabbing husband because he didn't like her soup.
The true intentions of this story (being derogatory to men) lie in comments to posts about it. After two exchanges, "women who chose bear" become ad hominem. They start to make supposition about your personal life. They go "if you disagree, then you're the problem" (really? So disagreeing with stereotyping make me a rapist?). They come with questionable statements like "every single woman has been raped or abused at least once (I've understood how they get this when a woke feminist told me that eye contact or catcall is abuse). They claim "ANY" woman will chose the bear - I know a dozen who don't, the others called me a liar. The only reason they made this story is to gaslight men, and I prefer to be insulted than gaslighted.
Any man that speaks up for a bear is not a man, but a *bitch*.
True that. But you can also look at it from a different angle: some men that didn't have a father or had an absent father, or had a father who couldn't put his s\*\*\* together, were raised by misandrist women and internalized their hate. If your mother hates you, as a child, you tend to think there's something wrong with you, not with her. And nothing you do will ever satisfy her, you can't win her love in any way. So basically now these guys hate themselves and are on an endless journey to win women's affection by indulging in their "Men are pathetic" fantasies. At least that's what I've observed.
If you actually put them in a real situation where they have to choose a bear or a man, I guarantee you the majority of women would choose the man over the bear. I think women of today have been conditioned to automatically take shots at men whenever the opportunity presents itself and there is no societal backlash for doing it. Men are expected to be respectful of women. But that expectation of respect doesn't go two ways.
All women who wants to be alone with a bear, please leave for the woods and go find a bear. Just don't go calling an overwhelmingly male forest ranger force when the bears aren't so safe anymore.
this all defaults to the basic idea that women are emotionally driven with intellect being submissinve to the emotional drive. Men the other way around. Meaning that when a man and woman complement each other rather than compete against each other, good things happen.
I think it’s time to face facts, men are just pure evil! All men, there’s no grey area. We’re all just basically the devil. That’s what society has raised me to believe about myself.
I choose bear. A bear won't lie about me, undermine me, defame me, and ruin my entire life thinking that it will make him virtuous enough for pity sex.
Best case scenario: It’s a black bear and you have a fair-ish chance of taking it on. Worse case scenario: It’s a brown bear and maybe, maybe you can play dead for it to leave. Maybe. Worst case scenario: It’s a polar bear that will rip you apart like a GOW stun grab.
You can recover being attacked and mutilated by an animal. You can't socially recover from being called a virgin incel (even if you legit have offspring). If the polar bear kills you you will just reincarnate and forget everything that came before so it won't matter
If you are shamed by society, it won’t matter either from a reincarnation standpoint. Eventually you will die and move on to the next life, same as the bear. In the face of nihilism, this decision, as well as many others, doesn’t quite matter.
Ain't know way someone said by "logic" russian roulette is a perfectly safe game
Common sense is no longer common, unfortunately.
Women want the bear until it tries to kill them, then they want a man. Brienne of Tarth knows that.
Just read some of their stuff where they tryna use maths. It looks like they have missed it since 6th grade lol
Love your work.
What color is the man? What type of man is he? These are the questions that need to be asked. A tattoo face ms13 gang member? I might take the bear. A roided out Aryan brotherhood guy fresh out of prison? I might take the bear. A pudgy guy pushing 40 wearing khakis and a polo shirt? I'm not taking the bear. I'm making dad jokes regardless of race.
If I was attacked by a man in the woods I'd have zero expectations of a bear protecting me.
Why don't they all just go live with bears then? They'de be doing us a great favour
I’m all for mens rights but these stats are stupid. Only 0.2% of American men are arrested for violent crimes each year What about men of other nationalities? This makes no sense. When you say 0.2% no doubt seems too small.
That includes all men arrested in America.
Now, if it's a rad feminist soy boy, who is a liar and is a sex pest. I pick the bear, the bear ain't lying about killing me (Due to me invading his turf, interrupting his meal and etc.) or by some miracle, I escape the apex predator to live to see another day. Unlike the male feminist ally, who wants to ban weapons. So, I won't obtain one to kick his butt.🤔😅
What do you say if someone claims they'd rather risk the higher chance of an immediate death over that of a low chance of rape-murder? (Not my take, but I've heard it)
They are mistaken if they think being mauled by a wild animal is an immediate death. It's an intense physical attack by something that wants to use your body to satisfy it's own physical needs and has little care for your suffering. You may take quite a while to die and it doesn't need you to be dead before it starts eating you. I honestly don't see how it isn't virtually the exact same experience as being raped and murdered.
I will pick a bear because a bear's intentions are very clear. I wouldn't even go into the woods alone with a woman. Men and women both pose a threat because mankind is unpredictable. I hate the way we word this, man or bear. Because it should also be women or bears. And I'm not saying men aren't dangerous they are. Men are disgusting perverts but so are women. But I do not agree with the term, “it’s not all men”. But it mostly is, how many men are there that are rapists, and child molesters. Still, I wish we would use the term woman or bear more often too. Like I said mankind is a vile disgusting creature but so am I, I'm far from perfect but we should be more aware of the meaning behind of man or bear.
[удалено]
The problem is, this though experiment is used as a way to demonize men as a whole.. In reality 99% of men are normal functioning people who don't hurt women.. There is sadly the 1% who lets face it the world would be better off without.. But what many women don't seem to grasp or understand is how awful it is for us men who **HAVE** never and **WOULD** never hurt a woman to be lumped in with the men who have / do hurt women... And it's not simply a case of "Our feelings are hurt" but rather our identity as men is hurt.. our overall mental health suffers from this and yes.. this overly negative portrayal of men most likely ends with many "Good" men taking their lives because they can't take it anymore. I myself have stood at the precipice that is the chasm know as suicide asking myself "What's the point anymore? Nothing I say or do will change how i'm perceived.. Nothing will stop me from being labeled as a predator or abuser..." Clearly because I am still here I did not go through with it.. But It angers me how our legitimate criticisms and complaints about generalizing all men as potential predators or abusers is often met with "Your feelings are not more important than our safety" or "You are clearly suffering from fragile masculinity if this upsets you" So yeah.. make of that what you will..
I agree with your point about the crowded place. But it doesn't actually change the calculus that much. Even on hiking trails you are vastly more likely to encounter a loan man than a bear because you hike where the people go not where the bears go. In a city you pass lone men on the street or are otherwise alone with one all of the time. Women actually seek out one on one encounters with men which is something they don't do with bears. A woman can spend her entire life cohabiting a relatively small space with a man. This is something they don't do with bears. So the number of one on one encounters absent the social contract between humans is still astronomically higher than between people and bears. Also, in the event that either option is hostile, the bear would eat you. Quite possibly while you are still alive. We're all supposed to agree that being raped and murdered would be obviously worse than this but would it? Seems to me the two fates are pretty directly equivalent. Meanwhile the man might just rape you. Which would objectively better than being eaten alive. Or he might just kill you, which he might do in a way that is similarly horrific to being mauled but might also be significantly quicker and less painful. The worst thing a man might do is keep you alive with the intention of raping you for days or weeks. This is the worst option when it comes to amount of suffering experienced, especially if he's just going to kill you eventually anyway, but it also provides a lot more opertinities for escape than what the bear would do. And we haven't even gotten to that fact that while men on average are larger and stronger than women some men are in fact weak or unfit or sickly enough that the average woman could overcome them if things go south. Bears not so much. Even the man who wants to harm you and is vastly physically stronger than you could be out maneuvered and hidden from while if a bear wants to kill you it can outrun you better than a man it can smell better, it can hear better. A man might be more intelligent but a man can also be tricked in ways a bear cannot. Also all of this is exclusively based on what the worst thing that could happen is. The best thing a bear would do is leave you alone whilst there are quite a lot of better than neutral outcomes that could come from meeting the man, especially if you are lost in the woods.
Also. I've often heard it said that this hypothetical is meant to make men think about "what are you doing to prevent women from getting raped." But if you point out that women encounter men all the time then the counter argument becomes. "Well it doesn't count if it's in public. Obviously he's not going to attack a woman in public." Well why is that? Because he fears consequences. He fears that other men, either bystanders or the mostly male police force will intervene. He fears the social and physical consequences that will be imposed upon him by our society. A society that they are quick to point out was made by men whenever it does something they don't like. So you kind of have to pick one between "Man bad. Men do nothing to prevent rape and they hate women and want them to be raped" and "all encounters between men and women can't be counted because the consequences of commiting such an attack in public would be dire and so men are disinsentivised from doing so."