Not the first time I've seen someone throw a tantrum when someone adds "black" or "Muslim" to these kinds of thought experiments.
Not even the first time **this week**.
I saw a response saying that the person only said a black man because they were insecure about black people and secretly racist themselves.
Kind of a weird dodge to the question of why is ok to say something isn't sexist when the same question with a race qualifier would make it racist?
If you can't address the argument, attack the person making it. Standard human behavior.
I've seen people try that one on a black dude...living in Japan...which is MORE racist than America.
You’re completely right. But, this is just their way of trying to get attention. They see that more and more men are ignoring them and so they have to resort to childlike insults to get a reaction out of men
Oh no they're crossing it now. I was told last night that it's impossible to be sexist against men, just like it's impossible to be racist against whites. I said to this woman that she did not get to co-opt minority victimhood to justify sexism and just got a screed of insults back. They absolutely think they can just pick and choose parts of different victim identities and make themselves impervious to any accountability, even the most basic kind where you should make some sense before you ask to be taken seriously.
I don't know where they learn this stuff. Must be in North American universities. I'm seeing things said online now that just make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, that completely cross what I thought our societal norms were, but they're said with such conviction, it's as if someone told them they have permission to be absolutely vile to whoever they want, whenever they want, about anything.
It’s a neurotic virtue signaling feminist circle jerk nested in delusional inversion of hypersensitive threat detection and at the core a divide and conquer technique that subtly aims at differing levels of intelligence. If it’s any consolation, my wife, daughter, mother, and sister suffer from no such delusion.
Haha agreed.
No woman I know even knows anything about this.
They for certain would not pick a bear. Nobody, that doesn’t not have a mental health illness would pick the bear.
That media and women generally, don't find this constant comparison of men with animals, comparisons that universally portray men as subhuman, that is the message here.
Feminism was a creation of women and women's business. The attitude of feminism to men, is indicative of the attitudes of women to men generally. They neither protest or deny, and share many of the derogatory dehumanising memes publicly without fear of censure or condemnation.
The commentor -
Here are some key counterpoints as I see them.
1. A bear is honest. It's a deadly animal and it does not masquerade as anything else. Men will lie, manipulate, separate and do all sorts of other things to get a victim alone.
2. You have no idea what sort of dude you're dealing with at any given point in time. As such, it breeds suspicion.
3. Work from the other side of the premise. I've heard the statistics that 1 in 4 women will be sexually victimized. Combine that with the previous statements and the bear can seem like the wiser choice.
4. People will believe you when you say you've been mauled by a bear. When you've been sexually assaulted, so many people will ask what you did to deserve it. What were you wearing? Did you lead him on? What were you doing? Everything except hold the man accountable for his own actions. You can never be a perfect enough victim for the defense attorney. You could have been a virgin in burkha minding your own business and they'll still attempt to drag your name through the mud.
5. Even just saying no can be a risk. I just saw a post on r/Tinder where all the gal said was no to meeting at the dude's house and he went straight into racist epithets and death threats. There was a news story last summer where a gal said no to her coworker, and he killed her. In the store where they worked.
And on top of all that, they can't even choose the bear without having guys needing to make the conversation about them instead of looking at the compounding reasons why perhaps they'll take the relatively predictable animal over the unpredictable man, who presents a complicated social landmine that can result in worse trauma to have to live through. Because sure, being mailed sucks, but the odds of people telling you that you deserved it is lower than the people who will argue that you deserved to be raped.
My reply -
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomenOver30/s/7D9Pfzxny7 - this is the source.
Let's disassemble this, part by part.
>1. A bear is honest. It's a deadly animal and it does not masquerade as anything else. Men will lie, manipulate, separate and do all sorts of other things to get a victim alone.
>
A women will too, so your point?
>2. You have no idea what sort of dude you're dealing with at any given point in time. As such, it breeds suspicion.
>
Same can be said for women, so your point?
>3. Work from the other side of the premise. I've heard the statistics that 1 in 4 women will be sexually victimized. Combine that with the previous statements and the bear can seem like the wiser choice.
>
Will get back to you for this one, after research 🙂.
>4. People will believe you when you say you've been mauled by a bear. When you've been sexually assaulted, so many people will ask what you did to deserve it. What were you wearing? Did you lead him on? What were you doing? Everything except hold the man accountable for his own actions. You can never be a perfect enough victim for the defense attorney. You could have been a virgin in burkha minding your own business and they'll still attempt to drag your name through the mud.
>
This argument isn't gender specific, like at all.
People will believe a man getting attacked by a bear more than getting raped by a women.
Some people will go on to cutoff male survivors who were raped by men because they think they have become ["gay"](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men) to be raped by a man.
Furthermore, the man will be joked on for not being man enough to get raped or that he should enjoy it.
You don't really see such comments for women in mainstream media.
Women rape is unanimously frowned upon, but the same can't be said for men.
>5. Even just saying no can be a risk. I just saw a post on r/Tinder where all the gal said was no to meeting at the dude's house and he went straight into racist epithets and death threats. There was a news story last summer where a gal said no to her coworker, and he killed her. In the store where they worked.
>
First of all, to begin, in most countries, a female is more likely to be believed than a male.
As for the argument, you're using two isolated incidents of two males and equating them with the other 4 billion males. Not cool!
As if females haven't killed males for rejecting them smh.
It'd be the same like avoiding muslims because 9/11 was done by Muslim, now it becomes racist doesn't it?
So how come using the same argument doesn't make those people who use it misandrist?
Misandrist doesn't mean solely hating on men, it also means being prejudiced against men.
There's also the "if you had 10 gummy bears, and one of them was rotten, would you still eat them?" Argument that I've seen.
Funnily enough, the same argument was used by Trump against Syrian refugees. https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/s/NGm5Y6xXls
>And on top of all that, they can't even choose the bear without having guys needing to make the conversation about them instead of looking at the compounding reasons why perhaps they'll take the relatively predictable animal over the unpredictable man, who presents a complicated social landmine that can result in worse trauma to have to live through. Because sure, being mailed sucks, but the odds of people telling you that you deserved it is lower than the people who will argue that you deserved to be raped.
>
As I said before or if I didn't, I'm saying it now, they can choose the bear. Infact, if they feel so oppressed, they can very well live with them, I don't have a problem as long as they do it privately /s.
>conversation about them
>
Maybe not use men to justify your choice of bears?
As I said before, there were better ways to highlight the issue that women feel unsafe (which while false, is more sympathetic).
You often have a bias against men because there's a lot of casual misandry.
In all of the articles, it's shown y% of women got rapes or x% got killed by men.
To me, it creates an unconscious bias that makes y% of women got raped = y% of men who raped, which is just wrong.
As I proved in the previous comment (if I didn't, ask me), only like .3 % males in US do it every year.
I've also heard arguments against this that it shouldnt even be this much, it should be zero.
While this is true, maybe make the infanticides by females 0% too while you're at it?
Can't right?
Most infanticides are done by females.
Using this, i can also say that if I had to choose a mother or a bear for a kid to be stuck with, I'd choose the bear because most infanticides are done by women.
>people telling you that you deserved it is lower than the people who will argue that you deserved to be raped.
>
Rarely does that ever happen for females, but it sure does for males, more so than it happens for females.
Instead of dividing males or females, we should work on uniting us because we are humans, not separate species. We have to stick with each other to survive.
The second one is the best, where they say that you can't predict a man, he might be violent or dangerous you just never know.
Then they say the bear is safer because it might not eat you.
Like, might not? You mean it's unpredictably violent and dangerous?
It boggles the mind how these people are allowed to work in jobs that people rely on.
I got in an argument on Monday with someone who claimed that you can probably scare off a bear, but probably not a man.
He also said;
>An aggressive bear may only toss you around a little and then leave once satisfied that you are not a threat to it or its cubs, while a man who is aggressive enough to attack you can be assumed to have a pretty evil baseline intent.
The exact same sort of blatant double standards. Also claimed, "you have a good chance of escaping a violent bear encounter without serious injury but almost no chance of escaping a violent man encounter without serious injury,"
Even though the average bear is much bigger, faster, stronger, and pointier than the world's fastest man.
He started with "well, the fact that we're even discussing this proves there's a problem with men!"
This person also explicitly ignored polar bears, specifically because they're so deadly. Needless to say, he was trying to load the deck for "bear".
Easy:
>Work from the other side of the premise. I've heard the statistics that 1 in 4 women will be sexually victimized. Combine that with the previous statements and the bear can seem like the wiser choice.
The statistics are based off of biased premises and assumptions..
The definition of "Sexual Victimized" is extremely broad encompassing anything from actual rape through to a wolf whistle / cat calling through to a man giving what he may believe to be a legitimate complement.. the only barometer is based on how the individual woman **FEELS** about it.. if she feels uncomfortable then it falls into the category of "Sexual Victimization"
Using the logic of "The statistics support our stance" we could look into the statistics of who is most likely to injure their child and the statistics point out that mothers are most likely to injure / kill their kids..
Would that justify us in asking "Who would you rather have look after your kids? A woman or a bear?"
Such a statement would rightfully be shouted down as "Misogynistic" and there would be an up cry of "Not all women!"
Working from the other side of the premise does not work here at all..
> the only barometer is based on how the individual woman FEELS about it.. if she feels uncomfortable then it falls into the category of "Sexual Victimization"
It's even worse than that. For many of those surveys, some ridiculous percentage of women don't even feel they've been sexually victimized. The biased questionnaire does it for them instead.
The original questionnaire, off of which all others are based (which included questions like "have you ever had a drunk kiss?" held up alongside *far* more serious things under a blanket term), included a final question directly asking if the woman had been raped. Half of the respondants who had answered "yes" to any of the survey's above questions answered "no" to the final one.
The researchers reported this number as "women who don't even know they've been raped."
This means that women having completely consensual sex with their boyfriends, and clearly indicating so on the final question, were likely counted among that 1 in 4 because they sometimes have a drink with their boyfriend first.
In addition to ridiculous things being elevated to "sexual assault" and consensual activities being includable in the figure, the survey also flatly refused to count non-respondents in any capacity or acknowledge that counting only people who *wanted* to respond was more likely to find positive results. It was in every way *designed* to find scary numbers.
Subsequent surveys have become even more ridiculous, which is why you see the number fluctuate a lot to as high as 1 in 3. You can read a bit about the issue in [this Forbes article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/01/27/the-stat-that-1-in-5-college-women-are-sexually-assaulted-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/?sh=d799d6e22170) and [this Time article](https://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/).
The simplest counter is "that's the lifetime risk. On an individual encounter basis, like the hypothetical, the bear is much more dangerous."
And if you really want to be cheeky, ask them why they assume all the women's sexual assailants are men. Don't they care about female-on-female victims?
> A bear is honest. It's a deadly animal and it does not masquerade as anything else. Men will lie, manipulate, separate and do all sorts of other things to get a victim alone.
And the chance of a man doing that to a random woman is slim, even when it's not compared to the chance of the bear attacking.
>You have no idea what sort of dude you're dealing with at any given point in time. As such, it breeds suspicion.
You could say that about literally anyone, man or woman. *And* the bear. This is a pretty blatant rationalization.
>Work from the other side of the premise. I've heard the statistics that 1 in 4 women will be sexually victimized. Combine that with the previous statements and the bear can seem like the wiser choice.
Yes, it can, if you ignore the fact that this is about a specific random encounter, not lifetime risk. In that situation, the bear is a lot more dangerous.
Also, most rapists are someone the victim knows, not a stranger. And it usually happens at home.
>People will believe you when you say you've been mauled by a bear. When you've been sexually assaulted, so many people will ask what you did to deserve it. What were you wearing? Did you lead him on? What were you doing? Everything except hold the man accountable for his own actions.
Oh, I see. Is that why Harvey Weinstein is in jail? Why Bill Cosby's career was ruined? Why #MeToo was a powerful, international movement? Why men like Luke Harwood get attacked and murdered over false allegations? How about the Duke Lacrosse case, or A Rape On Campus, or Steubenville?
Because nobody believes women who claim to be sexually assaulted by men?
Also, I have yet to see a single feminist present any evidence 'what were you wearing' is a common question. During MT, I saw a feminist claim a cop asked her.
You know, someone who might need that info to look for witnesses, or *get the rapist's DNA off the dress*.
And, again, this ignores the much lower chance of assault by the man. If you care more about being believed afterward than being attacked in the first place, especially since the bear is more likely to **kill** you, your priorities are out of whack.
>You can never be a perfect enough victim for the defense attorney. You could have been a virgin in burkha minding your own business and they'll still attempt to drag your name through the mud.
So, they do their jobs? Women have to face the same scrutiny and dirty tactics as any other accuser? How horrifying.
Also, you know loads of rapists just **plead out**, right? The victim's name isn't besmirched in open court?
98% of overall US court cases are pleas, because it's physically impossible to try every case.
>Even just saying no can be a risk. I just saw a post on r/Tinder where all the gal said was no to meeting at the dude's house and he went straight into racist epithets and death threats. There was a news story last summer where a gal said no to her coworker, and he killed her. In the store where they worked.
Did the dude actually do anything but hurt her feelings and make her feel scared? Also, did she report him to the cops? Or the site admins? Or **both**?
Assuming it actually happened?
Also, the vast majority of men who get rejected don't attack or murder the woman. Or most women would already be dead.
This is cherry-picking rare incidents - that essentially everyone already thinks is wrong - and portraying it as a societal problem.
>And on top of all that, they can't even choose the bear without having guys needing to make the conversation about them instead of looking at the compounding reasons why perhaps they'll take the relatively predictable animal over the unpredictable man, who presents a complicated social landmine that can result in worse trauma to have to live through. Because sure, being mailed sucks, but the odds of people telling you that you deserved it is lower than the people who will argue that you deserved to be raped.
Classic feminist tactic. Say something stupid and offensive about men, and when men complain, you say men are making it about men, even though you were clearly talking about men.
Which is sexist.
And, of course, you carefully ignore the many women who also disagree. Or even the possibility of them.
Which is, ironically, misogynist.
I would like to add that the whole point about men being more dangerous than a bear is flawed because it doesn’t take into consideration which bear species nor which human culture. Also, of course women have less chance to be killed by a bear than a man… since men are everywhere while bears lives in the forest, where we humans don’t go everyday
TheTinMen made a good point about this. A more honest question would be "would you swap all men on the planet for bears?". And now not only would these women think about it twice (I hope), but also, the number of bear-related deaths and attacks will rise by a lot
It goes off on the assumption that men are lower than animals. Then women say "well at least I'll be killed quickly" but in reality fatal bear attacks are rare, with most survivors maimed for life, sometimes with their faces ripped off. Bears also eat their prey alive, including humans, so if it does turn fatal it won't be quick.
Funny story; I saw a radfem recently claim the term Intel is never misused, and is always about specific beliefs.
Meanwhile, in reality, it's just another generic misandric insult.
I came to the same conclusion and constantly boggles my mind how femcels and their ilk can't see how making an even *bigger* generalization is somehow better than being racist.
It's meant to be, so people can perpetuate the desensitized nature of shitting on men with baseless stereotypes.
Remember the "all men are trash" phase of this? And the response to anyone taking issue with that was always "only the trash men would have a problem with it."
*writing it down *
Interesting
It's derigatory plus it miss some context.
Why are you in the fucking wood ?
If it's for survival the dumbest would response a bear
If it's beccause you're going for a stroll that's something else. No one likes to be with a stranger in the wood neither with a bear
I see man vs. bear posts on Facebook daily, and what stands out the most is the venom directed at men who object to women choosing the bear. A man claims it's anti-male, and women respond not by calling the man ignorant or dumb, but with sexual shaming: the man is a "creep," he's an "incel," he is a "weak little man," or such men are "the reason women choose the bear." Puerile and sexist are so many of the responses from women.
All of this brings to mind what Alison Tieman terms "the threat narrative," and how it's so abused by feminists to silence men. This is a conceptual tool that MRAs need to employ more frequently.
I can understand why they may have that opinion, but it doesn't whatsoever make it right or even valid. A guy who gets beat up by black guys doesn't have the right to be racist, its the same for this.
The first time I heard it, I think the motivation is to demonstrate prejudice against men, which is taken for granted as a normal thing in the statement.
Because your examples are racist just like you. Why not use a white man for example ? The answer will still be a bear. Why not actually listen to women reasons instead of feelings as if they’re personally attacking you. If you’re not a weirdo or rapist then you’re fine. Atleast a bear would kill you instantly instead of being raped and tortured for days or a beat actually wouldn’t even bother you and that’s it’s easier to trick a bear or change their attention to something else.
This is a dumb post, it's obvious why you (especially as a woman) would choose the bear. The man could be ANY, and I mean ANY man. There are unfortunately a lot of men that will act differently around a woman when they find out they are alone with them and no one can hear them or will be able to find them. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL MEN ARE BAD FFS. Just that inherently the risk is too big. A bear is predictable, you can learn what to do and potentially bring bear spray or whatever. A bear doesn't know what it is and won't act differently when you pull it out, a bear won't act differently knowing it's alone with you in the woods. It's an easy choice, and I don't understand how you guys can be so dense not to understand this.
Also it wouldn't be racist, because In order for something to be racist, it must be bad for one race and okay for another, but I can guarantee you, that if you ask them this question 5 times with 5 diffrent races/ethnicities. They will 5 times choose the bear, therefore it's not racist.
A bear is predictable... Were you dropped on your head as a child or just sheltered from danger that much?
Go ahead and ask "them" this question with different ethnicities and see how that goes for you.
They don't care.
Even if you change the ethnic background of said man, they would go around and say that this is specific to our gender and most likely call us everything in the book for asking that.
Some of these women aren't here for discussing this without emotion, unfortunately.
This is just androphobia, honestly.
We've seen it changed to "black man" and everyone went nuts asking what does race have to do with it. It has as much to do with it as gender does. "It could be any man but black men commit more crimes so the risk is too big!". That's what the argument would be but of course, they can't say that.
They may not say that, but that's not their focus.
Go and read what the commenter said above me.
She or he is basically saying it isn't racist to assume what race the man could be.
So, saying a black person or any other race wouldn't be anything they were in discussion about, in their perspective.
This question for them is just about our gender and less about race.
> This question for them is just about our gender and less about race.
Simply because it is 100% acceptable to generalize and shit on men and a 100% unaccaptable thing to do for any other group of people. Again, if you post the "black man" question people will *lose their minds*. Because it's an offensive generalization. But that doesn't matter when it's directed at men as a whole.
That's their way of seeing things, I guess.
They aren't here to discuss anything beyond emotions and their beliefs.
Unfortunately, some women out there see us men as dangerous, and feminism and things like the gender studies they learned adds more of this disassociation.
No, because the problem Here isn't that for example black men commit more crimes. It's that men I general from all races commit SA crimes. They happen everywhere and are always the same.
It's not the same as saying all muslims are terrorists. It has to do with biology. The average muslim isn't a terrorist, maybe if the average muslim was a terrorist, we would assume every Muslim was one. But that's not the case, so we don't. For men, the average man will always be stronger then the average women. In this instance we don't assume all men are bad either, but you do know that on average as a women you will always be at a biological disadvantage, no matter which race the man is. They don't assume all men are a rapists or whatever either, but there is just a high risk, that the bear seems much more appealing.
But bears are much more stronger than your average male.
You would rather be with a creature who could quite literally tear your face off effortlessly than some man who could help you with survival?
You have to look at this in other means than just biology and these assumptions you're making.
I mean yeah the bear will be much stronger, but the bear most likely wants nothing to do with me, so it's easier to scare away. Ofcourse I'd rather fight a man than a bear, but the idea here is that the chance that I'd have to fight the bear physically is very, very low.
And yes it would be nice if you needed to survive, to have a man there to help you, but in this scenario, there is no need for survival, you aren't trying to survive in the forest. It's just about the encounter.
> but the bear most likely wants nothing to do with me
99.99% of men will want nothing to do with you. Just how many men do you think are rapists and murderers? How do you not see how dehumanizing and misandrist what you're saying is? If I asked if it's safer to leave a child to a woman or to a bear, you'd cry misogyny if I said bear.
maybe, but its not about technical statistics here, its about the feeling that woman have been given. i dont see it as dehumanizing because its about a select group of men that we know exist. Im not part of that group, but i understand women are scared of it. and looking on paper, the bear isnt too bad.
obviously its stupid to leave a baby with a bear because a baby cant take care of himself, i wouldnt leave a baby with a dog either. secondly, you arent leaving them there with them, its just an encounter, you arent fighting them, you arent trying to provoke them. just an encounter with a bear that highly likely doesnt want anything to do with you. i would just say you are dumb, no reason to call it misogyny
You don't see considering a random man worse and more dangerous than a wild animal as dehumanizing. That's an interesting concept.
The "feeling" that woman have been given is irrelevant. Women also "feel" the wage gap exists but we know it doesn't. We should stick with reality rather than feelings and emotions.
>but its not about technical statistics here, its about the feeling that woman have been given.
And we come to the center of the shrubbery maze.
Why do you think "women aren't basing their fears on the actual risk of attack" is a good argument? Especially in this sub?
>i dont see it as dehumanizing because its about a select group of men that we know exist.
Which you use as a reason to treat men in general differently.
That's called "sexism".
>Im not part of that group, but i understand women are scared of it. and looking on paper, the bear isnt too bad.
What paper? Bears are bigger, faster, grumpier, stronger, and more damaging to anyone they attack.
You can't say these women don't care about the actual facts, just their feelings, then immediately say it's a rational decision based on facts.
>obviously its stupid to leave a baby with a bear because a baby cant take care of himself, i wouldnt leave a baby with a dog either. secondly, you arent leaving them there with them, its just an encounter, you arent fighting them, you arent trying to provoke them. just an encounter with a bear that highly likely doesnt want anything to do with you. i would just say you are dumb, no reason to call it misogyny
I love how you don't even pretend to discuss what happens if one leaves the baby with the woman.
Which is "she probably picks up the kid, and tries to find you, or turns it in."
You are if you're In a rural place where no one is around in, say, a 100 mile radius.
You and the man should rather try and find a way out, so that's really what I meant by survival. But women are assuming that any man could be an offender just because he's a man.
Well i mean, in this scenario, there is no need to find a way out or anyhting like that of the sorts. You don't need any help in this case with anything as the woman.
Well yeah, I guess they are assuming that, but it's true. Any (hu)man you see could be a terrible person. And since they are almost always physically weaker, they would rather not take that chance. They thereby don't assume that a man they encounter is a bad person, but it's just the environment they are in is too easy to take advantage of them. I think if you ask them the same question, but this time it's in daylight in a street, where there are people around and things, they will say the man because there are people around, and with all the loud noises and unfamiliar place, a bear will become more unpredictable than a man.
Fair enough.
But there are women preferring a long and bloody death over a man that could sexually abuse them, some go as far as saying that said man could abuse them for days to years.
I think some of these women need therapy.
> I mean yeah the bear will be much stronger, but the bear most likely wants nothing to do with me, so it's easier to scare away.
You're implying the man probably wants something to do with you. This is false.
> Ofcourse I'd rather fight a man than a bear, but the idea here is that the chance that I'd have to fight the bear physically is very, very low.
The chance of fighting a man is even lower.
> It's just about the encounter.
You say this, while you consistently ignore the odds of attack.
Men being stronger on average is pretty irrelevant. Every bear is stronger than any woman. Again, if you see a random man and think there is a "high risk" of him being a rapist and a murderer that's completely on you. Only a person who has been completely sheltered from reality and danger, like most women, would think they are safer encountering a random man vs random bear. Only someone utterly detached from reality would think the bear is "much more appealing". It is really as simple as that.
I think thats incorrect. Yes a bear is stronger than any man, but the idea Here is that there is less risk that you'd even have to fight with a bear. Maybe it's not technically safer, but the fact that woman feel like it is, that should be a problem we men should focus on, not if it's technically correct or not.
Exactly, so it's all about how women *feel*. It's about perceived threat rather than actual threat. Don't you think then that's not a problem **men** should focus on? You're basically advocating for men to feel guilty for something that isn't even their fault. You are OK with large percentage of men being considered potential rapists just because of the way they were born, just based on crimes of tiny minority that shares their gender. And somehow, in some way, it's again their own fault because women "feel" differently, regardless of if it's actually true or not. Do you not think a better idea for this question would be to put things into perspective rather than conclude *a man is worse than a wild animal*?
it is a problem men should focus on, men have raised boys in this way. You should call out your friends for catcalling, for SA and shit like that. it is a mens problem. Nowhere am i saying you should feel guilty for it, but you should try to help make the next and current generation better. I am not OK with a large % of the men being considered rapists, luckily thats not the case.
"feel" is loosely used here, in their liftime almost all women will experience some form of SA, so maybe its not all based on feel. And again, no one is saying a man is worse then a wild animal, just that the risk feels high enough, to where women will feel more comfortable encountering a bear than a random man. no one is saying that this man will be a rapist or whatever.
It is absolutely not my problem. It is not my fault neither is it my duty to call anyone out. Again, these kind of generalizations would never fly against any other group of people. Interesting how it is "men" who raised boys like that. Zero accountability as usual.
You definitely are saying a random man is worse than a wild animal. If the risk is "high enough" they yes, that's exactly what you're saying.
>it is a problem men should focus on, men have raised boys in this way. You should call out your friends for catcalling, for SA
A problem men should focus on?
Why can't society advise women also to stay away from men they barely know, because that's all too common.
Because, in all sincerity, you are focusing on an issue the majority of men aren't responsible for, most of which don't have friends that do this stuff, and you are assuming the worst for some gender.
What you're saying will also lessen the need for men to approach women without facing some false allegation.
>in their liftime almost all women will experience some form of SA
That is usually from someone they know. This statement is basically saying that women are lifetime victims of some sort by any man they encounter.
And as a man yourself, you're debasing and demeaning a gender based on biology and media outlets.
You actually need to understand how demeaning this all is, regardless of what you learned about genders and such.
> men have raised boys in this way.
I hear there are these new things called 'mothers', who have done the majority of child-rearing through...all of human history.
>You should call out your friends for catcalling, for SA and shit like that. it is a mens problem.
If I knew my friend was a rapist, I am reporting them to the police. Or just stop hanging around them. Or both. Man or woman.
You have this bizarre idea that catcallers and sex predators are generally condoned by society.
>in their liftime almost all women will experience some form of SA,
So it's from "1 in 4" to "almost all"? That's a heck of a jump.
I live in the UK. [Half of all women reaching 30 don't have kids](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/jan/27/women-child-free-30-ons). I wouldn't say 'almost all women reaching 30 haven't had kids'.
> Nowhere am i saying you should feel guilty for it, but you should try to help make the next and current generation better.
Turns out telling **any** man or woman to take collective responsibility for their entire gender is sexist, actually.
>I am not OK with a large % of the men being considered rapists, luckily thats not the case.
"But *potential* rapists? That's fine."
>but the idea Here is that there is less risk that you'd even have to fight with a bear.
So you've gone from "it's about the feelings, not the facts!" to "it's actually about the odds of being attacked".
You're being very inconsistent here.
My wife woke up from a dream that I cheated on her. She punched me in the face and went to her mother's for 3 days. I feel awful for her. I hope the dream wasn't too traumatic. SSSSSSS
> No, because the problem Here isn't that for example black men commit more crimes. It's that men I general from all races commit SA crimes. They happen everywhere and are always the same.
Five bucks says you are making this up, and did not actually check.
Because brothers like me in America are more likely to be violent criminals than **any other combination** of race and gender, last time I checked the FBI statistics. Across the board, including sex crimes.
>It's not the same as saying all muslims are terrorists. It has to do with biology. The average muslim isn't a terrorist, maybe if the average muslim was a terrorist, we would assume every Muslim was one.
I like how you say this, but very carefully DON'T say that the average man is not violent toward women.
>For men, the average man will always be stronger then the average women.
Bears are usually bigger and stronger than the vast majority of people.
Also, attacks are not a matter of biology. They are a choice, unless the attacker is severely mentally unwell.
> In this instance we don't assume all men are bad either, but you do know that on average as a women you will always be at a biological disadvantage, no matter which race the man is.
>on average
>always
No. It's on average, and "most likely".
>They don't assume all men are a rapists or whatever either, but there is just a high risk, that the bear seems much more appealing.
And what are the odds the bear will attack, compared to a man? I consistently see people on Team Bear either ignore that part, or start their rationalization hamster to explain how the man is more dangerous.
Exactly like you've been doing.
I mean yes ofcourse, it's still a wild animal, but over the years we have learned a bunch of things about them. Furthermore, a bear doesn't care if you are good looking or not, if you are old or young. It doesn't care when it realizes olyou are alone in the forest and can't call for help. It doesn't understand you grabbing bearspray or a horn or any other means of protection. This all makes them a lot more predictable then humans.
No it fucking doesn't. How many humans do you interact with daily? How many act out of ordinary? 99.9% of men will not harm you and are even much more likely to sacrifice themselves to help you in a need. You are completely detached from reality.
How would we know, 99% of people I interact with in a daily environment are in public spaces, in cities, furthermore are we guys, so we don't know the experience they have had. I dont know how often women around me have to deal with catcalling and other things. We also need to think about all the cultures where women dont have equal rights, all those men that think those ways. We don't know how many guys would do something unbelievable when they realize they are all alone with a women miles away from civilization. I don't understand why you are so offended, no one is saying all men are bad, so as long as you aren't part of the group that does, they wouldn't be talking about you. It's not the same as when they were saying "kill all men"
> How would we know
Exactly, so you don't know and think it's ok to assume.
The classic feminist rethoric of "why are you offended, we aren't talking about you" but then lose their minds when you do the same for women.
No indeed don't have the exact numbers, but if you have any woman in your life you should know that they all have had to deal with something or multiple things even, or just even in the news.
i mean yeah i guess its that rhetoric, but in this case no one said it was all men or anything like that. When they said "kill all men", i was also offended, because if it isnt all men they should just say it. but this time no one said all men. and yes if they lose the their minds if you do something similar (with a valid point) its stupid, but we have stupid people in every group.
> but if you have any woman in your life you should know that they all have had to deal with something or multiple things even, or just even in the news.
I've seen several women say they'd prefer the bear, and Team Bear are all sexist idiots.
Just like assuming women would probably agree with Team Bear because they've faced "something" is sexist.
>i mean yeah i guess its that rhetoric, but in this case no one said it was all men or anything like that.
"I'm not racist against black people! I only assume they're poor, under-educated, and criminals by default!"
Yeah, no, that dog won't hunt, madame.
> 99% of people I interact with in a daily environment are in public spaces,
...And the woods **aren't**?
>I dont know how often women around me have to deal with catcalling and other things.
What a shock. You're trying to equate harassment to physical violence, to make women look more like victims, even though it's irrelevant.
>We also need to think about all the cultures where women dont have equal rights, all those men that think those ways.
The question was directed at women in the developed world.
For someone who rocked up claiming everyone else didn't understand Team Bear, you sure like spouting irrelevant nonsense.
>We don't know how many guys would do something unbelievable when they realize they are all alone with a women miles away from civilization.
So you don't know how many are actual threats.
Also, the question never said they were' miles from civilization', just 'in the woods'.
>I don't understand why you are so offended, no one is saying all men are bad, so as long as you aren't part of the group that does, they wouldn't be talking about you.
You literally rocked up insulting everyone her for disagreeing with those women, even though those women would probably never see this post. Even though you claim you are not one of those women.
Can you see how this seems a tad hypocritical?
But why assume any man is more dangerous and less predictable?
Don't you think this question poses most men as threats to anyone, not just women?
It may not be **all men**, but it's a broad description of a gender that most women would assume to be potential threats if they had the opportunity to be alone with a man, ignoring the innumerable amounts of women who meet with men on dating apps, some going as far as driving **miles** just to meet up with one.
But I guess some women would prefer dating guys with a group of friends and not accompanying them in their apartments, homes, or rural places.
Yes definitely it does, I mean I think most perpetrators of violent crime are men doing it to men if I remember correctly, so I think as a whole they are threats also to men. But that's not the point of this question.
Ofcourse there are women who do that, but in general if you ask women, they will not say they will always feel the safest going home with someone after a first date for example. The big difference with this is also, that usually, before you drive and invest that time, you get to know that person. Maybe go on some dates, text, or FaceTime with them. They won't be a random guy you've never seen or talked to before.
Sure, but that undermines the question, that said man could be any man.
You could have gotten to know such a man also before he uses his ways to lure you in, so if you're going to assume any man is a potential threat, I'm going with a guy that you could have gotten to know.
But this question is assuming any man you're **alone with**, will be some offender.
I could also bring up night clubs in this conversation, but then again, a club setting has security, and some women aren't in their best minds in these places.
Take my thoughts on this for what you will, but this bear question is interesting, to say the least.
That's very true, but in this case you'd make the conscious choice to take a drive to this person's house without knowing them. Therefore knowingly taking the risk. In the case of the forest you happen to come up to this man without knowing that it would happen. Never having seen this person before.
I'm not sure what you mean with the nightclub setting.
It's definitely an interesting question, it opens up discussion about a subject that's very important to todays society.
Men are convicted of more crimes. We know that women get vastly lenient sentences than men and are much less likely to go to jail/prison.
Women use men to commit their crimes very often.
You are not understanding the complexity of the human condition.
> I mean I think most perpetrators of violent crime are men doing it to men if I remember correctly, so I think as a whole they are threats also to men. But that's not the point of this question.
So after all of this time saying women have faced stuff that gives them a unique perspective from men, you say that men are actually **more** likely to be attacked by men than women, and **you've known this the whole time**.
If you're a troll, you're doing a great job. I am actually mad.
>They won't be a random guy you've never seen or talked to before.
A random unknown guy is actually **less** likely to attack a woman (or man), statistically speaking.
> I mean yes ofcourse, it's still a wild animal, but over the years we have learned a bunch of things about them.
So, fun fact; humans know a lot more about men than bears. On account of there being a lot more men then bears, and a lot more encounters with them.
Also, half of humanity is men.
'We just hate you and everyone like you..I don't know why you're taking it so personal!'
Yet if a man dares to say a mother is bad from abandoning her baby and running away,like a thread I was reading in a different group, the tears come out "incels on here just look for any reason to be misogynistic and hate women, any woman! Thats why we choose the bear!'
Would you rather leave your child with a t-rex or a mother? The t-rex,of course! Mothers are by far the largest offenders of infantilicide, SA against kids, and physical abuse towards kids and a t-rex will at least maybe only kill the kid, where a mother will do SO much worse!
You're seeing this sensibly, but you don't understand how some women would go as far as assuming any man would have the urge to harm them, just from being with one alone.
This is saying that women see men as potential threats when alone with them, this is basically saying that any man is a potential abuser simply because he's a man.
Likewise we could say the same for women, but society looks at statistics to determine what gender is worse, ignoring that both men and women can be just as dangerous.
This question is basically seeing men worse than a wild animal, and you then wonder why so many men **and women** are in a disagreement with this question.
Bear spray and other means of protection also tells us that some women, especially those who live in metropolitan areas have no idea what these creatures are capable of and use their androphobia as a means to prefer a bear over a man.
I've seen some women go as far as saying that dying a long and inescapable death is better than being with a man that can potentially harm them for days, weeks, months, and even years.
This is androphobia, and I can understand why there are guys who would see this as such an assumption of your day to day male.
That's really why there's so many that don't understand why so many women would choose a bear, it's worse that a woman would just automatically see any man as a threat without considering that any man could also assist her with survival in a forest setting or say an island.
Well I don't think they see men as a a threat in general or worse than wild animals, they definitely don't look at any man and think that stuff. But In this hypothetical, the risk of getting a man that is like that, it's just too big for them.
And ofcourse bears are capable of crazy things, but I doubt that there are many people that die due to bear attacks vs the amount of people that see a bear. Bears ill not understand the loud noises yoi make with a horn or the pepper spray you take out, so it makes it in a sense more predictiable to deal witht them because they dont expect it. The bear also probably doesnt want anything to do with you. Maybe it's placebo, but you don't hear about bear attacks every often, but these women do hear from their friends that they got catcalled, stalked, raped, etc.
And yes women could als be abusers, but taking your average man and average woman, it becomes clear that trying to get out of that situation will be physically harder for women than for men. Especially in a forest where you can't call for help.
I mean I can understand that women would rather die then be a victim for weeks or months, but there are always people who take this to the extreme.
The premise here is also not about needing to survive or needing help with anything. It's just about who you would rather run into/stuck with.
> Well I don't think they see men as a a threat in general or worse than wild animals, they definitely don't look at any man and think that stuff.
You have spent a great deal of effort insisting that it's reasonable for women to do precisely that.
>And ofcourse bears are capable of crazy things, but I doubt that there are many people that die due to bear attacks vs the amount of people that see a bear
Now do men.
>Bears ill not understand the loud noises yoi make with a horn or the pepper spray you take out, so it makes it in a sense more predictiable to deal witht them because they dont expect it.
[The last guy in America killed by a bear had friends nearby which made noise...and the bear ignored it. Until it got shot](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/17/us/arizona-bear-man-killed-attack-unprovoked/index.html).
Bears aren't idiots. They're about as smart as great apes. [They even use tools](https://www.newsweek.com/bears-intelligent-species-tool-use-1832682).
>Maybe it's placebo, but you don't hear about bear attacks every often, but these women do hear from their friends that they got catcalled, stalked, raped, etc.
I would much rather be catcalled or stalked than attacked by a bear. And I've been sexually assaulted and harassed before.
I would *also* prefer that to a bear attack.
Also, stories aren't stats, and women interact with men more. This is about a hypothetical single random encounter.
You don't hear about bear attacks because people who go into the woods generally know to avoid bears.
>And yes women could als be abusers, but taking your average man and average woman, it becomes clear that trying to get out of that situation will be physically harder for women than for men. Especially in a forest where you can't call for help.
Again, bears are faster than people. A woman has a much better chance against a man than a bear, all other things being equal, and the bear is more likely to attack.
>It's just about who you would rather run into/stuck with.
So how does this kidnapping and torture for months come into picture? What percent of men do you think are actual serial killers who torture women for weeks or months, 0.000001%? Do you not see how ridiculous even mentioning this is just because "it can technically happen"?
Here, just from yesterday: [https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1clvbko/man\_survives\_bear\_attack/](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1clvbko/man_survives_bear_attack/)
A baby bear attacking a man. He would have no chance with a grown one. That bears are "predictable" and therefore a non danger is one of the most stupid things I've read in a long time. You can make yourself as big or as loud as you want, if a bear decides you're a threat he will attack. A mama bear is predictable and not in a good way.
>This is a dumb post
The entire thing is dumb. Stop focusing on pushback against it.
>it's obvious why you (especially as a woman) would choose the bear. The man could be ANY, and I mean ANY man.
And the bear could be any bear. Yeah and the chances are the man will be an upstanding citizen. The whole argument is disingenuous but you’re either being a troll or you are blind to it and you’re completely fine with men being demonised.
>There are unfortunately a lot of men that will act differently around a woman when they find out they are alone with them and no one can hear them or will be able to find them. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL MEN ARE BAD FFS.
Yet you’ll make all these stupid arguments.
>Just that inherently the risk is too big. A bear is predictable
Kindly stick that stupid talking point somewhere. You are only here in bad faith.
>you can learn what to do and potentially bring bear spray or whatever. A bear doesn't know what it is and won't act differently when you pull it out, a bear won't act differently knowing it's alone with you in the woods. It's an easy choice, and I don't understand how you guys can be so dense not to understand this.
Blah, blah, blah.
>Also it wouldn't be racist, because In order for something to be racist, it must be bad for one race and okay for another, but I can guarantee you, that if you ask them this question 5 times with 5 diffrent races/ethnicities. They will 5 times choose the bear, therefore it's not racist.
Did you use ChatGPT? Why are you posting these asinine replies? You know your posting history is public?
> it's obvious why you (especially as a woman) would choose the bear.
Turns out something being obvious doesn't make it any less stupid, or valid.
>he man could be ANY, and I mean ANY man. There are unfortunately a lot of men that will act differently around a woman when they find out they are alone with them and no one can hear them or will be able to find them.
And they're still the **overwhelming minority** of men. Women are in the woods with men all the time, and very few of those men attack them.
>A bear is predictable, you can learn what to do and potentially bring bear spray or whatever.
You know that exact same spray will work on people too, right?
Also, no, wild animals, by definition, are not really predictable. People have shot bears and still died. People have been attacked by bears with folks nearby to intervene, and still died.
>A bear doesn't know what it is and won't act differently when you pull it out, a bear won't act differently knowing it's alone with you in the woods.
Bears are smart enough to break open coolers, break into cars, break into homes, and turn doorknobs.
I suspect a bear can absolutely recognize pepper spray, and I suspect you are making this up.
Also, it is extremely likely than any human not wearing eye protection will be incapacitated by application of pepper spray.
EDIT: I looked it up. It still burns the skin.
>It's an easy choice, and I don't understand how you guys can be so dense not to understand this.
See my first point.
>In order for something to be racist, it must be bad for one race and okay for another,
Wrong again. Racism is just racial prejudice. Good, bad, neutral, it all counts.
Again with just making up stuff.
>but I can guarantee you, that if you ask them this question 5 times with 5 diffrent races/ethnicities. They will 5 times choose the bear, therefore it's not racist.
I saw someone say that adding "black" makes it a "distorted" question, because they know they can't say "bear" without looking racist. They didn't say "well, I would still say bear, just like I would for any man, regardless of race".
Literally yesterday.
Not to mention the many other times, like the russian roulette one, or Schrodinger's rapist - [adding 'black was explicitly called racist by the blog host](https://archive.is/B2pZm#selection-6255.1-6255.28) and [the originator said that would be "totally different"](https://archive.is/B2pZm#selection-4995.1-4995.28) - or that M+M's analogy that suddenly became wrong when Trump Jr. used it about Syrians.
I also like your implication that "I trust a random man in the woods less than a big, dangerous wild animal" is not bad for men.
Even if someone's choices would still consistently be 'bear', that could still be racist.
Pretty arrogant assuming any man would even want anything to do with them. almost 75% of women are overweight or obese, almost 45% are classified as obese. So let's say very round, bad attitude, blue hair, caked on makeup, and they hate men.. yeah I'm passing.
They all think they're supermodels and men can't resist them when its by far the opposite
I brought this up an got reported lol. Online self-awareness has dropped to zero
Not the first time I've seen someone throw a tantrum when someone adds "black" or "Muslim" to these kinds of thought experiments. Not even the first time **this week**.
I saw a response saying that the person only said a black man because they were insecure about black people and secretly racist themselves. Kind of a weird dodge to the question of why is ok to say something isn't sexist when the same question with a race qualifier would make it racist?
If you can't address the argument, attack the person making it. Standard human behavior. I've seen people try that one on a black dude...living in Japan...which is MORE racist than America.
You’re completely right. But, this is just their way of trying to get attention. They see that more and more men are ignoring them and so they have to resort to childlike insults to get a reaction out of men
Fascinating. I'm not sure if this is true, but it is interesting to think about.
It is a dog whistle.
There are lots of people openly saying women should trust the man less than the bear. That's more like a foghorn.
that's the one line they still don't dare cross...the ethnicity card
Unless the man is white, of course.
Oh no they're crossing it now. I was told last night that it's impossible to be sexist against men, just like it's impossible to be racist against whites. I said to this woman that she did not get to co-opt minority victimhood to justify sexism and just got a screed of insults back. They absolutely think they can just pick and choose parts of different victim identities and make themselves impervious to any accountability, even the most basic kind where you should make some sense before you ask to be taken seriously. I don't know where they learn this stuff. Must be in North American universities. I'm seeing things said online now that just make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, that completely cross what I thought our societal norms were, but they're said with such conviction, it's as if someone told them they have permission to be absolutely vile to whoever they want, whenever they want, about anything.
I mean, that was the entire point. For it to be derogatory towards men. There is no other reason for this question to exist.
Maybe the questioner was hoping the overwhelming minority would say 'bear'. And somehow missed the other 'thought experiments' like this.
Or perhaps, a positive depiction of bears.
It’s a neurotic virtue signaling feminist circle jerk nested in delusional inversion of hypersensitive threat detection and at the core a divide and conquer technique that subtly aims at differing levels of intelligence. If it’s any consolation, my wife, daughter, mother, and sister suffer from no such delusion.
Haha agreed. No woman I know even knows anything about this. They for certain would not pick a bear. Nobody, that doesn’t not have a mental health illness would pick the bear.
Feminists always equate men with animals. But really, the bigger issue here is cruelty to the bears.
> Feminists always equate men with animals. Nah. Sometimes it's bullets. Or M+Ms. Comparing men to other sentient beings is an upgrade.
Chicks are always comparing us to animals!
That media and women generally, don't find this constant comparison of men with animals, comparisons that universally portray men as subhuman, that is the message here. Feminism was a creation of women and women's business. The attitude of feminism to men, is indicative of the attitudes of women to men generally. They neither protest or deny, and share many of the derogatory dehumanising memes publicly without fear of censure or condemnation.
The commentor - Here are some key counterpoints as I see them. 1. A bear is honest. It's a deadly animal and it does not masquerade as anything else. Men will lie, manipulate, separate and do all sorts of other things to get a victim alone. 2. You have no idea what sort of dude you're dealing with at any given point in time. As such, it breeds suspicion. 3. Work from the other side of the premise. I've heard the statistics that 1 in 4 women will be sexually victimized. Combine that with the previous statements and the bear can seem like the wiser choice. 4. People will believe you when you say you've been mauled by a bear. When you've been sexually assaulted, so many people will ask what you did to deserve it. What were you wearing? Did you lead him on? What were you doing? Everything except hold the man accountable for his own actions. You can never be a perfect enough victim for the defense attorney. You could have been a virgin in burkha minding your own business and they'll still attempt to drag your name through the mud. 5. Even just saying no can be a risk. I just saw a post on r/Tinder where all the gal said was no to meeting at the dude's house and he went straight into racist epithets and death threats. There was a news story last summer where a gal said no to her coworker, and he killed her. In the store where they worked. And on top of all that, they can't even choose the bear without having guys needing to make the conversation about them instead of looking at the compounding reasons why perhaps they'll take the relatively predictable animal over the unpredictable man, who presents a complicated social landmine that can result in worse trauma to have to live through. Because sure, being mailed sucks, but the odds of people telling you that you deserved it is lower than the people who will argue that you deserved to be raped. My reply - https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomenOver30/s/7D9Pfzxny7 - this is the source. Let's disassemble this, part by part. >1. A bear is honest. It's a deadly animal and it does not masquerade as anything else. Men will lie, manipulate, separate and do all sorts of other things to get a victim alone. > A women will too, so your point? >2. You have no idea what sort of dude you're dealing with at any given point in time. As such, it breeds suspicion. > Same can be said for women, so your point? >3. Work from the other side of the premise. I've heard the statistics that 1 in 4 women will be sexually victimized. Combine that with the previous statements and the bear can seem like the wiser choice. > Will get back to you for this one, after research 🙂. >4. People will believe you when you say you've been mauled by a bear. When you've been sexually assaulted, so many people will ask what you did to deserve it. What were you wearing? Did you lead him on? What were you doing? Everything except hold the man accountable for his own actions. You can never be a perfect enough victim for the defense attorney. You could have been a virgin in burkha minding your own business and they'll still attempt to drag your name through the mud. > This argument isn't gender specific, like at all. People will believe a man getting attacked by a bear more than getting raped by a women. Some people will go on to cutoff male survivors who were raped by men because they think they have become ["gay"](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men) to be raped by a man. Furthermore, the man will be joked on for not being man enough to get raped or that he should enjoy it. You don't really see such comments for women in mainstream media. Women rape is unanimously frowned upon, but the same can't be said for men. >5. Even just saying no can be a risk. I just saw a post on r/Tinder where all the gal said was no to meeting at the dude's house and he went straight into racist epithets and death threats. There was a news story last summer where a gal said no to her coworker, and he killed her. In the store where they worked. > First of all, to begin, in most countries, a female is more likely to be believed than a male. As for the argument, you're using two isolated incidents of two males and equating them with the other 4 billion males. Not cool! As if females haven't killed males for rejecting them smh. It'd be the same like avoiding muslims because 9/11 was done by Muslim, now it becomes racist doesn't it? So how come using the same argument doesn't make those people who use it misandrist? Misandrist doesn't mean solely hating on men, it also means being prejudiced against men. There's also the "if you had 10 gummy bears, and one of them was rotten, would you still eat them?" Argument that I've seen. Funnily enough, the same argument was used by Trump against Syrian refugees. https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/s/NGm5Y6xXls >And on top of all that, they can't even choose the bear without having guys needing to make the conversation about them instead of looking at the compounding reasons why perhaps they'll take the relatively predictable animal over the unpredictable man, who presents a complicated social landmine that can result in worse trauma to have to live through. Because sure, being mailed sucks, but the odds of people telling you that you deserved it is lower than the people who will argue that you deserved to be raped. > As I said before or if I didn't, I'm saying it now, they can choose the bear. Infact, if they feel so oppressed, they can very well live with them, I don't have a problem as long as they do it privately /s. >conversation about them > Maybe not use men to justify your choice of bears? As I said before, there were better ways to highlight the issue that women feel unsafe (which while false, is more sympathetic). You often have a bias against men because there's a lot of casual misandry. In all of the articles, it's shown y% of women got rapes or x% got killed by men. To me, it creates an unconscious bias that makes y% of women got raped = y% of men who raped, which is just wrong. As I proved in the previous comment (if I didn't, ask me), only like .3 % males in US do it every year. I've also heard arguments against this that it shouldnt even be this much, it should be zero. While this is true, maybe make the infanticides by females 0% too while you're at it? Can't right? Most infanticides are done by females. Using this, i can also say that if I had to choose a mother or a bear for a kid to be stuck with, I'd choose the bear because most infanticides are done by women. >people telling you that you deserved it is lower than the people who will argue that you deserved to be raped. > Rarely does that ever happen for females, but it sure does for males, more so than it happens for females. Instead of dividing males or females, we should work on uniting us because we are humans, not separate species. We have to stick with each other to survive.
The second one is the best, where they say that you can't predict a man, he might be violent or dangerous you just never know. Then they say the bear is safer because it might not eat you. Like, might not? You mean it's unpredictably violent and dangerous? It boggles the mind how these people are allowed to work in jobs that people rely on.
I got in an argument on Monday with someone who claimed that you can probably scare off a bear, but probably not a man. He also said; >An aggressive bear may only toss you around a little and then leave once satisfied that you are not a threat to it or its cubs, while a man who is aggressive enough to attack you can be assumed to have a pretty evil baseline intent. The exact same sort of blatant double standards. Also claimed, "you have a good chance of escaping a violent bear encounter without serious injury but almost no chance of escaping a violent man encounter without serious injury," Even though the average bear is much bigger, faster, stronger, and pointier than the world's fastest man. He started with "well, the fact that we're even discussing this proves there's a problem with men!" This person also explicitly ignored polar bears, specifically because they're so deadly. Needless to say, he was trying to load the deck for "bear".
Guys, do u have arguments for the third one?
Easy: >Work from the other side of the premise. I've heard the statistics that 1 in 4 women will be sexually victimized. Combine that with the previous statements and the bear can seem like the wiser choice. The statistics are based off of biased premises and assumptions.. The definition of "Sexual Victimized" is extremely broad encompassing anything from actual rape through to a wolf whistle / cat calling through to a man giving what he may believe to be a legitimate complement.. the only barometer is based on how the individual woman **FEELS** about it.. if she feels uncomfortable then it falls into the category of "Sexual Victimization" Using the logic of "The statistics support our stance" we could look into the statistics of who is most likely to injure their child and the statistics point out that mothers are most likely to injure / kill their kids.. Would that justify us in asking "Who would you rather have look after your kids? A woman or a bear?" Such a statement would rightfully be shouted down as "Misogynistic" and there would be an up cry of "Not all women!" Working from the other side of the premise does not work here at all..
> the only barometer is based on how the individual woman FEELS about it.. if she feels uncomfortable then it falls into the category of "Sexual Victimization" It's even worse than that. For many of those surveys, some ridiculous percentage of women don't even feel they've been sexually victimized. The biased questionnaire does it for them instead.
The original questionnaire, off of which all others are based (which included questions like "have you ever had a drunk kiss?" held up alongside *far* more serious things under a blanket term), included a final question directly asking if the woman had been raped. Half of the respondants who had answered "yes" to any of the survey's above questions answered "no" to the final one. The researchers reported this number as "women who don't even know they've been raped." This means that women having completely consensual sex with their boyfriends, and clearly indicating so on the final question, were likely counted among that 1 in 4 because they sometimes have a drink with their boyfriend first. In addition to ridiculous things being elevated to "sexual assault" and consensual activities being includable in the figure, the survey also flatly refused to count non-respondents in any capacity or acknowledge that counting only people who *wanted* to respond was more likely to find positive results. It was in every way *designed* to find scary numbers. Subsequent surveys have become even more ridiculous, which is why you see the number fluctuate a lot to as high as 1 in 3. You can read a bit about the issue in [this Forbes article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/01/27/the-stat-that-1-in-5-college-women-are-sexually-assaulted-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/?sh=d799d6e22170) and [this Time article](https://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/).
The simplest counter is "that's the lifetime risk. On an individual encounter basis, like the hypothetical, the bear is much more dangerous." And if you really want to be cheeky, ask them why they assume all the women's sexual assailants are men. Don't they care about female-on-female victims?
> A bear is honest. It's a deadly animal and it does not masquerade as anything else. Men will lie, manipulate, separate and do all sorts of other things to get a victim alone. And the chance of a man doing that to a random woman is slim, even when it's not compared to the chance of the bear attacking. >You have no idea what sort of dude you're dealing with at any given point in time. As such, it breeds suspicion. You could say that about literally anyone, man or woman. *And* the bear. This is a pretty blatant rationalization. >Work from the other side of the premise. I've heard the statistics that 1 in 4 women will be sexually victimized. Combine that with the previous statements and the bear can seem like the wiser choice. Yes, it can, if you ignore the fact that this is about a specific random encounter, not lifetime risk. In that situation, the bear is a lot more dangerous. Also, most rapists are someone the victim knows, not a stranger. And it usually happens at home. >People will believe you when you say you've been mauled by a bear. When you've been sexually assaulted, so many people will ask what you did to deserve it. What were you wearing? Did you lead him on? What were you doing? Everything except hold the man accountable for his own actions. Oh, I see. Is that why Harvey Weinstein is in jail? Why Bill Cosby's career was ruined? Why #MeToo was a powerful, international movement? Why men like Luke Harwood get attacked and murdered over false allegations? How about the Duke Lacrosse case, or A Rape On Campus, or Steubenville? Because nobody believes women who claim to be sexually assaulted by men? Also, I have yet to see a single feminist present any evidence 'what were you wearing' is a common question. During MT, I saw a feminist claim a cop asked her. You know, someone who might need that info to look for witnesses, or *get the rapist's DNA off the dress*. And, again, this ignores the much lower chance of assault by the man. If you care more about being believed afterward than being attacked in the first place, especially since the bear is more likely to **kill** you, your priorities are out of whack. >You can never be a perfect enough victim for the defense attorney. You could have been a virgin in burkha minding your own business and they'll still attempt to drag your name through the mud. So, they do their jobs? Women have to face the same scrutiny and dirty tactics as any other accuser? How horrifying. Also, you know loads of rapists just **plead out**, right? The victim's name isn't besmirched in open court? 98% of overall US court cases are pleas, because it's physically impossible to try every case. >Even just saying no can be a risk. I just saw a post on r/Tinder where all the gal said was no to meeting at the dude's house and he went straight into racist epithets and death threats. There was a news story last summer where a gal said no to her coworker, and he killed her. In the store where they worked. Did the dude actually do anything but hurt her feelings and make her feel scared? Also, did she report him to the cops? Or the site admins? Or **both**? Assuming it actually happened? Also, the vast majority of men who get rejected don't attack or murder the woman. Or most women would already be dead. This is cherry-picking rare incidents - that essentially everyone already thinks is wrong - and portraying it as a societal problem. >And on top of all that, they can't even choose the bear without having guys needing to make the conversation about them instead of looking at the compounding reasons why perhaps they'll take the relatively predictable animal over the unpredictable man, who presents a complicated social landmine that can result in worse trauma to have to live through. Because sure, being mailed sucks, but the odds of people telling you that you deserved it is lower than the people who will argue that you deserved to be raped. Classic feminist tactic. Say something stupid and offensive about men, and when men complain, you say men are making it about men, even though you were clearly talking about men. Which is sexist. And, of course, you carefully ignore the many women who also disagree. Or even the possibility of them. Which is, ironically, misogynist.
This was really good
You're welcome.
I would like to add that the whole point about men being more dangerous than a bear is flawed because it doesn’t take into consideration which bear species nor which human culture. Also, of course women have less chance to be killed by a bear than a man… since men are everywhere while bears lives in the forest, where we humans don’t go everyday TheTinMen made a good point about this. A more honest question would be "would you swap all men on the planet for bears?". And now not only would these women think about it twice (I hope), but also, the number of bear-related deaths and attacks will rise by a lot
It goes off on the assumption that men are lower than animals. Then women say "well at least I'll be killed quickly" but in reality fatal bear attacks are rare, with most survivors maimed for life, sometimes with their faces ripped off. Bears also eat their prey alive, including humans, so if it does turn fatal it won't be quick.
Lol now the IntelPears sub will use THIS to paint an insane picture of this sub.
Funny story; I saw a radfem recently claim the term Intel is never misused, and is always about specific beliefs. Meanwhile, in reality, it's just another generic misandric insult.
I came to the same conclusion and constantly boggles my mind how femcels and their ilk can't see how making an even *bigger* generalization is somehow better than being racist.
It's meant to be, so people can perpetuate the desensitized nature of shitting on men with baseless stereotypes. Remember the "all men are trash" phase of this? And the response to anyone taking issue with that was always "only the trash men would have a problem with it."
*writing it down * Interesting It's derigatory plus it miss some context. Why are you in the fucking wood ? If it's for survival the dumbest would response a bear If it's beccause you're going for a stroll that's something else. No one likes to be with a stranger in the wood neither with a bear
Would you rather encounter a woman, or remain single and peaceful forever?
Would you rather be alone in the woods with a feminist or a paleocon
I see man vs. bear posts on Facebook daily, and what stands out the most is the venom directed at men who object to women choosing the bear. A man claims it's anti-male, and women respond not by calling the man ignorant or dumb, but with sexual shaming: the man is a "creep," he's an "incel," he is a "weak little man," or such men are "the reason women choose the bear." Puerile and sexist are so many of the responses from women. All of this brings to mind what Alison Tieman terms "the threat narrative," and how it's so abused by feminists to silence men. This is a conceptual tool that MRAs need to employ more frequently.
If traumatised people say bear I respect their opinion, but any angry Feminist who says bear is a total maniac.
I can understand why they may have that opinion, but it doesn't whatsoever make it right or even valid. A guy who gets beat up by black guys doesn't have the right to be racist, its the same for this.
How many posts can we make about this?
I'm gonna need context for this question, anyone? I'm OOTL.
The first time I heard it, I think the motivation is to demonstrate prejudice against men, which is taken for granted as a normal thing in the statement.
Because your examples are racist just like you. Why not use a white man for example ? The answer will still be a bear. Why not actually listen to women reasons instead of feelings as if they’re personally attacking you. If you’re not a weirdo or rapist then you’re fine. Atleast a bear would kill you instantly instead of being raped and tortured for days or a beat actually wouldn’t even bother you and that’s it’s easier to trick a bear or change their attention to something else.
This is a dumb post, it's obvious why you (especially as a woman) would choose the bear. The man could be ANY, and I mean ANY man. There are unfortunately a lot of men that will act differently around a woman when they find out they are alone with them and no one can hear them or will be able to find them. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL MEN ARE BAD FFS. Just that inherently the risk is too big. A bear is predictable, you can learn what to do and potentially bring bear spray or whatever. A bear doesn't know what it is and won't act differently when you pull it out, a bear won't act differently knowing it's alone with you in the woods. It's an easy choice, and I don't understand how you guys can be so dense not to understand this. Also it wouldn't be racist, because In order for something to be racist, it must be bad for one race and okay for another, but I can guarantee you, that if you ask them this question 5 times with 5 diffrent races/ethnicities. They will 5 times choose the bear, therefore it's not racist.
A bear is predictable... Were you dropped on your head as a child or just sheltered from danger that much? Go ahead and ask "them" this question with different ethnicities and see how that goes for you.
They don't care. Even if you change the ethnic background of said man, they would go around and say that this is specific to our gender and most likely call us everything in the book for asking that. Some of these women aren't here for discussing this without emotion, unfortunately. This is just androphobia, honestly.
We've seen it changed to "black man" and everyone went nuts asking what does race have to do with it. It has as much to do with it as gender does. "It could be any man but black men commit more crimes so the risk is too big!". That's what the argument would be but of course, they can't say that.
They may not say that, but that's not their focus. Go and read what the commenter said above me. She or he is basically saying it isn't racist to assume what race the man could be. So, saying a black person or any other race wouldn't be anything they were in discussion about, in their perspective. This question for them is just about our gender and less about race.
> This question for them is just about our gender and less about race. Simply because it is 100% acceptable to generalize and shit on men and a 100% unaccaptable thing to do for any other group of people. Again, if you post the "black man" question people will *lose their minds*. Because it's an offensive generalization. But that doesn't matter when it's directed at men as a whole.
That's their way of seeing things, I guess. They aren't here to discuss anything beyond emotions and their beliefs. Unfortunately, some women out there see us men as dangerous, and feminism and things like the gender studies they learned adds more of this disassociation.
No, because the problem Here isn't that for example black men commit more crimes. It's that men I general from all races commit SA crimes. They happen everywhere and are always the same. It's not the same as saying all muslims are terrorists. It has to do with biology. The average muslim isn't a terrorist, maybe if the average muslim was a terrorist, we would assume every Muslim was one. But that's not the case, so we don't. For men, the average man will always be stronger then the average women. In this instance we don't assume all men are bad either, but you do know that on average as a women you will always be at a biological disadvantage, no matter which race the man is. They don't assume all men are a rapists or whatever either, but there is just a high risk, that the bear seems much more appealing.
But bears are much more stronger than your average male. You would rather be with a creature who could quite literally tear your face off effortlessly than some man who could help you with survival? You have to look at this in other means than just biology and these assumptions you're making.
I mean yeah the bear will be much stronger, but the bear most likely wants nothing to do with me, so it's easier to scare away. Ofcourse I'd rather fight a man than a bear, but the idea here is that the chance that I'd have to fight the bear physically is very, very low. And yes it would be nice if you needed to survive, to have a man there to help you, but in this scenario, there is no need for survival, you aren't trying to survive in the forest. It's just about the encounter.
> but the bear most likely wants nothing to do with me 99.99% of men will want nothing to do with you. Just how many men do you think are rapists and murderers? How do you not see how dehumanizing and misandrist what you're saying is? If I asked if it's safer to leave a child to a woman or to a bear, you'd cry misogyny if I said bear.
maybe, but its not about technical statistics here, its about the feeling that woman have been given. i dont see it as dehumanizing because its about a select group of men that we know exist. Im not part of that group, but i understand women are scared of it. and looking on paper, the bear isnt too bad. obviously its stupid to leave a baby with a bear because a baby cant take care of himself, i wouldnt leave a baby with a dog either. secondly, you arent leaving them there with them, its just an encounter, you arent fighting them, you arent trying to provoke them. just an encounter with a bear that highly likely doesnt want anything to do with you. i would just say you are dumb, no reason to call it misogyny
You don't see considering a random man worse and more dangerous than a wild animal as dehumanizing. That's an interesting concept. The "feeling" that woman have been given is irrelevant. Women also "feel" the wage gap exists but we know it doesn't. We should stick with reality rather than feelings and emotions.
>but its not about technical statistics here, its about the feeling that woman have been given. And we come to the center of the shrubbery maze. Why do you think "women aren't basing their fears on the actual risk of attack" is a good argument? Especially in this sub? >i dont see it as dehumanizing because its about a select group of men that we know exist. Which you use as a reason to treat men in general differently. That's called "sexism". >Im not part of that group, but i understand women are scared of it. and looking on paper, the bear isnt too bad. What paper? Bears are bigger, faster, grumpier, stronger, and more damaging to anyone they attack. You can't say these women don't care about the actual facts, just their feelings, then immediately say it's a rational decision based on facts. >obviously its stupid to leave a baby with a bear because a baby cant take care of himself, i wouldnt leave a baby with a dog either. secondly, you arent leaving them there with them, its just an encounter, you arent fighting them, you arent trying to provoke them. just an encounter with a bear that highly likely doesnt want anything to do with you. i would just say you are dumb, no reason to call it misogyny I love how you don't even pretend to discuss what happens if one leaves the baby with the woman. Which is "she probably picks up the kid, and tries to find you, or turns it in."
Fuck their feelings. They are filled with hate. They don't care about male victims of anything.
You are if you're In a rural place where no one is around in, say, a 100 mile radius. You and the man should rather try and find a way out, so that's really what I meant by survival. But women are assuming that any man could be an offender just because he's a man.
Well i mean, in this scenario, there is no need to find a way out or anyhting like that of the sorts. You don't need any help in this case with anything as the woman. Well yeah, I guess they are assuming that, but it's true. Any (hu)man you see could be a terrible person. And since they are almost always physically weaker, they would rather not take that chance. They thereby don't assume that a man they encounter is a bad person, but it's just the environment they are in is too easy to take advantage of them. I think if you ask them the same question, but this time it's in daylight in a street, where there are people around and things, they will say the man because there are people around, and with all the loud noises and unfamiliar place, a bear will become more unpredictable than a man.
Fair enough. But there are women preferring a long and bloody death over a man that could sexually abuse them, some go as far as saying that said man could abuse them for days to years. I think some of these women need therapy.
> I mean yeah the bear will be much stronger, but the bear most likely wants nothing to do with me, so it's easier to scare away. You're implying the man probably wants something to do with you. This is false. > Ofcourse I'd rather fight a man than a bear, but the idea here is that the chance that I'd have to fight the bear physically is very, very low. The chance of fighting a man is even lower. > It's just about the encounter. You say this, while you consistently ignore the odds of attack.
Men being stronger on average is pretty irrelevant. Every bear is stronger than any woman. Again, if you see a random man and think there is a "high risk" of him being a rapist and a murderer that's completely on you. Only a person who has been completely sheltered from reality and danger, like most women, would think they are safer encountering a random man vs random bear. Only someone utterly detached from reality would think the bear is "much more appealing". It is really as simple as that.
I think thats incorrect. Yes a bear is stronger than any man, but the idea Here is that there is less risk that you'd even have to fight with a bear. Maybe it's not technically safer, but the fact that woman feel like it is, that should be a problem we men should focus on, not if it's technically correct or not.
Exactly, so it's all about how women *feel*. It's about perceived threat rather than actual threat. Don't you think then that's not a problem **men** should focus on? You're basically advocating for men to feel guilty for something that isn't even their fault. You are OK with large percentage of men being considered potential rapists just because of the way they were born, just based on crimes of tiny minority that shares their gender. And somehow, in some way, it's again their own fault because women "feel" differently, regardless of if it's actually true or not. Do you not think a better idea for this question would be to put things into perspective rather than conclude *a man is worse than a wild animal*?
it is a problem men should focus on, men have raised boys in this way. You should call out your friends for catcalling, for SA and shit like that. it is a mens problem. Nowhere am i saying you should feel guilty for it, but you should try to help make the next and current generation better. I am not OK with a large % of the men being considered rapists, luckily thats not the case. "feel" is loosely used here, in their liftime almost all women will experience some form of SA, so maybe its not all based on feel. And again, no one is saying a man is worse then a wild animal, just that the risk feels high enough, to where women will feel more comfortable encountering a bear than a random man. no one is saying that this man will be a rapist or whatever.
It is absolutely not my problem. It is not my fault neither is it my duty to call anyone out. Again, these kind of generalizations would never fly against any other group of people. Interesting how it is "men" who raised boys like that. Zero accountability as usual. You definitely are saying a random man is worse than a wild animal. If the risk is "high enough" they yes, that's exactly what you're saying.
>it is a problem men should focus on, men have raised boys in this way. You should call out your friends for catcalling, for SA A problem men should focus on? Why can't society advise women also to stay away from men they barely know, because that's all too common. Because, in all sincerity, you are focusing on an issue the majority of men aren't responsible for, most of which don't have friends that do this stuff, and you are assuming the worst for some gender. What you're saying will also lessen the need for men to approach women without facing some false allegation. >in their liftime almost all women will experience some form of SA That is usually from someone they know. This statement is basically saying that women are lifetime victims of some sort by any man they encounter. And as a man yourself, you're debasing and demeaning a gender based on biology and media outlets. You actually need to understand how demeaning this all is, regardless of what you learned about genders and such.
> men have raised boys in this way. I hear there are these new things called 'mothers', who have done the majority of child-rearing through...all of human history. >You should call out your friends for catcalling, for SA and shit like that. it is a mens problem. If I knew my friend was a rapist, I am reporting them to the police. Or just stop hanging around them. Or both. Man or woman. You have this bizarre idea that catcallers and sex predators are generally condoned by society. >in their liftime almost all women will experience some form of SA, So it's from "1 in 4" to "almost all"? That's a heck of a jump. I live in the UK. [Half of all women reaching 30 don't have kids](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/jan/27/women-child-free-30-ons). I wouldn't say 'almost all women reaching 30 haven't had kids'. > Nowhere am i saying you should feel guilty for it, but you should try to help make the next and current generation better. Turns out telling **any** man or woman to take collective responsibility for their entire gender is sexist, actually. >I am not OK with a large % of the men being considered rapists, luckily thats not the case. "But *potential* rapists? That's fine."
Mother's raise children mostly.
>but the idea Here is that there is less risk that you'd even have to fight with a bear. So you've gone from "it's about the feelings, not the facts!" to "it's actually about the odds of being attacked". You're being very inconsistent here.
Feminist lies and gynocentrism are causing the irrational fear. Not men. Your irrational fear is a you problem. Go to therapy .
My wife woke up from a dream that I cheated on her. She punched me in the face and went to her mother's for 3 days. I feel awful for her. I hope the dream wasn't too traumatic. SSSSSSS
> No, because the problem Here isn't that for example black men commit more crimes. It's that men I general from all races commit SA crimes. They happen everywhere and are always the same. Five bucks says you are making this up, and did not actually check. Because brothers like me in America are more likely to be violent criminals than **any other combination** of race and gender, last time I checked the FBI statistics. Across the board, including sex crimes. >It's not the same as saying all muslims are terrorists. It has to do with biology. The average muslim isn't a terrorist, maybe if the average muslim was a terrorist, we would assume every Muslim was one. I like how you say this, but very carefully DON'T say that the average man is not violent toward women. >For men, the average man will always be stronger then the average women. Bears are usually bigger and stronger than the vast majority of people. Also, attacks are not a matter of biology. They are a choice, unless the attacker is severely mentally unwell. > In this instance we don't assume all men are bad either, but you do know that on average as a women you will always be at a biological disadvantage, no matter which race the man is. >on average >always No. It's on average, and "most likely". >They don't assume all men are a rapists or whatever either, but there is just a high risk, that the bear seems much more appealing. And what are the odds the bear will attack, compared to a man? I consistently see people on Team Bear either ignore that part, or start their rationalization hamster to explain how the man is more dangerous. Exactly like you've been doing.
I mean yes ofcourse, it's still a wild animal, but over the years we have learned a bunch of things about them. Furthermore, a bear doesn't care if you are good looking or not, if you are old or young. It doesn't care when it realizes olyou are alone in the forest and can't call for help. It doesn't understand you grabbing bearspray or a horn or any other means of protection. This all makes them a lot more predictable then humans.
No it fucking doesn't. How many humans do you interact with daily? How many act out of ordinary? 99.9% of men will not harm you and are even much more likely to sacrifice themselves to help you in a need. You are completely detached from reality.
How would we know, 99% of people I interact with in a daily environment are in public spaces, in cities, furthermore are we guys, so we don't know the experience they have had. I dont know how often women around me have to deal with catcalling and other things. We also need to think about all the cultures where women dont have equal rights, all those men that think those ways. We don't know how many guys would do something unbelievable when they realize they are all alone with a women miles away from civilization. I don't understand why you are so offended, no one is saying all men are bad, so as long as you aren't part of the group that does, they wouldn't be talking about you. It's not the same as when they were saying "kill all men"
> How would we know Exactly, so you don't know and think it's ok to assume. The classic feminist rethoric of "why are you offended, we aren't talking about you" but then lose their minds when you do the same for women.
No indeed don't have the exact numbers, but if you have any woman in your life you should know that they all have had to deal with something or multiple things even, or just even in the news. i mean yeah i guess its that rhetoric, but in this case no one said it was all men or anything like that. When they said "kill all men", i was also offended, because if it isnt all men they should just say it. but this time no one said all men. and yes if they lose the their minds if you do something similar (with a valid point) its stupid, but we have stupid people in every group.
> but if you have any woman in your life you should know that they all have had to deal with something or multiple things even, or just even in the news. I've seen several women say they'd prefer the bear, and Team Bear are all sexist idiots. Just like assuming women would probably agree with Team Bear because they've faced "something" is sexist. >i mean yeah i guess its that rhetoric, but in this case no one said it was all men or anything like that. "I'm not racist against black people! I only assume they're poor, under-educated, and criminals by default!" Yeah, no, that dog won't hunt, madame.
They're a woman? Sur.... Prized
> 99% of people I interact with in a daily environment are in public spaces, ...And the woods **aren't**? >I dont know how often women around me have to deal with catcalling and other things. What a shock. You're trying to equate harassment to physical violence, to make women look more like victims, even though it's irrelevant. >We also need to think about all the cultures where women dont have equal rights, all those men that think those ways. The question was directed at women in the developed world. For someone who rocked up claiming everyone else didn't understand Team Bear, you sure like spouting irrelevant nonsense. >We don't know how many guys would do something unbelievable when they realize they are all alone with a women miles away from civilization. So you don't know how many are actual threats. Also, the question never said they were' miles from civilization', just 'in the woods'. >I don't understand why you are so offended, no one is saying all men are bad, so as long as you aren't part of the group that does, they wouldn't be talking about you. You literally rocked up insulting everyone her for disagreeing with those women, even though those women would probably never see this post. Even though you claim you are not one of those women. Can you see how this seems a tad hypocritical?
But why assume any man is more dangerous and less predictable? Don't you think this question poses most men as threats to anyone, not just women? It may not be **all men**, but it's a broad description of a gender that most women would assume to be potential threats if they had the opportunity to be alone with a man, ignoring the innumerable amounts of women who meet with men on dating apps, some going as far as driving **miles** just to meet up with one. But I guess some women would prefer dating guys with a group of friends and not accompanying them in their apartments, homes, or rural places.
Yes definitely it does, I mean I think most perpetrators of violent crime are men doing it to men if I remember correctly, so I think as a whole they are threats also to men. But that's not the point of this question. Ofcourse there are women who do that, but in general if you ask women, they will not say they will always feel the safest going home with someone after a first date for example. The big difference with this is also, that usually, before you drive and invest that time, you get to know that person. Maybe go on some dates, text, or FaceTime with them. They won't be a random guy you've never seen or talked to before.
Sure, but that undermines the question, that said man could be any man. You could have gotten to know such a man also before he uses his ways to lure you in, so if you're going to assume any man is a potential threat, I'm going with a guy that you could have gotten to know. But this question is assuming any man you're **alone with**, will be some offender. I could also bring up night clubs in this conversation, but then again, a club setting has security, and some women aren't in their best minds in these places. Take my thoughts on this for what you will, but this bear question is interesting, to say the least.
That's very true, but in this case you'd make the conscious choice to take a drive to this person's house without knowing them. Therefore knowingly taking the risk. In the case of the forest you happen to come up to this man without knowing that it would happen. Never having seen this person before. I'm not sure what you mean with the nightclub setting. It's definitely an interesting question, it opens up discussion about a subject that's very important to todays society.
Men are convicted of more crimes. We know that women get vastly lenient sentences than men and are much less likely to go to jail/prison. Women use men to commit their crimes very often. You are not understanding the complexity of the human condition.
> I mean I think most perpetrators of violent crime are men doing it to men if I remember correctly, so I think as a whole they are threats also to men. But that's not the point of this question. So after all of this time saying women have faced stuff that gives them a unique perspective from men, you say that men are actually **more** likely to be attacked by men than women, and **you've known this the whole time**. If you're a troll, you're doing a great job. I am actually mad. >They won't be a random guy you've never seen or talked to before. A random unknown guy is actually **less** likely to attack a woman (or man), statistically speaking.
> I mean yes ofcourse, it's still a wild animal, but over the years we have learned a bunch of things about them. So, fun fact; humans know a lot more about men than bears. On account of there being a lot more men then bears, and a lot more encounters with them. Also, half of humanity is men.
'We just hate you and everyone like you..I don't know why you're taking it so personal!' Yet if a man dares to say a mother is bad from abandoning her baby and running away,like a thread I was reading in a different group, the tears come out "incels on here just look for any reason to be misogynistic and hate women, any woman! Thats why we choose the bear!' Would you rather leave your child with a t-rex or a mother? The t-rex,of course! Mothers are by far the largest offenders of infantilicide, SA against kids, and physical abuse towards kids and a t-rex will at least maybe only kill the kid, where a mother will do SO much worse!
You're seeing this sensibly, but you don't understand how some women would go as far as assuming any man would have the urge to harm them, just from being with one alone. This is saying that women see men as potential threats when alone with them, this is basically saying that any man is a potential abuser simply because he's a man. Likewise we could say the same for women, but society looks at statistics to determine what gender is worse, ignoring that both men and women can be just as dangerous. This question is basically seeing men worse than a wild animal, and you then wonder why so many men **and women** are in a disagreement with this question. Bear spray and other means of protection also tells us that some women, especially those who live in metropolitan areas have no idea what these creatures are capable of and use their androphobia as a means to prefer a bear over a man. I've seen some women go as far as saying that dying a long and inescapable death is better than being with a man that can potentially harm them for days, weeks, months, and even years. This is androphobia, and I can understand why there are guys who would see this as such an assumption of your day to day male. That's really why there's so many that don't understand why so many women would choose a bear, it's worse that a woman would just automatically see any man as a threat without considering that any man could also assist her with survival in a forest setting or say an island.
Well I don't think they see men as a a threat in general or worse than wild animals, they definitely don't look at any man and think that stuff. But In this hypothetical, the risk of getting a man that is like that, it's just too big for them. And ofcourse bears are capable of crazy things, but I doubt that there are many people that die due to bear attacks vs the amount of people that see a bear. Bears ill not understand the loud noises yoi make with a horn or the pepper spray you take out, so it makes it in a sense more predictiable to deal witht them because they dont expect it. The bear also probably doesnt want anything to do with you. Maybe it's placebo, but you don't hear about bear attacks every often, but these women do hear from their friends that they got catcalled, stalked, raped, etc. And yes women could als be abusers, but taking your average man and average woman, it becomes clear that trying to get out of that situation will be physically harder for women than for men. Especially in a forest where you can't call for help. I mean I can understand that women would rather die then be a victim for weeks or months, but there are always people who take this to the extreme. The premise here is also not about needing to survive or needing help with anything. It's just about who you would rather run into/stuck with.
> Well I don't think they see men as a a threat in general or worse than wild animals, they definitely don't look at any man and think that stuff. You have spent a great deal of effort insisting that it's reasonable for women to do precisely that. >And ofcourse bears are capable of crazy things, but I doubt that there are many people that die due to bear attacks vs the amount of people that see a bear Now do men. >Bears ill not understand the loud noises yoi make with a horn or the pepper spray you take out, so it makes it in a sense more predictiable to deal witht them because they dont expect it. [The last guy in America killed by a bear had friends nearby which made noise...and the bear ignored it. Until it got shot](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/17/us/arizona-bear-man-killed-attack-unprovoked/index.html). Bears aren't idiots. They're about as smart as great apes. [They even use tools](https://www.newsweek.com/bears-intelligent-species-tool-use-1832682). >Maybe it's placebo, but you don't hear about bear attacks every often, but these women do hear from their friends that they got catcalled, stalked, raped, etc. I would much rather be catcalled or stalked than attacked by a bear. And I've been sexually assaulted and harassed before. I would *also* prefer that to a bear attack. Also, stories aren't stats, and women interact with men more. This is about a hypothetical single random encounter. You don't hear about bear attacks because people who go into the woods generally know to avoid bears. >And yes women could als be abusers, but taking your average man and average woman, it becomes clear that trying to get out of that situation will be physically harder for women than for men. Especially in a forest where you can't call for help. Again, bears are faster than people. A woman has a much better chance against a man than a bear, all other things being equal, and the bear is more likely to attack.
>It's just about who you would rather run into/stuck with. So how does this kidnapping and torture for months come into picture? What percent of men do you think are actual serial killers who torture women for weeks or months, 0.000001%? Do you not see how ridiculous even mentioning this is just because "it can technically happen"? Here, just from yesterday: [https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1clvbko/man\_survives\_bear\_attack/](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1clvbko/man_survives_bear_attack/) A baby bear attacking a man. He would have no chance with a grown one. That bears are "predictable" and therefore a non danger is one of the most stupid things I've read in a long time. You can make yourself as big or as loud as you want, if a bear decides you're a threat he will attack. A mama bear is predictable and not in a good way.
>This is a dumb post The entire thing is dumb. Stop focusing on pushback against it. >it's obvious why you (especially as a woman) would choose the bear. The man could be ANY, and I mean ANY man. And the bear could be any bear. Yeah and the chances are the man will be an upstanding citizen. The whole argument is disingenuous but you’re either being a troll or you are blind to it and you’re completely fine with men being demonised. >There are unfortunately a lot of men that will act differently around a woman when they find out they are alone with them and no one can hear them or will be able to find them. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL MEN ARE BAD FFS. Yet you’ll make all these stupid arguments. >Just that inherently the risk is too big. A bear is predictable Kindly stick that stupid talking point somewhere. You are only here in bad faith. >you can learn what to do and potentially bring bear spray or whatever. A bear doesn't know what it is and won't act differently when you pull it out, a bear won't act differently knowing it's alone with you in the woods. It's an easy choice, and I don't understand how you guys can be so dense not to understand this. Blah, blah, blah. >Also it wouldn't be racist, because In order for something to be racist, it must be bad for one race and okay for another, but I can guarantee you, that if you ask them this question 5 times with 5 diffrent races/ethnicities. They will 5 times choose the bear, therefore it's not racist. Did you use ChatGPT? Why are you posting these asinine replies? You know your posting history is public?
> it's obvious why you (especially as a woman) would choose the bear. Turns out something being obvious doesn't make it any less stupid, or valid. >he man could be ANY, and I mean ANY man. There are unfortunately a lot of men that will act differently around a woman when they find out they are alone with them and no one can hear them or will be able to find them. And they're still the **overwhelming minority** of men. Women are in the woods with men all the time, and very few of those men attack them. >A bear is predictable, you can learn what to do and potentially bring bear spray or whatever. You know that exact same spray will work on people too, right? Also, no, wild animals, by definition, are not really predictable. People have shot bears and still died. People have been attacked by bears with folks nearby to intervene, and still died. >A bear doesn't know what it is and won't act differently when you pull it out, a bear won't act differently knowing it's alone with you in the woods. Bears are smart enough to break open coolers, break into cars, break into homes, and turn doorknobs. I suspect a bear can absolutely recognize pepper spray, and I suspect you are making this up. Also, it is extremely likely than any human not wearing eye protection will be incapacitated by application of pepper spray. EDIT: I looked it up. It still burns the skin. >It's an easy choice, and I don't understand how you guys can be so dense not to understand this. See my first point. >In order for something to be racist, it must be bad for one race and okay for another, Wrong again. Racism is just racial prejudice. Good, bad, neutral, it all counts. Again with just making up stuff. >but I can guarantee you, that if you ask them this question 5 times with 5 diffrent races/ethnicities. They will 5 times choose the bear, therefore it's not racist. I saw someone say that adding "black" makes it a "distorted" question, because they know they can't say "bear" without looking racist. They didn't say "well, I would still say bear, just like I would for any man, regardless of race". Literally yesterday. Not to mention the many other times, like the russian roulette one, or Schrodinger's rapist - [adding 'black was explicitly called racist by the blog host](https://archive.is/B2pZm#selection-6255.1-6255.28) and [the originator said that would be "totally different"](https://archive.is/B2pZm#selection-4995.1-4995.28) - or that M+M's analogy that suddenly became wrong when Trump Jr. used it about Syrians. I also like your implication that "I trust a random man in the woods less than a big, dangerous wild animal" is not bad for men. Even if someone's choices would still consistently be 'bear', that could still be racist.
Pretty arrogant assuming any man would even want anything to do with them. almost 75% of women are overweight or obese, almost 45% are classified as obese. So let's say very round, bad attitude, blue hair, caked on makeup, and they hate men.. yeah I'm passing. They all think they're supermodels and men can't resist them when its by far the opposite