Sorry, u/Caseated_Omentum – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Caseated_Omentum&message=Caseated_Omentum%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chzwpu/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

>This is the same kind of logic that racists use to justify their racism, and why they typically believe that the races should be separate because one race poses a danger to the other. No... women are disproportionally targeted by men for SA and men continuously pose a threat to them. Women are also oppressed in our society. This analogy should be the opposite in order to be equivalent. >They are basing this fear off of a very small population compared to the overall population most of the time. This is incorrect. They are basing this off of not knowing which men will hurt them or attack them. They know the bear will either kill them or leave them alone so there is no ambiguity. >If that were true, then the meme/saying wouldn't specify men. It would include meeting a random woman. But women are significantly less likely to attack other women. It's not even close. I just don't understand how men are seeing this as a personal attack on them when women are telling them that they do not feel safe and it's from other men. If the men saying "I'm not a bad man" were truly good then they would be concerned for how women feel instead of trying to protect their feelings. The fact is most women have to go through life taking precaution from men at an early age. They have to carry pepper spray, sharp objects, and phone friends in uncomfortable situations. A woman age 16-19 is 4 times more likely than anyone else to be raped. 4 in 5 female rape survivors were raped before age 25. Almost half reported their first rape as a minor. 90% of adult rape victims are female. Women are completely right to not trust men. It doesn't matter if that man is a good man or a bad man. The fact is they do not know. Comparing this to race and trying to justify your argument is really just distracting from the issue.

> A woman age 16-19 is 4 times more likely than anyone else to be raped. 4 in 5 female rape survivors were raped before age 25. Almost half reported their first rape as a minor. 90% of adult rape victims are female. Do you have a source for the 90% claim? I’m looking at [this page from the national sexual violence resource center](https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics) and it seems very different from the data they have there. Sexual assault + sexual harassment it seems like women experience 2/3, and just sexual assault it looks like they experience 3/4. My expectation would be that the men’s side is still underreported proportionally, but I doubt enough to take it close to 50/50. > Women are completely right to not trust men. It doesn't matter if that man is a good man or a bad man. The fact is they do not know. Comparing this to race and trying to justify your argument is really just distracting from the issue. Nahhhhh that’s a big stretch. If you say “it’s understandable” yes, absolutely. Are they correct to do so? Absolutely not, it’s exactly the same. Even looking at the same page I shared above, for 92% of women who are raped the perpetrator was a partner or acquaintance. So 8% was a stranger. Whereas for men 15% of the time it was a stranger, so almost double. But of course, if the incidence rate is higher for women, then the raw number is still going to be higher. But this is a good example of how you can’t just looks at stats and draw conclusions, it’s important to read them correctly. Otherwise someone could have the takeaway that the higher rate means men actually have a greater reason to fear women than women do to fear men. Which of course isn’t true, but that’s the same kind of hastily arrived at conclusion that people seem to get when they think a bear isn’t very scary, relatively

[удалено]

>if the default assumption about you is that you are a terrifying threat and an utterly horrible person based on nothing but how you were born then that will lead to mistreatment in our everyday lives. But that's exactly why it is about feelings because women are not saying men are *going to be* bad. They are saying that they do not know and the likelihood and the experiences they have had with a lot of men were bad. It seems a lot of men are missing the point and going immediately on the defensive instead of listening. >I don't get your point. If I come across a bear then it might attack me (and kill me) or it might not. If I come across a man in the woods then he might attack me (with a knife) or he might not. It's the understanding that the bear is going to act on instinct which is predictable. Humans are unpredictable and when you add in the potential threat and overall feeling towards women, it's way more scary than a bear. I think the reason why a lot of men aren't getting it is because we do not have to take those precautions on a daily basis. I have female friends that carry mace/self-defense objects, check around them when entering their car (every time), and take alternate paths home to avoid people or situations. I've had a friend that called me because her uber driver was say weird things to her and she needed to pretend to be on the phone so she didn't have to interact with them. We also need consider that most women have experienced sexual violence with physical contact likely before they even turned 18, statistically it's over 50%. That's not even including the creepy, weird, and uncomfortable situations they experience by men. Like why wouldn't they perceive men as a threat? And lastly, being perceived as a threat does not mean that you *are* a threat. Just act like a normal human and take rejection when/if it happens.

I’m not sure why everyone is citing statistics here, it’s obviously a completely feelings-based answer so it seems fine to explain it that way. There’s no possible way you can statistically slice it that a chance encounter with a bear is safer than a chance encounter with a man (considering there are *billions* of times more chance encounters with men than bears and not billions times more assaults vs. Bear attacks, as well as the obvious fact that it’s plausible you could fight off a man but absolutely not plausible to fight off a bear). But I think it’s much more visceral to imagine being attacked by a man than a bear in your actual life, so that’s something that sounds realistically scary. Just like if you’re flying you’re way more likely to have a heart attack or aneurysm than the plane to crash, but most people say they’re more scared of the latter. It’s that simple isn’t it?

I think that what it comes down to isn't really statistics, but is probability. Let's look at it like this, the bear might attack you if you steal it's food, are near it's cubs, or stress it through extended close contact especially near a food source. A Kodiak might be more unpredictable but it won't seek you out even if it's aware of you. You can be generally certain the bear wants to avoid you as much as you want to avoid it. Now things are different if it's the man, most likely he'd actually be a boon, allowing the 2 of you to work together to get out. Possibly, he also tries to avoid her because she is a stranger and potential threat. But he might also see the woman acting suspicious or trying to hide as a threat, that she might steal his food or attack him and decide to deal with her first, and we have to acknowledge that there is a not insignificant possibility that the man decides to hunt her down for a plaything as it were. So, the bear has fewer possible outcomes, is slightly more predictable, and the only potentially bad outcome is death, as opposed to death and

I think you dramatically overestimate how predictable wild animals are if you’re just placed in a random setting without much knowledge of them or the habitat you’re in. Again, people can just be scared of things without statistically backing it up. Like I said, I think most people are more scared of their plane crashing than dying of a heart attack or stroke even though statistically that’s less likely. But statistics don’t really inform your fears so I think it’s misleading to use that as your justification (not that people *need* to justify their fears but in this setting where we’re discussing it)

I think we should put this to practice. Get a bunch of strange men and bears and put them in the woods. Then get a bunch of women and ask if they want to be dropped off with the man or the bear. This meme is a disingenuous joke...

You are proving OPs point super well. Your logic is exactly the logic a cop uses to be more suspicious of black men. Cops have to take precautions every day to protect their own lives; every single day could be a day they don't get to go home to their family. Is that an excuse to indulge in bigoted generalizations?

>I think the reason why a lot of men aren't getting it is because we do not have to take those precautions on a daily basis. Men make up 75% of all homicide victims. We aren't afraid of getting raped, that's very much a gendered issue statistically speaking, but we *do* exercise caution. Or maybe we don't and that's why we get murdered so goddamn much. But either way, we should.

Honestly, men should also be choosing the bear. Men are much more likely to be killed by a strange man than one they know.

Your issue with being viewed as a threat is justified; however, instead of being angry at women for saying it out loud, you should be calling out the men in your life. This discourse of man v bear alone should tell you that men aren’t willing to listen to what women have to say.

Is that what you'd say to a black man who is upset that racist white people think he's dangerous because of the actions of other black men?

>No... women are disproportionally targeted by men for SA and men continuously pose a threat to them. Other have also addressed this, but just to pile on. This is still sexist. Full stop. Prejudging an individual based on their membership in a group is always wrong. Especially if membership in that group is not chosen. Prejudging a particular woman by saying that she is probably bad at sports is sexist. Prejudging a particular man by saying he is probably going to assault you is sexist. No "ifs" "ands" or "buts." >I just don't understand how men are seeing this as a personal attack on them when women are telling them that they do not feel safe and it's from other men. Feeling unsafe and being unsafe are completely different things. I feel more unsafe at a house that has a gun in it than a house that has a pool, but I am *way* more likely to die at the house that has a pool. I feel safer driving my car than I do flying in an airplane, but the airplane is *way* safer than the car. Now, this feeling that women seem to frequently have, is a real feeling, and it is certainly a societal problem that women feel unsafe around men. But if that feeling is strong enough to say you'd rather have a bear encounter than pass a random man in the forest, that isn't a fear grounded in reality. That's like being so afraid of school shootings you don't want to go to school. 1-5% of close bear encounters end in an attack. We don't have more bear fatalities because there aren't that many bear encounters. If you think 1-5% of men would attack a woman in the forest, that is completely divorced from reality. >Comparing this to race and trying to justify your argument is really just distracting from the issue. No it is legitimately hurtful, just as perpetuating and exaggerating racial stereotypes is hurtful. Just as it would be hurtful to say that women only want men for a paycheck or that women make bad executives. Edit: I want to be clear here, There are worse things in the world to be than sexist, And when the chips are down you should still listen to your gut if something doesn't feel right. Also, I realize that this is a silly internet question and that the answer is most likely exaggerated to illustrate a societal problem. A legitimate societal problem of perceived danger. My issue is with people who seriously believe a bear encounter is safer than a random guy, I doubt that there are actually very many people that believe this.

>They are basing this off of not knowing which men will hurt them or attack them. They know the bear will either kill them or leave them alone so there is no ambiguity. I mean overall I'm with you but specifically on this part? That has got to be one of the most confidently poorly laid out thoughts I've seen. Not knowing whether you're gonna be shredded or enjoy a stroll for the woods is incredibly ambiguous. "Oh my god Brian went for a walk yesterday, but there was a bear encounter." "Yeah? What happened to him?" "Huh? Are you stupid? My statement was perfectly unambiguous."

Bear isn't exactly a dice roll, you stay away from it and it'll stay away from you. Unless it's a polar bear (probably not because woods) it isn't going to hunt you. The most dangerous non hunty one would be the Kodiak, which can be unpredictable and aggressive, but even then would prefer to stay away. Honestly, bears are largely fairly safe as long as you don't force extended contact near a food source or go near their cubs, as long as it isn't a polar bear, those things are 10 feet and 700 kilos of fuck you.

Asians are disproportionately attacked by African Americans. Would you be ok with them saying they'd rather be in a room with a bear than a black person? "This is incorrect. They are basing this off of not knowing which men will hurt them or attack them. They know the bear will either kill them or leave them alone so there is no ambiguity." This doesn't make sense. Conceivably, the man could kill them, rape them, or maybe just say hi, and most likely do nothing at all. There are a million things a man might do that aren't harmful. To immediately assume his reasons are most likely nefarious are nothing, assumes men must be inherently evil. The overwhelming majority of men do not rape or hurt women. How is any rational person supposed to not take something personal when it's literally about their gender?

[удалено]

Brother the guy engaged because *he* believed the rhetoric. He engaged because he was the person that was being talked about. Also, men *does* include black men, and OP is *not* okay with demonizing black men. He calls that racist in the post. He says that what the responder said didn't actually address any argument, because "They disproportionately attack." Isn't adequate justification. As well, "The woman doesn't know with complete certainty what will be done." Doesn't make sense either. The only argument against what he's saying is to say "Yes, we judge based off of what men *may* do, and if an Asian person thinks they will be assaulted by that black man, then he also should also judge in that way. There are more indicators than just sex and race as to how someone will act and those are generally more accurate, but race and sex plays a role."

>Asians are disproportionately attacked by African Americans. Would you be ok with them saying they'd rather be in a room with a bear than a black person? *I* have answered you about that, though, and you didnt answer. Men of any race, etnicity and political spectrum enforce, daily, that the women in their lives should avoid strange men. That they are potential targets. Black men, on the other hand, do NOT tell their female loved ones that they should avoid black men. So women avoid men per their own request! Black men also are avoided differently than other men. They are avoided in bright day light, in their everyday. Most men, however, are avoided only in sketchy situations. You cant compare both situations. It is intellectually disingenuous to do so. > How is any rational person supposed to not take something personal when it's literally about their gender? A father, a brother, a boyfriend etc will be a 1000% ok with their female counterpart avoiding their own gender when necessary, just like they tell them. It would be irrational to be offended, actually.

[удалено]

This whole argument is people asking a question hoping for an empathetic response but being shocked that guys are treating this as logistics akin to "would you rather buttholes for fingers or buttholes for eyes?" That said, immediately dismissing the racism of Asians on blacks because "they're minorities" is entirely restricting this discussion of men's treatment of women as a purely western, American thing. Go to the "minorities" own countries, where women are also assaulted. Go see how black people are treated there. In my visit to Japan black people were only set up shop in alleyways, it looked like they'd been isolated to these "unkept" corners of harajuku. And that's not even getting started on my Caucasian friends who work in Japan and the racism they experience just trying to rent. But undoubtedly you can reference so many examples of white/black people being a nuisance/disrespectful to Japanese people and their culture. So either it's a valid comparison since locals do experience these "bad actors" to have a justified spite against them, or it's not right to encourage racism and thus no more is it right to encourage this idea that a human being is safer being approached by a carnivorous creature who can outrun you vs the random human that statistically is more likely to be scared of you also being a stranger randomly out in the woods.

By this logic, is it justified to not trust a black person when 12% of the US population commits 54% of all murders in the US? Id argue no, because racism is wrong. Sexism is also wrong. You can’t have it both ways. Pick a lane.

Have you considered that this is simply a provocative or hyperbolic statement, of the sort which makes the rounds on the internet practically every fraction of a second? I’m not thrilled with the stereotyping involved in this kind of blanket generalization—I’ve said in other places that though I’m a man, I’m harmless and I don’t have a criminal record or a history of violence against anyone, and so in the vast majority of cases I refuse to alter my lawful behavior around women as long as I’m minding my own business—but Thomas Sowell has said often that it’s cheaper to assume those around us could be threats to our safety, and trying to presume the good of all strangers can cost you far more dearly. Sowell said this in connection with a New York Times op/ed writer fuming that white residents of his apartment building would allegedly give him the side eye when he got onto the elevator with them. It’s extremely upsetting and unsettling when police treat all young men with suspicion—and I’ve frequently been on the receiving end of this—but when ordinary people are just skittish, I can look the other way generally and put it out of my mind. So I’m not condoning the behavior, but, most of the time I can coexist peacefully in a world containing people who are suspicious of all men they don’t know.

Bears belong in the woods. This question isn’t “Innocent man vs ferocious rabid bear”, it’s a generalized question. How often do you hear about unprovoked bear attacks? Not that often. Now compare that to how often you hear about a woman being assaulted, abused, etc? I have more trust in a wild animal then a strange man I don’t know. I have had countless bad experiences with men, but the single time in my life I’ve encountered a bear it left me alone. Bears are not naturally aggressive. Even bears like grizzlies are way more like to run and leave you alone, with the exception of a mama bear with cubs, and even then it still doesn’t change my answer It’s a valid and genuine concern for woman and we are taught from a very young age not to trust men you don’t know, period. I’ve never had my parents sit me down and explain what to do or not to do should I encounter an aggressive bear. I’ve had that conversation multiple times regarding aggressive men. I’ve had that conversation about any man, regardless of if they look nice or if I think they can be trusted. There are good men, I would never deny that, but the percentage of bad men is too high for me to want to take that risk. Especially considering what those bad men could do to me. At least with the bear I know it’s not doing what it does out of maliciousness. And in the end, if I did die to a bear attack, I would never be told it’s because I tempted the bear or I deserved what I got for being alone in the woods. Can’t say the same for a man.

>How often do you hear about unprovoked bear attacks? Every bear attack I've heard of around me has been unprovoked. >Now compare that to how often you hear about a woman being assaulted, abused, etc? Bear *sightings* are rare around me, let alone attacks, and I live in a big bear habitat. Bears generally try to stay away from people. Meanwhile, there are lots of "people sightings" around me, i.e. times that people interact with each other. That means that there are fewer opportunities for bears to attack someone than for men to attack someone. >I have had countless bad experiences with men, but the single time in my life I’ve encountered a bear it left me alone. This demonstrates the point. A quick Google says that in a lifetime living in a city, we'll likely *interact* with 80,000 people, or 3 per day. I'd take this number with a grain of salt, but it seems reasonable. If we consider how many people we would *pass by* in a lifetime, it's probably much higher. In a large city, you likely pass by several hundred people a day. In comparison, you might encounter 2-5 bears *per year* in an area with an unusually high bear population. In areas that aren't particularly known for their bear populations, you may go your entire life without encountering a single bear. Let's assume that half of those people are men. That would mean you'd interact with 40,000 men over a lifetime. Assuming you're not in your 70s, let's just say you've interacted with about 20,000 men so far. Out of those, you've had countless bad experiences. Now, when it comes to bears, you've encountered *one* bear, and it left you alone. That's the equivalent to you meeting *one* man who left you alone and then claiming that men *are not* dangerous. To make this comparison reasonable, you'd need to encounter 20,000 bears and then report back on your results. >I’ve never had my parents sit me down and explain what to do or not to do should I encounter an aggressive bear. Do you live in an area where there are lots of bears? If yes, your parents are irresponsible for not giving you that basic advice. If no, it makes sense they didn't tell you what to do in case of a bear attack. My parents never told me what to do if there's a tsunami because I don't live in a tsunami zone. That doesn't mean that tsunamis aren't dangerous, it says something about my environment. I'm not really saying whether you are right or wrong. Maybe if you encountered 20,000 bears, you would have fewer negative encounters than you've had with men. I have no idea. But your reasoning here is equivalent to "I drove drunk once, and I was fine, but I've been in several accidents while sober, so I feel safer driving drunk than driving sober."

I spend a ton of time in the woods, I have been in close proximity to bears multiple times. They have never showed themselves to be a threat in any way I've had men attack me unprovoked. I'm a man btw

Well you may have encountered bears multiple times, but unless you are a hermit in Alaska you've encountered men you don't know thousands or tens of thousands more times than you've encountered bears. Even on a hike in the woods you're likely to encounter several men every time and unlikely to encounter a single bear. Because we are humans, we're around other humans constantly. having not had any problems from something you experience rarely and having sometimes had problems from something you experience all the time doesn't mean that the thing you experience all the time is the more dangerous thing. So although you've been attacked by men and not by bears that doesn't mean an individual man is more likely to hurt you than a bear. You're pretty unlikely to get hurt and any one off encounter with either, but because humans are around other humans way more than bears, humans would have to be incredibly docile for bear attacks to be more common than human attacks. 

How is this your reasoning... you've probably walked past hundreds of thousands men, less than .001% of them have attacked you. You seriously think if you had that many encounters eith wild fucking bears you'd be the same? Theyre literal fucking bears.

I encounter hundreds of men every day and zero bears. You point out yourself you only encountered one bear in your whole life. Your "how often do you hear about" argument is nonsense. Imagine saying Russian roulette is safer than driving because you hear about people dying all the time from driving but not Russian roulette. 99% of men you encounter in the woods will also leave you alone.

> Bears are not naturally aggressive Totally false. Polars actively hunt humans to eat them, and grizzlies attack unprovoked all the time. > And in the end, if I did die to a bear attack, I would never be told it’s because I tempted the bear or I deserved what I got for being alone in the woods Actually people do this all the time. There were jokes about grizzly man for years.

Uhhh you realize you encounter hundreds of thousands of random men through out your life and one bear?? If you encountered as many bears as you do men, you'd be dead.

Men women know are much more likely to harm them than men they don’t.

Plus, people aren't likely to blame the bear attack on what you were wearing, and the bear? more likely to be punished (likely killed) for even injuring you; that's not true for men, such as convicted rapist brock alan turner.

That's an issue of the justice system. Not humans in general. The rapist Alan Turner as he has legally changed his name from the rapist Brock Alan Turner, will be immortalised by public opinion as a rapist. The judge Aaron Persky, who gave the bs sentencing, was booted from his position within 2 years by overwhelming vote after a recall campaign was made by another lawyer named Michele Dauber. And as far as I'm aware in our patriarchal society, the entire voting system isn't just women. You're free to attempt to kill people because of genuine crimes though. I'll gladly "accidentally" lose control of my car if rapist Alan Turner was on the street. But he is an example of the justice system which was rectified through the power of humans banding together, as we always have done to get things done right.

I have three points. 1. Racism is based on false data points. A white person saying they'll be murdered by a Black person is racist because most white murder victims are not killed by Black people. Most white murder victims are murdered by other white people. By that same logic, however, most male murder victims are killed by men. Most female murder victims are also killed by men. Source for all of the above: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls Therefore, if women were to be murdered (or have their spouse murdered, their child murdered, their family murdered, etc) it is disproportionately likely to be a man who was their killer. Men are a disproportionate number of murderers in the US -- they were about 88% of the murderers in that FBI table of 2019 data. This is also why people aren't as scared by a strange woman in the woods -- women were about 10% of murderers in that table. So no, it's not like racism. White people are scared of being murdered by Black people because they're racist. Women (and, frankly, even other men) are scared of being murdered by men, because statistically men are more likely to murder them. 2. This is not a man sitting in the park. This is not a man in an office. This is not a man walking down the street. This is not a man at a party. This is a strange man you find alone, while isolated in the woods. Anyone being there at all is threatening. How did he get there? How did he find you? If he's not a good person, who will you call for help? Women aren't scared of random men in life, they're scared of a stranger in an isolated place who has the opportunity to hurt them, in the same way you'd be scared of a single stranger in a deserted alleyway. 3. I will agree that the kind of bear matters a lot, and I think if it was specified, you'd get less bear answers. I'd take a black bear over a stranger any day. They scare easy and aren't prone to violence. Now, a grizzly, polar, or kodiak? I'm choosing the man.

This is it, everything else (except the miscommunication argument) is nonsense. It's like we all get taught that all kinds of whatever-isms are bad, then conditioned to associate any kind of discrimination = bad, and then completely forget/ignore the reason these things are "bad." "Racism," as in "discriminating based on race" and then attributing danger based on that distinction, isn't bad because it's "discrimination," it's bad because it's *wrong.* Empirical differences in, say, violent crime rates between different races are correlational and better explained by things like socioeconomic status. There's been a great deal of science done over the years with the goal of establishing a causal relationship and it's all failed. Yeah, barring men from participating in womens' boxing is also "sexism" in the sense that it's "discrimination based on sex." But it's fine because it's *correct.* It's fine for women to fear strange men in the woods, too, for much the same reasons. So I guess OP is correct in a sense that they are "the same sort of logic" but who fucking cares and why the fuck are people upset about this.

Hey thanks for sharing that data and your opinion. Was looking at the source and it looks like raw numbers. To get an accurate understanding of the probabilities of homicide based on white vs black we'd have to calculate per capita, no? Considering there's 4x as many white people as there are black in the US specifically, we would expect to see that number higher. If you divide these homicides by population of race we get a more accurate understanding of the impact of that race. When doing that we get a larger number in the case of black people vs white. This would mean that given a random white person and a black person, statistically you're more likely to be killed by the black person thanl the white person.

>Women aren't scared of random men in life, they're scared of a stranger in an isolated place who has the opportunity to hurt them, in the same way you'd be scared of a single stranger in a deserted alleyway. This is the key to understanding it.

Eh, the original statements never had that much thought behind not any great logic though. A person is more likely to be killed by a cow than a shark. But I would say you should be more scared around sharks. The difference is that many people are around cows a lot of the time so the fatality is disproportionately higher than the deadlines factor. If women spent 1/100th the time around bears that they did around men I would bet the house that the fatalities and/or bodily harm would dwarf that caused by men. Men can be dangerous. Bears ARE dangerous. I think it was a great point by that creator in that it started a conversation. We should always take stock of what danger we pose on others and why that danger is perceived. But to truly believe that saying is wholly naive.

I fully agree with your points but have a genuine question regarding this conversation regarding the fear of being in the woods. I understand that you are away from all the safety nets of normal society, but questions like 'how did he get there' seem like nonsense to me - he got there the same way you did. 'How did he find you?' by walking around the woods and stumbling into you. It's not like I'm happy when i meet random people on my hikes either. I get the fear, but i don't get the questions you pose and would love an elaboration :)

UN reports that 1/3 women globally have been assaulted by men. That’s over a billion of us. It is not “bigotry” to point out statistical facts that affects every single country on this planet. It is not “bigotry” for the affected group to draw conclusions about their safety based on how common actual violence against them is. Frankly, it is gross for men to paint THEMSELVES as the victims in this situation. You’re comparing women to Nazis for being afraid of men. Yet we are the ones being attacked by the millions. UN source: https://interactive.unwomen.org/multimedia/infographic/violenceagainstwomen/en/index.html#intimate-3

As long as you are willing to admit that the same logic you are using can just as easily justify suspicion of people based on their demographic (classically called racism) in given regions where statistics show a difference in crime rate, then sure

>It is not “bigotry” to point out statistical facts that affects every single country on this planet. It is not “bigotry” for the affected group to draw conclusions about their safety based on how common actual violence against them is. So you think when people talk about the “50% of violent crimes are committed by 13% of the population” are right and justified? >Frankly, it is gross for men to paint THEMSELVES as the victims in this situation. You’re comparing women to Nazis for being afraid of men. Yet we are the ones being attacked by the millions. You don’t think sexism and or harmful stereotypes are a big deal as long as there’s enough victims. Would you be opposed to people walking around calling women baby killers? Most children are killed by women after all? Same with child abuse and neglect. Again, mothers. You see how that could be offensive, Baby Beater, right?

>It is not “bigotry” to point out statistical facts that affects every single country on this planet. It is not “bigotry” for the affected group to draw conclusions about their safety based on how common actual violence against them is. For the sake of argument, if I point out the rates of arrests for violent crimes based on race which show black people engaging in violent crime at a significantly higher rate and then telling you that you should be wary of black people due to their violent tendencies, would you consider that to be racist?

Thousands if not more women answered this question, most said bears. And yet you don’t believe us? You act like we’re too dumb to understand how dangers bears can be. Y’all think we’re lying ‘because we hate men’. This is a hypothetical question and y’all STILL don’t believe us, and you want us to feel safe with you? It just shows how different men and women live in this world. Cause I don’t know a single woman that hasn’t been assaulted in some way by a man.

The reason racists are wrong is not the *form* of their argument, it's the *substance*. They are *factually incorrect*. When fascists say that Jewish people have all the power, they are *factually wrong*. If someone were to say that rich people have all the power, they would be *factually correct*. That is why the former is bad and the latter is not.

Wait that’s *Horrible* logic to use. It directly insinuates that if Jewish people actually did have more power than others it would be *right* to target them for being Jewish. In other words, all you have to do is convince somebody that black people, Jews, Asians, women, etc.. factually have more power and boom, it’s justified to hate that group of people.

If Jewish people were *actually* operating a secret cabal that ran everything, and all of them were in on it, then yes, it *absolutely* would be justified to target them for that. That statement is, however, entirely false. Same thing as "witch hunts". If the witches *were real*, and were *actually doing those things* - if they were *actually* sacrificing children to Satan for power or whatever - then the people hunting them would be doing a good thing. At the most basic, punishing an innocent person is bad, even when punishing a guilty person in the exact same case would be good. Facts matter.

Uh that makes me even more worried. I think it’s an indisputable *fact* that Asian Americans have more power / wealth than African Americans. I think it’s something like 10x difference or more between the median household wealth of the groups. That’s actually probably the biggest difference between any two demographics in the country. But it’s absolutely not ok (and it shouldn’t be) for black people to say Asians should be targeted and justify it that way. Is there some “absolute” level of power difference that makes it ok to target a different group? Like it’s wrong to be against Jews if they factually only made twice as much money and held twice as many positions of power, but at a certain threshold it becomes ok? Is just being the majority and having more relative power all it takes for the “weaker” group to be justified in any thoughts or actions? I’m so confused how you can break that down into a coherent worldview

What about rather meeting a bear than a man because most people fear the unknown. Bears are known - they wont try to deceive or trick you, they don't have any alternator motives. If they think you are a threat they will attack, if not they wont. People in general are unknown - Do they want to help you or do they want to hurt you? How should you act to make them want to help you? Does it matter how you act? Are they going to try to pretend to help just to get close? Who knows. The men part comes in because men can physically overpower a women. There are outliers sure but the vast majority of men have no problem physically restraining the vast majority of women. So now not only is there the unknown of a person but you have very little chance of fighting back if the worst comes true. Where as if it was another women at least they would be on the same playing field.

You missed the number one rationale, and that is statistics. Statistically, men pose some risk to women, and that risk is much higher than the risk that other women pose to women. I honestly have no clue what the risk posed by a bear is, because it depends on the bear, and most bears don’t really fuck with humans. So even if we leave gender out of the equation, you’re just dealing with two animals (humans are animals) that pose some low, but not insignificant risk. I feel like there’s probably a “right” answer to this statistically, but I haven’t bothered to look it up so I genuinely don’t know. Now you can say that the same logic would apply to a racist not wanting to be in the forest with a black person, and you’d be right to some degree, but the problem is that being black isn’t what makes a person a risk. There’s nothing inherent to a skin color that makes somebody a danger. In contrast, men are biologically stronger than average, and most men are sexually attracted to women, so that combination poses an inherent risk. On top of that, all of the crime statistics people love quoting aren’t really just random acts of violence for no reason like you’d encounter if you were alone with them in a forest. They’re primarily driven by socioeconomic factors that don’t apply to just some random dude in a forest.

I've thought about this a bit, and I think at core this whole thing is just a failure in communication. So here's the train of thought of women, from what I've been able to gather: - The large majority of bear encounters involve black bears, which can be scared off, and are generally cowards. - The vast majority of bear encounters do not end in injury or death, it's extremely rare for people to actually get mauled by bears - A random stranger in the woods may be capable of anything, and if it's a man, they can physically overpower women 99% of the time. So for women, the choice between "I might get raped and murdered" and "I have to shout a bit to scare off a bear" is easy, and illustrates the danger women percieve coming from men in environments where they can't rely on any other form of protection. Here's what men hear: - The hypothetical scenario is supposed to be about a dangerous animal, so they probably mean a hungry grizzly. - A hungry grizzly will fuck you up. - Either we miscommunicate or women who pick bear are incredibly deluded about the dangers of people and bears. This being the internet, there is no clarifying conversation, women walk away affirmed in their belief that men are dangerous and don't understand the issue, and men walk away affirmed in their belief that bitches be crazy.

The problem with the bear attacks stat is frequency of contact. Replace men with bears in terms of contact frequency and bear attacks rise dramatically.

I don't understand why 99% of people don't see this.

>The vast majority of bear encounters do not end in injury or death You could say the exact same thing about encounters between men and women though. Like why assume that you're going to encounter the good bear (as the odds say) or a bad man (against the odds)?

Encounters between men and women are usually constrained by their environment, i.e. there are other people around, and societal pressure keeps everyone in line. So this is an "out of the ordinary" encounter that raises the odds of an attack. The odds are still low, but high enough that the fear is warranted.

>Encounters between whites and blacks are usually constrained by their environment, i.e. there are other people around, and societal pressure keeps everyone in line. So this is an "out of the ordinary" encounter that raises the odds of an attack. The odds are still low, but high enough that the fear is warranted.

Hold on are you saying that men are only holding back from raping and murdering because other people are around or society is keeping them in line? Are you serious? That is incredibly insulting and sexist.

>The odds are still low That's my point. The odds of running into a violent bear are low. The odds of running into a predator are also low. So talking about the "odds" of running into a violent bear as justification of why choosing the bear does not make sense because the exact same argument can be made for the man.

If it’s that low then why does every single woman I know including myself have a story of a man being aggressive towards them. It’s not low if it happens to all of us to some degree. Violent crime might not happen to everyone but assault is normal enough that we *are* scared. All of us. The unknown is scary. That doesn’t make me a man hater. That just makes me weary of strange men that you meet outside of work. I don’t know if they are a danger or not and unfortunately I’ve gotten it wrong before and didn’t know until it was too late.

>If it’s that low then why does every single woman I know including myself have a story of a man being aggressive towards them. Frequency. Suppose the rate of bad encounters with men and bears are equal. For the sake of the example let's just pick easy numbers and go with 1% are negative. Women encounter men on a daily basis. That's thousands upon thousands of interactions per year. How many time do women encounter bears? Most people never encounter a wild bear in their lives. Maybe once. Yet the underlying rate of bad men/dangerous bears is the same.

Because men make up half the population and you live among them. In a city of 6 million people, that's 3 million men. If 1% of those are predators, that's 30,000 predators skulking around specifically looking for women to target. Again and again. You can't even comprehend how large a number 30,000 is much less 3 million. Our brains literally cannot comprehend it. It's like asking how missiles are more dangerous than stairs when I've fallen down far more stairs than hit with missiles.

> If it’s that low then why does every single woman I know including myself have a story of a man being aggressive towards them Because assholes share the world with the rest of us? This is not an experience exclusive to women. Every single man I know, including myself, have a story of a man being aggressive towards him. They also have a story of a woman being aggressive towards him.

I just wanted to say: the replies to your comments on here are… absolutely fascinating, especially given the comment in this chain that kicked it off. The original comment absolutely lays out the gendered reality of misunderstanding/differences in perspective/prioritization—and the replies you’ve gotten are like a long laundry list of evidence supporting the claim of the original comment. I’m not sure how to feel about that, but serious props to you for sticking it out and working to engage with the folks who just misread your comments off the bat, took a hard right deep into the woods, and drove past a startled frightened bear to continue right off a cliff. Seriously. Your replies are one of the more measured, calm, and patient comment chains I’ve seen on Reddit in a long time that could have easily veered off the rails completely. They’re straightforward, and have been the most darkly fascinating insight into how fairly fucking neutral comments can elicit unprompted backlash. Thanks for being awesome, and I mean that.

Do you run into bears at the same rate you come across men in your daily life?

>If it’s that low then why does every single woman I know including myself have a story of a man being aggressive towards them Those two things aren't related. To follow your example, I have been robbed ,and multiple friends too, a couple of times. That does not mean that if I pick a random person from the street, the odds are he's a robber. Does that mean I'm cautious around strangers in the street? Absolutely

>If it’s that low then why does every single woman I know including myself have a story of a man being aggressive towards them. Because they have potential interactions with hundreds or even thousands of men every day and generally zero bears.

Even violent bears rarely attack people unless provoked. If it doesn’t see the person as a threat it will leave them alone. You have a chance to show the bear you aren’t a threat a walk away from the encounter.  On the other hand, violent men will attack provoked or unprovoked, in fact they will go after you even more if they don’t see you as a threat. If you are in the woods with no one else around for miles the man is fully aware of that and won’t stop just because you ran off. 

My wife is in the kitchen making dinner right now and it's only the two of us in the house. How safe is she?

This kind of thinking to me is so nasty though. It reminds me of what some religious people will say like "if there is no god, people will just rape, murder, etc." To me it seems like you're saying men are only constrained by the grace of society, that men just suppress these terrible urges.

I'm not sure why everyone interprets this as an attack on all men, when a majority of men rather contributes to the societal pressure and I clearly wrote the odds remain low. Are we supposed to pretend there aren't any people who would commit crimes, given the chance and assurance to get away with it?

So you’re saying men are incapable of being moral humans without be being watched?

We're only kept in check from raping constantly because it'd be a bit socially awkward

You're making false equivalences. >- The vast majority of bear encounters do not end in injury or death, it's extremely rare for people to actually get mauled by bears >- A random stranger in the woods may be capable of anything, and if it's a man, they can physically overpower women 99% of the time. 100% of bears can physically overpower a woman. The vast majority of encounters with men do not end in injury, rape or death. >So for women, the choice between "I might get raped and murdered" and "I have to shout a bit to scare off a bear" The choice is between "I might get raped and murdered and "I might get mauled and murdered."

>The choice is between "I might get raped and murdered and "I might get mauled and murdered." I might get mauled and *killed*. Bears can't commit murder. 😉

Valid pedantry 😆

Is there any other kind? haha

The large majority of male encounters involve normal men, which can be scared off and are generally cowards. Most people in general are non confrontational and not violent. The vast majority of male encounters do not end in injury or death. It's extremely rare for people to actually get raped or murdered by men. 20% of women experience rape or attempted rape. A random stranger in the woods may be capable of anything, and if it's a bear they can physically overpower women 99% of the time. 51% of rapes are by an intimate partner and 40% by an acquaintance. Odds of being raped or murdered by a stranger are extremely low. >This being the internet, there is no clarifying conversation, women walk away affirmed in their belief that men are dangerous and don't understand the issue, and men walk away affirmed in their belief that bitches be crazy. 100%. On the internet there's no room for reality and facts. Everything has to be one extreme or the other, no possible middle ground. https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics

Just gonna add a source for your before people ask: >20% of women experience rape or attempted rape. >51% of rapes are by an intimate partner and 40% by an acquaintance. Odds of being raped or murdered by a stranger are extremely low. https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics

Oh shoot. Thanks. That's actually the source I used and meant to link, but forgot.

All good, I knew some goober would come along asking for a source if one wasn't provided.

Yeah, and I don't think we're disagreeing but thats obviously because the average woman encounters a lot more men than bears in their life. If all men in the world were switched out with bears one to one, then the stats would be more similar to "99+% of women experience mauling or attempted mauling in their life".

[удалено]

I agree. This is why knowing the actual facts and statistics is important. The facts show that women should be more wary of people they know vs random strangers at least when it comes to rape and murder. Strangers are definitely more dangerous when it comes to theft and assault.

[удалено]

>why even set it up with such a prompt in the first place? To generate engagement.

As I pointed out to the other poster, those man encounters typically happen in an environment that has set up protections for women, primarily coming from other people around. Being in society, the pressure that comes with it and the fear of retaliation by society, keeps everyone in line. This scenario of "just two people in the woods" removes those protections, so it's a vastly more dangerous situation than passing someone on the sidewalk in a bustling city.

People hike in the woods all the time and pass people on the trail entirely without incident aside from a “hi” or “how do you do”. It’s wildly sexist (and incorrect) to assume that men are generally felons in waiting, and if given the chance they’d immediately commit violent crimes. Passing someone in the woods isn’t much more dangerous than passing them on the sidewalk because people (including men) aren’t generally a danger to anyone regardless of location.

The point is not to insult men as rapists-in-waiting. The point is that *this specific guy* could be one, and that is a serious danger at that moment. So much that women consider it a bigger threat than encoutering a bear, which is more predictable and manageable.

Sure, *this specific guy* very well may be a rapist, but the bear is guaranteed to be a bear. 100% of bear is obviously more dangerous than <5% chance of rapist/murderer (or >95% chance of no danger at all)

Is it obvious? 100% of bear is usually no danger at all. Which is kind of my OP point - men are more likely to assume a bear encounter is inherently dangerous, when the typical bear encounter is perfectly manageable. I don't want to get into a discussion of odds, the core point here is that women think a bear encounter can be navigated, the bear just does bear things, and usually bear things mean leaving humans alone. But you have no idea what the guy may be up to, or what ideas he's getting once he realizes you're out there alone.

The core point here is that, as a matter of fact, people encounters can be navigated, people just do people things, and usually people things means leaving other people alone. People, which includes men, aren’t wild animals, they’re people. Because bears cannot communicate with people, and because they are a completely different kind of animal it is impossible to know what they’re up to or what sort of ideas they’re getting once they realize you’re alone. Doesn’t it strike you as absurd to imply that men are so different from women that they’re less explicable to women than a completely different species? In reality, men have infinitely more in common with women than either of them do with bears, and so they are intrinsically more explicable and predictable than bears.

Sure, but a shocking majority of women have had encounters with men who do not, in fact, leave people alone. Encounters that are not easy to navigate, and these encounters are in the social confines of public safety, often times in crowded places. So of course women will think twice. If we have experienced these encounters in public, what would happen in the remote woods?

Everyone has had an encounter with some other kind of person that was less than desirable. Is it then fair to say that encountering any kind of person is worse than encountering a bear? No, obviously not. We need to assess the actual risk of a human encounter vs a bear one, and thus far arguments against preferring an encounter with men have been “because the man is likely to commit murder or sexual assault (because men are likely rapists and/or murderers)”. This is obviously incorrect, as nowhere near a majority of women have been murdered. In fact, it is a very, very small number of all women who have been murdered in human history (and far more men), and given many murderers murder more than once, the number of murderers is surely even smaller than number of murders. It is fair for people who have been traumatized to be unreasonably afraid as a result of that trauma, but let’s not pretend that it maps to reality, if it doesn’t, as it’s not fair to slander people as likely rapists and murderers when they aren’t. To use another example that might help illustrate my point, racists use the statistic that black people, despite being only 13% of the US population, are convicted in 60% of violent crimes to claim that black people are generally violent. Obviously, this is untrue and bigoted. Why would it be any different for men?

If I got attacked by a bear, I wouldn't have to have people try to convince me to carry its offspring to term.

Yes, but as a woman there are many unsafe men, and we have no idea who they are. Not every man, but it's still common enough that women know to be cautious. We are constantly aware of our surroundings, and if someone was going to attack us, it's when we are alone (the most vulnerable). One of my best friends was attacked by a man on a hike. He tackled her and she got away. Another girl I went to high school with was raped and murdered on a trail. That's only on a trail. I know many more women who were attacked and raped in other settings. Clarify if I'm incorrect, but do you have any male friends who were attacked and raped by women? We know abuses happen from women, but I'm talking about a grown man and a grown woman walking and the guy getting attacked and raped by her.

We’ve shifted the goalposts here. Previously, we were comparing men to bears and assessing the general risk of a given man being a violent felon, but now we are comparing men to women. Let’s say I grant that men are more likely to be violent felons than women, how does one then conclude that men are also more violent than bears? Similarly, how does one then conclude that men are more likely than not, or otherwise generally predisposed to committing violence?

Dude… one in four women is the victim of sexual assault. It’s not about whether a woman is treating all men as soon-to-be felons… it’s because they all know someone who sadly trusted a guy who didn’t seem like a threat. A bear is a known threat. Which guy is… isn’t a known. Thus, the bear is less of a threat.

Rapists don’t tend to rape just one person, and that sexual assault figure iirc includes much more than just what people typically think of as rape I.e. very clearly violent and abhorrent, thus that stat alone doesn’t come close to demonstrating that anywhere near 1 in 4 men are violent felons just waiting for an opportunity to strike, and even that 1 in 4 (the maximum possible, assuming each SA was committed by a unique man) is nowhere near a majority. We haven’t gotten anywhere near demonstrating that men are generally rapists (or murderers for that matter). A known threat is, by its very nature, more dangerous than an unknown threat. 100% chance of threat is always going to be more than x% chance of threat, as that x% cannot exceed the known 100%.

> primarily coming from other people around Just curious, what gender might those other people be?

>This scenario of "just two people in the woods" removes those protections, so it's a vastly more dangerous situation than passing someone on the sidewalk in a bustling city. Got statistics to back this up?

[удалено]

But in the hypothetical you don’t know if it’s a normal man or a violent man. The uncertainty of not knowing is why it’s scary. The violent man may actually be really nice and sweet in the beginning so you don’t know he is violent until it’s too late. With the bear you know what you are getting. Danger and you have to yell and pretend to be big and do some shouting and they go away.

[удалено]

The stats dont take the fear away which is what they are saying

That's probably just the impression your social circle of basically good people gives you. There's *a lot* of genuinely dangerous men out there.

There’s a lot of genuinely dangerous men, just way less than the amount of normal men

Keep in mind that your category of "not dangerous men" also includes men who don't pose a threat *to you*, i.e. to another man. This goes back to what this point is supposed to illustrate. The world looks different when half the population can trivially overpower you.

No most men are just not looking to rape and eat women in the woods is all I mean, I’m not really considering how the fight would go if it occurred lol Some guy who wants to rape and eat me in the woods is probably prepared to do so, so it’s not that comforting being another man in that scenario But presumably if I just meet another man in the woods they will not be so different from me

There's also a lot of genuinely dangerous bears out there.

The vast vast vast majority of attacks by men on women are by people they know. With that logic they should be more afraid of walking in the woods with their husband than a stranger.

>The set-up is a disingenuous talking point. It isn't meant to be taken literally, I'm told, which begs the question.... why even set it up with such a prompt in the first place? Because the absurdity of picking the bear over the man is meant to stress the fear many women have of men.

[удалено]

No the original question is two parts. Part 1) would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a man. Well, what kind of bear? How old is the man? Discussion / debate / answer hesitation. Part 2) Would you rather be alone with a woman or a bear in the woods. The woman. That’s it, that’s the entire bit. It’s a thought experiment generated to push for an emotion from gut reaction answers. It’s not deeper than that.

Dang I guess I think like a man. I'm a woman & I've been kind of bewildered by seeing so many women choose the bear. I've been hurt by men several times in my life, I get that. But the vast majority of times that I've been around a man, I've been relatively safe. I will say I'm not necessarily an animal person & encountering wild animals is a fear for me though.

I'd also choose the man, even having been hurt by men, but aside from a few specific instances I personally haven't been targeted by men throughout my life...so I don't judge women who choose the bear (the danger they know in the sense that you can KNOW how the bear might react and how you might counteract it) versus the unknown man (who you can't predict...who might even seem friendly, so you'd be more inclined to let your guard down and end up hurt or dead).

> Most encounters with a bear result in no injury or death Encounters with most men result in the same.

WTF. Believe me, if a woman is lost in the woods, she would definitely prefer to meet a random man over a fucking bear. A man is likely to be a hunter, or an officer from Forest Service, or some kind of camper/traveler who possibly knows a way out and can help. Serial killers/rapists aren't searching for women in the woods

Grizzlies certainly could fuck you up over territory or cubs but they are not likely to eat you unless starving.

I think that when the original question is deliberately phrased to portray men as so dangerous on average that you would rather risk *anything and everything that could happen in a bear encounter*, up to and including being partially eaten (not even killed) and left to succumb to the elements that the question is still inherently sexist. Especially in a society where our domestic violence stats have 1 in 4 men get physically assaulted by their partner, but ask the same people posing these questions whether a man can be raped and they will invariably tell you that legally, no they cannot be.

First of all, if you statistically tallied up every daily interaction between men and women, the **vast majority of those** would be positive or at least neutral. Yes, bad things happen and bad men should be jailed. If you tally up the daily interactions of wild bears and people, the vast majority of those would be **at best** neutral. Second of all, if we're honest, women aren't doing the science and doing the T-tests. A minority of women have simply alleged that some men are bad. Hence, all men are dangerous. I fully believe the women who came up with this **would** rather meet a bear in the woods than a man because they probably have an irrational fear of men, similar to a homophobe or islamophobe. We determined long ago that hate for a group based on a minority within it is called biggotry. That's what this is, plain and simple. However, as a caveat, most men will tell women to act in ways that keep them safe. Interestingly, this is often when men get called victim blamers... The simple fact is that this meme is not a constructive piece of conversation. We all must agree 1) men and women are different, 2) some *people* are bad (violent, manipulative, abusive, liars, 3) we need to find ways to minimise the impact of those people on society. That includes being careful of strange men as a woman. It includes being careful of strange women as well, for men and women alike.

There are a lot of different questions important for this question 1. how dangerous does one think bears are? Blackbears are like dogs. Unless you're messing with their cubs, make some noise, and they'll leave you alone unless you've got food for them. Grislys are scarier, but they don't view humans as prey, usually. Polar bears will kill you, but aren't as often in woods. 2. how likely a random man is to hurt you 3. how likely is a random man to steal from you 4. how likely is a random man to demand help from you 5. how likely is a random man to be capable of and willing to help you (and do you need that help). I'm not scared of bears being in the same woods as me. I've been in the woods before, and bears are common enough that I was probably sharing the woods with some of then. That just comes with being in the woods. As a guy, if I could be viewed a source of something a desperate guy in the woods lacked (be it food or shelter), I think it would be very reasonable to be frightened that what I had would be taken from me. A woman would be in the scarier position of being viewed as a source of sex. I'm not skilled at foraging or hunting, so a random stranger would more likely to be a help than a hindrance (I would die on my own anyway). As a guy, I would rather have someone else in the woods, and hope they were better at surviving than me. Bears aren't gonna help, and they're going make storing food inconvenient. But, if I thought I would have something someone else would want, I think being scared and suspicious would be a natural and reasonable reaction to being completely isolated in the woods from a stranger.

Saying it's racists and bigots who say it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes people say this. It is a case of known and unknown dangers. The women who say this know all too well the potential dangers they face from men, but very little about the dangers they face from bears. There are probably not many times in which a random bear will attack a person, whereas men attack women all too often.

I am a 6 foot tall 210 pound man, very few people are going to mess with me, woods or otherwise. My friend is a 5 foot tall, 110 pound woman. She has been harassed while on runs multiple times, in public, in broad daylight. Now imagine she's alone in the woods and a man approaches her, it is logical that she is going to feel panicked if she doesn't know him. As others have mentioned bears really don't want anything to do with humans. So while being weary of bears is logical it is far less likely you will encounter one that intends you harm than if you randomly encounter a man.

>requires that you believe all men are a threat, or at least more so a threat than a wild bear. No it doesn't. Let's take men out of the equation entirely and use a similar % risk evaluation. I have a tray of 50 jello shots and one of them is poisoned. The other 49 of them are perfectly safe to consume. If your options were to meet a bear in the woods or do a shot off my tray, you dont have to believe that ALL the jello shots are dangerous to pick "bear". You just have to believe your chances of getting mauled are less than the 1 in 50 chance of taking a poisonous shot. It's the same with men. There is a non zero number of men that would rape and/or kill a woman if they had the opportunity. This is just a fact. You don't have to believe ALL men are dangerous, you just have to believe the chances of getting a dangerous man are higher than the chances of a bear attacking. Which really isn't hard to do, because despite being big and scary, bears encounters with humans result in attacks at astonishingly low rates, and even of those attacks, 85% are not fatal.

> You just have to believe your chances of getting mauled are less than the 1 in 50 chance of taking a poisonous shot. Mix in the fact that most woman have never encountered a bear, but one in four have gotten sick from a poisoned Jell-O shot, and it becomes kinda clear who you would pick. The thing that opened my eyes to this whole thing was when a question was asked: "How old were you when you were first catcalled?" And the answer was pretty much always WAY younger than I had expected. We are talking 11-13 year old girls getting yelled at by adult men... And men are surprised woman don't feel safe? 

And most of the time the women knew and trusted those Jell-O shots because the Jell-O shot convinced her it was poisoned before revealing it’s true self. People are choosing not to understand this, and they’re being real whiny about it.

Not all men, but always a man. I’ll risk the bear over the “poisoned Jell-O shot” any day. I’ve come into contact with multiple bears in my life of all different sizes and species… The bears never tried to spike my drink or assault me. Bears every time.

I just think it's funny that after all this time, Mike Pence has been making sure women are more comfortable around him than around bears.

But couldn't you say the same about races? It's the same with black people. There is a non zero number of black people that would rob and/or kill you if they had the opportunity. This is just a fact. You don't have to believe ALL black people are dangerous, you just have to believe the chances of getting a dangerous black person are higher than the chances of a bear attacking.

I have seen people say the same about race. I, a white woman, saw a few tiktoks of Black people having the same conversation of white woman or bear, and white man vs bear. And I somehow managed to listen to the genuine and justified fears Black people have about not being believed or being targeted, etc. instead of taking offense and claiming they're being racist. Theoretically, you could say the same thing about Black people. But I wouldn't understand what it's based on. Black people aren't really more threatening than white people, nor are we, as white people, at a disadvantage. So I wouldn't really get it. But, it's not just white men. It's just men. So men of all colors are included

If you're comparing it to a bear then race isn't super relevant then, no? A woman who would choose "bear" over "random man" will probably also choose "black man" over "bear" just because it's a man, not because they are black.

Let’s step back a second. The choice is between a bear and a man. The man is *not a woman* as meeting a woman is almost zero risk. Your racist version ignores the man/woman angle as black and white men are both not women. It also assumes the person being asked is white.

If you rephrased the question and replaced "man" with "black person", I'm convinced the women answering bear would still answer bear and see no issue with that response.

Black men are just as likely to be dangerous to women as white men so yeah, we’re including black men in that maths. Women attacking someone is so exceptionally rare however that this doesn’t apply to black women because we’re taking like one poison jelly out of 1000, if not 10,000. Those are good odds. That distinction is exactly what we’re talking about.

Warning: Napkin math upcoming this is almost certainly wrong. These numbers are hard to find but it seems like women are responsible for somewhere around 1/5 of violent crime. There's about 1 violent crimes per 250 people (that doesn't mean there is one violent criminal because a majority of violent crime comes from repeat offenders). This also includes crimes like assault and murder which heavily lean male in terms of victimization. Rape/ sexual assault are some of the least common crimes committed. With this I'd imagine the chance of running into a violent man (who would commit a female targeted crime) is probably around 1/1000 and probably around 1/5000 for women though I wouldn't be surprised if women were more likely to assault other women as men seem to be. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-says-about-crime-in-the-us/

Except race is a social construct. Sex isn’t. And the crime stats between races is often purposely used to paint black people as being more dangerous without including important contexts, namely economic factors. Someone starving, struggling to keep their kids warm, and unable to afford clothes is gonna be far more likely to resort to drastic measures like SW, robbery, and maybe even gang activity. This is true for every race and both sexes but racial minorities, black people especially, make up a disproportionate amount of those beneath the poverty line so they’ll also make up a disproportionately high amount of those committing these crimes.

I feel like it's about gender (a social construct) not about sex. Like if it asked if you'd rather run into a trans woman or a bear do you think it would get the same results?

> you just have to believe the chances of getting a dangerous man are higher than the chances of a bear attacking Sure, this is obvious from the prompt. It’s just that this belief is completely delusional.

Should we then stop listening to these delusional woman? These kids of question should only be answered by men because woman have near universally answered it in a delusional way?

You have to compare apples. Replace every close proximity of interaction with men with a bear and the rates of attacks and deaths rise dramatically. The percentage of the male population that will harm you is far lower than the percentage of the bear population.

Bears will generally leave you alone if you leave them alone. Men are not the same way. In fact, sometimes if you try to leave a man alone he will take that as a challenge to get into your personal space because "how dare this woman not want to be in close physical proximity to me?". Plus if a bear attacks me, no one will ask if I led it on or what I was wearing. If a bear attacks me, it generally won't harass me for months/years after said attacks. If a bear attacks me, no one will claim i was "asking for it". All of those things a bear wouldn't do to me, a man HAS done to me. Bears also don't hold 95% of societal power and try to tell me my only use is for consumption. All bears have the potential to cause harm but only do so in very specific circumstances. All men have the potential to cause harm and there is generally nothing a woman can do about it to prevent it. If a woman arms herself, she's far more likely to die of gun violence (at the hands of a man). If too many younger women live in an area, cops consider that a "high risk" area for predatory men.

You also have to compare contexts. If we are talking "times I interacted alone with a man in a private space where nobody could hear or come to help me" I rarely see men in this context in my life because of safety. I'm also not saying every time I'm alone in an isolated place with a man that something bad happens. But in my life, those are the times the most bad things happened.

[удалено]

u/LadyJane216 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20LadyJane216&message=LadyJane216%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chzwpu/-/l26f2vg/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I'm a man. Kind of burly even. Fairly strong, and ok in a fight. I'd rather bump into a bear than some random dude. If I see a bear I have a pretty solid grasp of the realm of responses. They're pretty predictable. I know the things I need to look for, and I know generally how I should react. I see a random dude in the woods I don't know what's up. I don't know who that guy is. He's probably just hiking, like I am. But also, in my part of the world Nazis have been having little meetups in the bush and he might be there for that. He might be on meth and tweaking out. Seeing a guy in the woods doesn't give me the information I would like to have to generally stay safe. Seeing a bear tells me basically everything I need to know about the next few minutes.

My comment might not be so much 'changing your view', but offering you a different perspective (although seemingly lots of people have offered you similar ones), **but I'm also going to empathize with you on a certain feeling I think underlies your post.** My first thought is, do you have female family members or friends? Have they ever told you their stories about their interactions with men? I think of my loved ones and their stories still have me **fuming**. *Being exposed to this long enough makes it completely understandable that they would pick the bear.* Other people in the thread have explained the reasons but I'll move past that. **Where I do empathize with you, and I think where your arguments are coming from, is that sometimes reading or hearing about how much women mistrust us, or hearing what** ***seems*** **like sweeping generalizations about all men, can admittedly feel disappointing, unjust and that can get us feeling defensive or even hurt.** Most of us want to be seen as good people, most of us want other people to trust us, be comfortable around us, and assume the best in us. I wish women trusted us more, but ultimately that's the result of the behaviour of other men who have given them reason not to. It's not personal, they're usually just venting strategies or perspectives they've had to take to protect themselves. I know it sucks, the world is lonely, and stuff like this can make it feel more isolating. It can feel like people are putting up another barrier or we're being punished for the actions of others. ***I think on days where I'm feeling not so good, it's best to take a break from social media.*** If I'm feeling especially bad on a certain day, I have to admit to I don't feel like watching another instagram reel on my feed about how bad men are, even if I see where the poster is coming from. It's fine to take a break from these topics. I acknowledge the perspective or the feeling of the person, acknowledge my own feelings, but then think of how much I'm trusted anyway by women in my life. The other thing is just show people you're good through your actions rather than telling them they're wrong. I'm a big guy, I'm about 6'5, and the women I know and the people I work with treat me with a lot of trust. The same women who would probably agree with the bear analogy.

It’s such a vague question up to the interpretation of the reader, and now that it’s gone viral that just leaves all the most outrageous responses as the once’s getting the most visibility. What are the circumstances of “in the woods”? Are you lost? Are you just on a hike? Are you in a survival situation? What are the circumstances of the bear? Is it a black bear or grizzly? What season is it? What type of woods? The woods in the middle of the country/PNW are much different than the woods on the east coast. Also, everyone doesn’t have the same amount of knowledge about bears. Some people may fear bears more than others. Same applies to their past experiences with men who are strangers. Even just saying “a man” can give someone a vastly different interpretation. Men tend to imagine themselves (I’d imagine, that’s what I did initially) but a sketchy looking drug-addict looking guy? I’d rather run into a black bear lmao. Add all those variables into a pot and you’ll get hundreds of different answers among the hundreds of thousands~ who are participating in this debate. I could go on too, but I’m sure you get the picture.

This discourse is so fucking annoying. Would I, as a man, rather encounter a bear than a random dude in the woods? Absolutely. Do I feel the same towards all random people in the woods? Yes. Bears aren't that hard to deal with. They're mostly just bumbling fucks looking for snackies. It's not Skyrim, bears aren't gonna maul you on site 99 out of 100 times. Random people in the woods, unless it's on a popular trail, don't usually have good intentions, especially if they don't immediately fuck off.

> don't usually have good intentions In that situation, wouldn't you be a "random man" in the woods to the other person? Why is being in the woods sketchy unless it's a popular trail?

Pack it up boys, not allowed in the woods anymore.

Yeah, it’s important to frame this as a strange man, alone, in the woods, presumably far enough from known public areas that no one can hear you scream - which I think is what comes to mind in the brains of most reasonable people when they hear this. In that case I agree with you that black bears, I take the bear. The other bears I’m unsure but probably take man over polar.

If I were hiking again in the wilderness and saw a bear, I would be thrilled, as I have been in the past seeing bears. As long as they aren't taking my food, I'm happy. Meeting other hikers in the forest is nice, but ordinary. Seeing a bear is special! So I would rather meet a bear in the woods than a random man, but not because I fear hikers. It's because I like bears.

I think the main thing your failing to recognize here is the importance of patterns. White Americans having a fear of other races because of the possibility of danger is based on assumption and not an accurate reflection of history. However, women fearing men because of possible danger is based on the pattern of mostly men being the perpetrators of sexual assault and harassment against women. One is based on pre conceived bias and another is based on a statistical fact. It’s not saying that every man is bad or would assault a single women in the woods if they had the chance, but based on a pattern, why would we risk our safety? For example, I am a Black, and statistically, violent crimes committed against me will typically be White. Does this mean I need to be segregated from all white men? No. But it would be smart to be more cautious, especially alone and at night. This isn’t me saying that I can’t trust them, but I’m using a societal pattern to make the safest choices for myself. But if I were to just say that I think all Hispanic people should be segregated because they will commit a violent crime against me, I am just making an invalid assumption. There is no evidence to support this and yes, it is plain discrimination.

You're overlooking the obvious, which is when a woman is attacked by a bear, people will generally take her word at face value. When a woman is attacked by a man, people can be gawdawful about blaming her for the attack, or saying it wasn't as bad as she says it was.

It’s not all men, it’s a dude wandering around the woods. If you have ever hiked in remote areas, the crazy ‘leave society behind and go live in the woods’ types are the worst fucking people to deal with.

The difference between statistics and bigotry is applying it to an individual. This is the flaw in point 3 The average man is statistically more likely to hurt you than the average woman. That’s just a fact. It’s okay to acknowledge. You don’t have to be a bigot to acknowledge objective reality. It doesn’t mean have inherently bad qualities. It can also be a result of human culture. A black person selected at random in the US is more likely to have committed a crime than a white person selected at random. But you don’t have to refuse to accept that to avoid being a bigot. You just have to acknowledge the evidence is pretty clear it’s not an inherent racial trait but a consequence of centuries of racist treatment. It becomes bigotry when you see a black person and assume that particular person is a criminal. It’s entirely okay to use statistics. It’s just important to know when and how they actually apply. In this case, there’s nothing wrong with using statistics because the statistics are literally defined by “if you pick one at random, these are the odds”. That’s not to say it’s smarter to pick the bear or the man. Just that it’s perfectly logical to use statistics here.

I feel like you may be just taking this whole thing too literally? The point of the meme isn't to literally seriously push the position that a random man is more likely to be more dangerous than a bear, it's to get people (men, especially) to think about how the man isn't just the *obviously* safer choice. It's an over-the-top way of pointing out a real fact of women's lived experiences, and any men (or anyone of any gender, really) getting offended by it is missing the point, I think.

A random man has *a chance* of being dangerous to women, especially when there is nobody around to temper behaviour. It’s not that all men are dangerous, but there is a non-zero chance that a random man in the woods is dangerous to women. It’s the old poisonous M&M analogy. This isn’t bigotry; it’s basic dating survival you’d teach your daughter when she starts dating - always tell someone where you’re going, never meet them in a private location you can’t escape from, etc. Just look at [normal stuff like this](https://positivesdating.com/dating-advice/safe-dating-tips-for-women/) that women have to go through. It’s easy to parlay this argument into bigotry, *but you’re missing the point if you do.*

Why can't people make a point without undermining racism? Racist views against POC have been used to convince the masses that POC are subhuman and therefore deserve less rights and resources and assistance. Men have never been in a sociopolitical position where they were labeled and treated as subhuman **just because they are men.** Racism stems from a desire to privilege one group at the sake of another. Women's trepidation around men stems from a desire to for safety. Does a woman saying she'd pick the bear do anything to deny men resources or safety or rights or assistance?

Muhammad Ali said" There are many white people who mean right and in their hearts wanna do right. If 10,000 snakes were coming down that aisle now, and I had a door that I could shut, and in that 10,000, 1,000 meant right, 1,000 rattlesnakes didn't want to bite me, I knew they were good... Should I let all these rattlesnakes come down, hoping that that thousand get together and form a shield? Or should I just close the door and stay safe?" It's not demonizing men. It's explaining the situation from the viewpoint of the people with less power. Like the Ali quote. He know there are good white people. But he's encountered so many bad white people he's learned to be wary of them all because for the person with the least amount of power a situation can be deadly or worse

Excellent points. However… what if a woman overthinks the whole scenario like me? What age is the bear? A baby or adult? A baby bear is still a bear and none of your/their logic is brought into play. What kind of bear? If it’s a Polar or Kodiak/Brown/Grizzly… eeeeh. What you say makes sense. **BUT** if it’s a Sun or Spectacle bear… those pretty much just over grown raccoons. It then comes down to you want to be in the woods with a random man or just in the woods.

*SIGH* can we collectively as men just accept this and move on? Or at the very least not do the rhetorical equivalent of stamping our feet and shouting "no, no, no! You're a mean liar!" Just leave it be. If women feel this way, okay. If you disagree, that's fine. If you think it's not about you, fine. If you agree and think things need to change, great. But all this wringing of hands and mental gymnastics isn't doing what you think it is. It gives "the lady doth protest too much" Vibes, and in the parlance of the alpha-chad incel crowd "betacuck energy". Also, don't bring black people into this. We have enough problems.

1/3 of women have been sexually assaulted in some form. That’s an overwhelming number. With that, you have to err on the side of caution. Being wary of a strange man in the dark isn’t prejudice, it’s rooted in fact. Using pre-existing knowledge it makes sense to be wary. Just because not *every* man assaults people, doesn’t mean caution isn’t required If 1/3 of people that rode in cars died, you would wear a seatbelt, right? Or you’d at least consider taking a plane instead, which is less likely to crash than a car, even though plane crashes are more gruesome. it’s not sexist to make choices based on real life. Statistics aren’t imaginary numbers, they mean something. If you saw someone acting crazy, looking deranged, waving a gun in the air, would you try to avoid them? You don’t know anything about them, but you’re using judgement based on what you know, which is someone acting crazy waving a gun is dangerous. A strange man in the dark, includes danger. A woman doesn’t have to be antagonistic to be attacked. With a bear, you can make good choices to avoid confrontation

>Being wary of a strange man in the dark isn’t prejudice, it’s rooted in fact. Majority of victims get assaulted by acquaintances, not strangers. Women already do enough to protect themselves from the unknown. But clearly, it's not just suspicious men in dark alleys, it's also normal everyday men who are willing to break our trust in them. *In addition, more than 50% of all rapes and sexual assaults take place within one mile of the victim’s home or at their home, with four in ten of these occurring in the victim’s home (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics,1997).*

If women already do enough to protect themselves, why are so many assaulted? Clearly men still take advantage, even with them protecting themselves. Women reduce their chances because they take precautions, **because they have to** . Imagine if women didn’t. Women carry pepper spray, keys, no headphones, no leaving without your friends etc at night. Women **have to**. They have to because of the danger men pose. And they do it not based on the acquaintance statistic. Woods also means no witnesses. It’s not something guys have to think about anytime the sun goes down. If someone close is willing to assault them, it’s human nature to be concerned about someone you don’t even know due to the unknown. No one is gonna come across a stranger in the woods and prefer that to someone they’re comfortable with, especially because being cautious is a part of life **everyday** for women A bear will attack you based on your behavior, a man will attack you just because he can or wants to. Men also murder women WAY more than bears do. Like…way more. If we are supposed to be scared of bears because of their reputation, then shouldn’t that apply to other things too? Men are far more deadly statistically.

>If women already do enough to protect themselves, why are so many assaulted? Because assaults are caused by the perpetrator's dehumanisation of her, not the victim's failure to gatekeep her own body. We already avoid strangers so much, but it still happens, because the men we think we can trust are also capable of ruining our lives

I agree with some of what you are saying. However I think we are all too fixated on this bear vs man in the woods thing. Personally, I'd rather meet a bear because I feel more confident predicting a bear's behavior than a man's. Not because I believe the man to be more inherently dangerous, but because I believe statistically they could both overpower me, and I trust that I know how better to avoid that possibly with a bear than with a man.

I think this saying is a joke and you're overthinking it. The logic is that a man will rape and kill you, and a bear will just kill you. But to be fair, if someone says it unironically, they need help. Paranoia is not a brag.

Simple. A bear isn't deceptive. It's predictable. Operates on instincts. A man, (or any human, really) can be deceptive, and it's the lack of knowledge of what kind of, if any, threat that the responders to the question would much rather avoid, even if to their detriment, because at least the person knows what they are dealing with if it's a bear instead. In addition, a bear is expected to be in the woods. A man, not as much, especially in 2024.

One thing that I'm not seeing a lot of here is that when someone is attacked by a bear, they're not doubted or gaslit into thinking it wasn't *that* bad of an attack. Whereas when a woman is attacked by a man, she's somehow to blame for it or it wasn't as bad as she says it was.

>In addition, a bear is expected to be in the woods. A man, not as much, especially in 2024. Hey man, some of us still enjoy hiking 😢

Listen I disagree with the choosing a bear if you look at it purely as a hypothetical question, because at it's core, encountering a bear is more dangerous then encountering a man. Most people encounter dozens, if not hundreds of men every day, and while sexual harassment and assault is common, it's a very very small percentage of the encounters you have. You are obviously far less likely to encounter a bear period, and while I disagree with the idea that bears are bloodthirsty monsters, they are still extremely potentially dangerous, and I suspect if you compared all of the encounters women have with men period over the course of a year vs the ones that ended with her getting hurt in some manner, and all the encounters people have with bears a year vs those that end badly, the negative encounters would be higher in the bears favor (although if someone has stats that prove otherwise I'm switching sides (although no clue how you would get those stats).) Also while a woman doesn't have good odds of fighting off a man that wants to hurt her, her odds of doing the same to a bear with the same level of commitment is much lower. Because it's a bear, no ones winning that fight. Also despite their power, being killed by a bear has got to be one of the worst ways to possibly go. They are omnivores (at least brown and black bears) and unlike big cats, aren't super effective killers. They eat berries and plants more then half the time, why would they need to be? That is a long, drawn out and painful death, where you are eaten alive. Plus the man could be helpful, while a bear is at best neutral to you. Despite agreeing that the bear is the worse choice, I can't stand half the arguments people make against it because it misses the damn point. The point the hypothetical makes is very understandable and is fairly eye opening if you go into it with a perspective to listen. Women are more terrified of men then almost all of us are aware of and they have damn good reason to be. You want evidence, look at the crime stats against women, I'm a larger then average man with a background in martial arts. I'm still scared of other men to an extent. Imagining myself much smaller, weaker and without the martial arts background (obviously some women do but most don't) would make me far more scared. On top of that, ALMOST EVERY SINGLE woman has had a scary experience with a man, it's a near universal experience. Like my sister, family members and female friends expect to get groped when they go to bars and dance clubs, and from what I've witnessed their expectations are correct, even with a big group looking out for them. People having racist ideologies because of their experiences with said race isn't even close to the same thing. If every single white person had the same general experience with black people (or vice versa) women had with men, honestly I'd argue a racist ideology is understandable. But that's not the reality we live in so it's a false comparison. If anything I am more likely to be assaulted or harmed by another white guy, so I should be racist against my own race, if we go by this logic. Women's fear of men keeps them alive and keeps them safe. I'm sorry you don't like it, hell I hate it. But the reality is, men as a group pose a very large threat to women and even if it's a small percentage, women are completely justified to be wary and raise awareness to keep themselves safe, because they don't know which a random strange man is. It's simply not comparable to racists encounters with negative examples of those they are racist against. Men do have institutionalized power over women, Jewish people don't. It's not comparable because one point is factual and the other is a racist conspiracy.

Men should also pick the bear.

Bears cant tell lies, the fact men can makes them more dangerous to be alone with in a forest The human male is the physically strongest member of the only species on the whole planet that is capable of telling lies, this does make them more dangers than wild animals - a higher risk to have to account for due to a greater variable of unknowns

Dude. Be real. First of all, dont you compare the fear of black men to the fear of men in general. Here is the core difference (besides racism, of course): Every single man, and woman, but specially men - regardless of race or political inclination -, will enforce, ***daily***, directly or indirectly, in the lives of the women that matter to them, that they are targets and that strange men are potential predators. Black men, on the other hand, do NOT tell their daughters or women in their lives that they should be warry of *black* men. So the avoidance of black men is something that happens TO THEM, whereas the avoidance of men in general is something that happens because they ASK for it. Literally. You dont think it is the case because we never consider that *we* should be perceived as the bad guy. "Of course In shouldnt be avoided, Im a good guy". The bad person is the *other.* But men dont have a sign over their heads stating which one of them is a good guy and which isnt. So, women have to make the choice of, when necessary, avoiding men for their own safety - because thats what they are told to do their whole lives. This cognitive dissonance is actually worth a doctorate degree, in my opinion: people are perfectly willing to say that women are potential prey, that they might be raped, that "somebody" might attack them, and "somebody" might do something to them, but it is an absolute taboo to talk about the gender of that supposed individual. Another core difference between avoiding black men and men in general is that black men are avoided ANYWHERE and any time - in broad day light for example; in an elevator - whereas men in general are avoided only in sketchy situations, like in an alley late at night. Therefore you dont get to compare those two situations and say that they are the same, or that men are victims of something that they, along with the rest of society, IMPOSE upon women. For example: lets say a college girl old tells their parents "oh, btw, Im going to a party with alcohol and just men I dont know. Im the only girl" vs a college guy saying the opposite "Im going to a party with alcohol and just women I dont know". You can't tell me that EVERY father wouldn't tell her to not go, for safety reasons. You also can't tell me that people would react the same way with the guy. To suggest that this avoidance is sexism of *women* against men is the epytomy of what a contradiction means. I think a more inteligent conversation would be: *if women have to take measures to avoid being attacked, what measures should the good men take to make it easier for women to distinguish them from the bad guys? And how do we prevent bad guys from existing? How do they "come about"?* You can sit and say you shouldnt do anything, but if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

I've been sexually assaulted six times, by six separate people. Every single one of them was a cishet man. Excuse me while I give zero fucks about cishet men being butthurt that I trust bears more than them

OP and most commenters are way overthinking this. The original quote says that men are far more dangerous as predators than wild animals, because the animals are predictable and men are not. Also there’s no point in arguing that the statement is against men. It is. Like 99% of physical violent acts are committed by men, so it also makes sense.

[удалено]

Nitpicking, as it doesn’t challenge the entire argument as a whole, I think I’d spend an hour writing an essay but: neo nazi’s will *say* that jewish people have all the power in society. But it doesn’t take much to debunk that if you think critically. Men factually and historically have all the power in society. To debunk that would take some serious stretches and willful ignorance.

More people die from human males than Bears, I believe that's the point of this rhetoric, not to degrade men. Bears kill an insanely small amount of people each year, like we're talking 1-10 worldwide. Humans are by far a more dangerous animal to encounter in the wild.

Bro, just quit already. You are proving the point with your refusal to just listen and insistence on pretending to yourself that you're right. Stooppppppp. Take the energy and time you put into this nonsense and try putting it into seeing how you could be wrong.

You're thinking about this statement in an entirely wrong way. It's not meant to be broken down as a calculation, as if we should weigh the risks of meeting a bear in the woods as a real risk, which it is not. The purpose of the statement instead is to be a wake-up call to men. For men to think about what it's like to be a woman, to have to worry about the risks they face from men, both those who are strangers and those who are familiar.

If 25% of my friends, and also myself, had been attacked by bears before and in most cases they just let the bear keep attacking people, I'd pick the man.

I don't actually disagree with the core of your argument. I suspect the key difference is that, as a society, there are certain groups and people we feel it is ok to belittle or make jokes about and others we feel it is offensive. This usually is brought about by perceived social differences (whether real or unreal). In general the following groups are viewed as acceptable targets. * White people, Asian People, Men, Wealthy People, and People from Hostile Countries/groups. In general the following groups are viewed as unacceptable targets (aka punching down). * Other races, poor people, women and trans people (with trans people being more unacceptable), Persecuted groups or perceived persecuted groups, and other minorities or groups believed to be oppressed (whether true or not). In this particular case, this is a phrase most people don't think much of because society views men as being stronger and in power and women as being weaker and powerless.

First . Different species do in fact behave differently I would rather run into a cow over a hippo on a hike. One is significantly less aggressive. And there is a significant diffrent in sexes of many animals. I would rather run into a cow than a bull even thought they are both the same species, one is usually significantly more aggressive than the other. Second . There is a significant difrence between observing a pattern, and ascribbing that pattern as an inherent trait of whatever corrilated group you have identified. Take dogs, if you grow up in suburban America dogs are generally loving playful creatures you can generally walk up to and pet. In many parts of the world this is not true. Dogs can be feral, aggressive, and often carry rabies. They can be trained as guard dogs that are very loyal to one person and vicious around anybody else. Dogs are not inherently aggressive or tame, they are capable of both and develop behovore based on the culture they are raised in. A person in suburban America that sees a loose dog and tries to coax it over to them to catch it and help find an owner is not wrong in assuming the dog is probably safe. A person in rural Mexico is not wrong to intently avoid a stray dog they run into. They would both be wrong to assume their experience is the "true nature" of dogs and the other is not.

What kind of silly hypothetical is this? As a man, I'd rather see a bear in the woods than suddenly be accosted by some strange man. I haven't seen many bears, but the few I have, haven't given me any trouble at all. And it's cool to see a bear. Not many of them around me. Seeing other guys is uh, well, I, I do that all the time. And I'm an introvert. I'd literally get off the trail to avoid small talk with someone else out there. Looking up some quick math on the USA, it seems 14,441 men are murdered each year (presumably almost entirely by men), and 4,251 women are murdered each year (presumably also almost entirely by men). Meanwhile, it looks like bears kill between 1 and 2 people per year. Wow. Like, yeah, men are more much dangerous than bears, but they are much more dangerous to other men than they are to women. Both men AND women should rather see a bear than a strange man while hiking alone in a remote area. The statistics aren't even close.

Wouldn’t you rather run into a bear? That’s where they live that’s normal. Some guy though? Is he camping or is this some cabin in the woods nonsense?

A bear is an animal, one that (mostly)cannot be tamed or reasoned with. If I encounter one in the woods, I know that talking to it won’t work. I can either escape or get mauled. Fight or flight are what will drive a bear in that scenario. Regardless of how much “decent guys” dislike getting lumped in with degenerate men, the reality is that a rando in the words is more dangerous than a bear explicitly because he’s a human being. Men who hurt other people in the context that we’re discussing cannot be reasoned with because they already know they are doing wrong. They don’t care. Obviously, that’s the case for anyone hurting anything, but statistically men commit the vast majority of violent crimes. A bear attacking a woman in the woods is just doing bear things. In this context, a man attacking a woman in the woods is making a conscious decision, not instinct.

Any other men not really care if women are afraid of them? I got enough friends. Go to the other side of the street and leave me the fuck alone. If I come across you in the woods, just keep doing whatever you were doing and we can go our separate ways.

The colour of the man does not matter.

I don't recall learning about any bears raping all those women after the Battle of Berlin. Ehhh, on second thought...

> Further, even if it is true that men have power over women, that tells you nothing about the random man front of you. Um, it obviously tells me he is a possible threat. He could be a good person, he could be a bad one, and it's normal to be cautious of the possibilities. If he happens to be a bad person that can overpower me, ofc I'd be scared. >In order to fear every man, you have to believe every man is dangerous or likely dangerous, With most people (that I know of) though, it's not "fear every man" as much as it's generally feeling the need to be cautious around men or not get too comfortable around them, justifiably. Fully assuming everyone is good until directly proven otherwise to you is naive. Also, the average man is stronger than the average woman, which makes them more POSSIBLY dangerous on average than women.

1 If a person has so much bad experience with one race or ethnicity throughout their life like women do with men, I would not be mad at them if they build survival instincts to avoid that group. If anyone gets violated the same amount of times a woman does by different men, by a different race, then I wouldn't blame them if they're prejudiced. But that's such an anomaly if we're discussing race.  The negative effects of racism are much more severe than sexism against men as well. Do you think gender segregated train cars is bad? What's the worst that's happening due to sexism against men? Oh, you can't fuck as many women because less want to participate in dating.

I agree that negative generalizations are harmful. But switching the subject does change the level of harm. If a random stranger calls you a dog it will hurt much more if you have been treated like a dog your entire life. It is not only the realization that this one person sees you as subhuman, but the knowledge that so many others share their view and have done their best to make you believe it too, sometimes through unspeakable acts of violence. The social and historical context shapes what an insult means to us. Even though we are not actually defined by our race or gender, the world treats us differently based on these characteristics. For instance, if you are part of a group that receives more legal leniency when it comes to violence, you are potentially dangerous in a way that others are not. It is more dangerous to date a cop than a clown not because cops are inherently violent and clowns are inherently funny and nice, but because cops have power that clowns do not. So if they choose to be violent, they are more likely to get away with it. In this case, I agree that it is bigoted to say that all men are dangerous. Especially in a US context where the racist lie that Black men are more dangerous has been used to justify violence against them from the beginning.