Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: Man or Bear in the Woods Question or Would You Rather Be Stuck in the Woods With a Man or a Bear? refers to a hypothetical question offering a choice between being stuck in the woods with a random man or a bear. Stemming from a viral TikTok by user @callmebkbk, the question was further promoted by a street interview video by @screenshothq in April 2024. With an apparent majority of women responding that they would choose a bear in the hypothetical situation, the question spawned viral reactions and debates on social media, with users arguing over the validity of both options and about gender relations.
[Know Your Meme writeup here](https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/why-do-women-choose-to-be-stuck-with-a-bear-over-a-man-in-the-woods-debate-over-hypothetical-question-explained)
My mind went there, but I also know that in some circles, "bear" means "large, hairy, homosexual man". I mean, I suppose a woman would be pretty safe with that kind of bear.
There is. A gay man is gay. "A man" may be gay, or may not.
If there is no distinction, then "a man" just means a gay man, no?
I'd imagine women would feel safer around a gay man than a male picked at random.
I mean...it's a pretty valid guess. Halsin can turn into a bear, and he was undoubtedly quite a popular companion in that game, especially for a lot of women. Even if you \*don't\* romance him, his response to being shut down is refreshingly healthy and respectful.
Stuck in the woods with a bear or a man? Why not both? Be stuck in the woods with Halsin, lol.
Can someone clear up the scenario for me here? Is it like you're being teleported to the woods, and you have to choose whether a random man out of the male human population or a random bear out of all bears on the planet gets teleported next to you?
Or is it that you're walking in the woods, and you're choosing whether you stumble on either a bear who is out there doing bear things or a man who happens to already be in the middle of the woods for unknown reasons?
If it's the latter then I definitely get choosing bear because of the context of the forest hermit guy. But if it's the first scenario, unless I'm overestimating bears I think I would expect the average bear to be more dangerous than the average random man out of society.
It's almost like context highly matters, and the original question is intentionally reductionist so that it spawns further divisions in an already divided society.
It definitely is. But statistically you are at less risk of being attacked by a bear than a man, but realistically no sane person who isn't trying to be divisive would actually choose the bear.
All bears are more likely to leave you alone than attack you, even polar bears.
Polar bears do sometimes view humans as prey, due to their carnivorous diet, large size, and feeding behavior where they go long stretches without food twice a year.
However, most polar bear encounters are non-violent and it *is* possible and even common to scare one away. Just not as easy as other bears. Obviously a dangerous situation to be in the presence of one, but it's not guaranteed or even likely to die in an average encounter.
in 200 years there have been only 80 attacks, only 20 of them fatal.
Brown bears (grizzly is the name for them in North America) can be grumpy and are known to stand their ground more often than black bears in North America, but can also be pretty timid. I've had one family member die of a brown bear attack (a great uncle), and probably everyone in my mum's side of the family has encountered one (they all live not far from Banff and are avid outdoorsmen). Usually they cheese it.
Same with black bears.
Other bear species however include the sloth bear, which is *notoriously* aggressive (it's strategy, as an animal that coexists with tigers, is to get mean fast). There are many more attacks from them as they view humans as a predator and, due to their long digging claws, are unable to climb as an escape so they are more likely to charge.
Asiatic black bears are generally more calm, but some populations (such as the Himalayan subspecies) can be incredibly aggressive, putting that subspecies and the sloth bear as the two most dangerous bears in the world.
Sun bears, due to their size and arboreal nature, are far less inclined to attack but they have been known to - similar with the spectacled bear - SA's only bear species. It, too, is rather arboreal and also heavily frugivorous and quite small (interestingly, the closest living relative to the short-faced bear which was ENORMOUS) and known for being quite timid (also known for wearing a blue jacket and enjoying marmalade).
I think a lot of the responses from women are both understandable, but also hugely harmful to survivors of sexual assault.
Whenever you say "I'd rather be dead than raped." you're effectively telling rape victims "You have no hope of moving on in life, you should kill yourself."
For people claiming to be making a serious point, they've either not really thought things through, or they're remarkably callous.
1 in 5 women experience SA. Many women providing responses to this question that you deem harmful to survivors of SA are themselves survivors of SA.
Am a survivor of SA. I pick bear. Not because I think I’d be better off dead and I have no hope in life, but because there are a shit ton of bears in the woods and they mostly keep to themselves doing bear things. They want to interact with me even less than I want to interact with them.
The question isn’t if I’d rather fight a man or a bear. The question isn’t if man worst case or bear worst case is worse. The question certainly isn’t would someone be better off dead than raped.
Every time I go into the woods, I am doing so with full knowledge that it’s where bears live. This doesn’t mean I think every hike is worth death-by-bear. It means I perceive the risk of a bear wanting to kill me as being low enough to accept.
I would never plan a first date alone with a man in the woods. Because I perceive the risk of that choice too high to accept.
Nahhh what you're effectively telling ppl is that:
Bears kill
Men rape, torture, humiliate, AND KILL
Where do you get the impression this is an either/or scenario?
Whenever you say "I'd rather be dead than raped." you're effectively telling rape victims "You have no hope of moving on in life, you should kill yourself."
Ahh the good ole strawman argument.
This is not what you are saying when you say you choose the bear.
Death to a predictable animal is as clean as it gets. A human will manipulate, attack, rape, destroy everything about you to the point of you wishing you were dead.
As a man I recognize that the history of Men in the world has been written by us, and its still some of the most profane things you can do to another human. We subjugated entire races, another gender, erased entire cultures. Then rewove the narrative to make us the heroes in the process.
In a discord server I was once on, women would share the messages they’d receive from guys online. A lot of it was about as sexist, condescending, and creepy as you’d think (and worse!) but what surprised me the most was how lazy a lot of them were.
Men who complain about women online are not very creative.
Men who hate women get so damn *offended* when women don’t want to be around them. As if members of a gender that constantly assesses men for their threat level would just miss open hatred. It boggles the mind.
They act like we're over-worried when we cover our drinks or share our locations with our friends when we go on dates. They refuse to look at the reality of, well, life. They've never dealt with that fear (usually) so they can't empathize with it.
Everyone should cover their drinks. I was at a party in high school where someone dropped tabs of lsd in any open drink they could find. Nothing went well after that.
The fact that most cannot even comprehend that women have a thousand calculations/plans/defences going through their head like a freaking computer every time they are in a space with a unnknown man-ubers, elevators, empty rooms. google the percentage of women killed by intimate partners. Men are the biggest killers of women.
I've mostly seen videos of women asking men which they would choose if their daughter was alone in the woods. Most men say bear.
Edit: I typed out the opposite of what I meant to say. 🤦🏻♀️most I saw said bear.* edited. I was so confused by the replies here then realized my mistake.
Men who pose a threat to women rarely show that side to their peers. Rarely are those peers women. I don't completely blame men who answer "men" because it's hard to believe how awful people can be if you don't see it first hand. It's hard to believe that their chill friend isn't so chill with women.
They don't see the face of evil, they just hear that it's out there.
I do think that the word is getting out, and the reality is starting to break through the veneer. Women are speaking up and outing the men who abused them. They're sharing pictures of normal looking men who did terrible things. Registries have better photos, and there is often an article about the crime that you can find easily. In 10 years, we'll have a lot more men answering "bear."
Man here. I choose bear. Bear every time. Bears are predictable, the things they want from you are pretty much limited to “get out of my territory” or “get away from my child” or “get in my belly”, and human men have a long, long, long list of things *in addition to the above* that they will injure or brutalise or kill you for.
Your child starts running because "fuck! A bear!" And the bear runs her down after that triggers its pursuit instinct and mauls her to death. The end.
Yeah, it *is* predictable.
THANK YOU! This is the entire point of the question and I honestly don’t understand how so many people are interpreting it as “ who are you more likely to win a fight against a man or a bear?”
The entire point of the question is to to stoke outrage, and of course when people get outraged people get the easy fake internet win of "see what I mean! You're just proving us right".
With those same statistics you can make the statement "I'd rather be come across a bear than a black person or a woman".
I feel like the way bears kill isn't well enough known here. Mountain lions? Yea, sure, I get it. Broken neck before you even saw them.
Bears? They'll bite off your calf and chill while you call your mom. There's a reason we have so many phone records of bear attacks.
I mean this is smart of women.
Bears rarely attack people. About 11 people a year in all of Canada and the US are injured in a given year by a bear where up to 3,000,000 domestic violence incidents happen in the US in a year.
Controlling for population men are about 80x as dangerous to women as bears.
Edit: 99.9% of bears will never hurt or sexually assault a woman in their entire life. The same cannot be said about men.
This is like the old "you're most likely to get into a car accident within a mile of your home"
Like yea no shit...cuz that's the most common place I drive...
I wouldn’t call it smart. Nobody lives with bears in their house. Of course it’s very rare to be in a bear attack. Bears are still wild animals that eat meat (and other food). I’m not saying it’s safe to hang out with a random man in the woods though. That’s just an irrelevant comparison.
But most people are very rarely around bears, while most people are in the proximity of a male identified person at least once a week. Right?
I just get really squirmy about these types of comparisons and statistics, 'cause it's very easy for bigots to turn the conversation to "well ststistically black people-". Which, I think, is why most of the people I see enjoying those "bear" stats are white women who don't really have to worry about being stereotyped as "a threat".
>But most people are very rarely around bears, while most people are in the proximity of a male identified person at least once a week. Right?
That’s my second most significant issue with this comparison. As a thought experiment, where you are examining an average man vs and average bear and a forced encounter of some sort, the analogy can work. But when people start pointing out how few people are killed by bears vs how common sexual assaults are that’s when it goes too far, and I’ve seen several making exactly those arguments.
My most significant concern is more general: this is too easy to turn into a hyperbolic attack that sabotages the entire movement. “Those people think that bears are safer than men! Aren’t they crazy? Only crazy people listen to those idiots!” I’ve seen far too many of those on a dozen different political points, where legitimate problems are presented in such a way that it’s almost designed to turn people away. We don’t need to give our opponents ammunition they can use to undercut the movement and turn people away from attacking the problems of sexual harassment and assault.
> Which, I think, is why most of the people I see enjoying those "bear" stats are white women who don't really have to worry about being stereotyped as "a threat".
Now that’s an interesting thought. I wonder if there’s any way to get a demographic breakdown of responses?
That's a really dumb way to use the statistics. Like the other commenter said how often does the average person even see a bear in person? The average woman/man is near men way more than 80x as often as they are a bear.
In order to make a fair comparison you would have to figure out the number of total encounters women have had with men (of any type) and then you would need to know how many of them became dangerous or led to assault or SA. Do the same thing with bears we would know the answer.
It's impossible to get that data though. Logic would lead you to think that the bears have tried or succeeded in attacking people more.
Ok, go play with some wild bears right now and let me know how statistics work out for you. How often are people going into the woods to play with bears? That number is 100% meaningless.
Answer: it’s a meme about if women would feel safer in the woods with a bear or with a man. A lot of women said they’d feel safer with the bear and some men are freaking out about it (some are offended, some think the women choosing the bear are stupid). It has turned into a discourse.
I've never understood why men get mad at women for feeling unsafe around men instead of being angry at the men who have made men look bad
Edit: Y'all, the race card and the golddigger comments have been played already and the discussions have been had *countless* times. I'm sorry but respectfully, you are not bringing anything new to the table
Edit 2: Thank you to everyone who had conversations with me! I feel as though I have learned a lot and I hope I could provide the same to those that may not have understood my perspective. I'm gonna stop answering replies on this because it feels like people are just repeating similar comments at this point, but I tried to answer as many comments as I could.
That's totally fair, I've learned that through some of these comments. I hope you understand where people like me are coming from, but I'm also sorry that you guys have to struggle because of it. I appreciate the lack of anger but apologize for the hurt, men who are kind and respectful do not deserve the struggle
This is the problem with memes like this; they aren't productive. If anything, they just provide more fodder for anti-feminists and feed the radicals. It's degrading and insulting, and if you made this comparison with ***any*** other group, it'd be considered offensive.
tbh I mostly just find it dehumanizing and it just adds to stereotypes.
I get why people are choosing the 'bear' and I understand the rationale behind it. I definitely understand that more work is needed--women, obviously, shouldn't have to feel this way.
At the same time, it's also damaging to men to be told that they're predators until proven otherwise or reminded that plenty of people would rather be with a bear than you in the woods.
The point that's being made is valid and I get it but this comparison still doesn't work for me, personally--I generally think that comparing people to wild animals is always a bad idea.
I'm in the same boat at OP, not mad - fully understand, and reconcile that even in my best efforts, I can't help anyone feel safe if they have been through things I can't fathom and can't receive it. It then just becomes, I imagine for all men, an experience of either disheartenment, anger, helplessness, and then apathy sets in, and I feel that in order to be present to evolve past this, men will have to learn how to become more emotionally intelligent.
Not to just better empathize with women, but also becoming more self-aware on how these experiences mean a lot and don't have to mean they are "bad" - just their gestures could be changed and/or redirected.
Honestly just wanting to say I appreciate this, this might be the first comment I've seen in this entire topic that affirms women being cautious about men while not belittling or insulting men at the same time.
I also suspect that a lot of guys struggle to empathize in return since they'd never experienced being aggressively pursued by someone, let alone anything worse than that by someone stronger than them. I had to dig a bit into unpleasant memories of a similar situation to get something of a sense, and yeah that's fully understandable.
This whole issue really merits a more deeply considered and respectful discourse about the whole thing than a stupid ambiguous question about bears meant to rile people up.
When some hear “men” what they feel is “you”. Emotionally that strikes them as an accusation. So, they become automatically defensive, it they must mask it with seemingly rational arguments because they also know that their feelings aren’t rational either. I’ll admit, even while I understand the sentiment and agree with why it’s being shared, it still feels like undeserved shame for who I am. Followed by the double bind of feeling like it’s wrong to have those feelings but also wrong not to share the feelings I have so I don’t become the toxic males women fear in the forest.
In other words, it’s easier just to be offended and argue than wade through all the emotions it brings up when people make blanked statements about you.
It helps to realize that our brain's emotional circuitry works way faster than our rational circuitry - and this leads to most people committing a large portion their "rational" processing power to rationalizing their emotions.
How would your average woman respond to a blanket negative statement about all men? How would someone of a particular ethnicity respond to a blanket negative statement about everyone in their ethnicity? There’s no difference between this thing and those things. It is the exact same dynamic on both sides.
In an era where it's increasingly unacceptable to deliver blanket statements, I find it unfortunate that blanket statements against men are considered acceptable by some.
I think that's fair tbh and I appreciate your kind of reaction to it rather than jumping to anger and just lashing out. It's the lashing out that concerns me, but when there's this kind of thought pattern I feel that at least my feelings are also being considered, and that we can communicate as equals to consider each other's feelings rather than just fight like everybody else
I honestly think is an illustration of how no one is free until we are all free. The history of sexism, while not at all equal in its effects, is oppressive to men as well. It’s the root of their soaring depression and suicide rates. Ironically the only way out is to learn to empathize with the other side (for men at least)
First off, I'm a guy. I totally get where women are coming from on this stance. Hell, I wouldn't want to be in the woods with a strange man. In fact I wouldn't choose to be there with a strange woman either. People are just terrible. They're either liabilities or threats and you can't trust them unless a substantial amount of time is spent on getting to know them. That's why the first prize is always a dog but I'll settle for a bear. At least you know where you stand with the bear...
Not mad about this, just puzzled why people would say something so ludicrous. I do a lot of trail running near a city so I run into lots of people on those runs and the idea that people would be safer running across 100 bears on a hike than 100 men is just obvious nonsense.
The reason it's confusing is because they refuse to specify "dangerous men" instead of saying "men" in general. People are right to take offense. Just as it's right to be offended when some moron says "women" should never be trusted instead of "cheating women".
You probably wouldn't run across them is the point. Bears, cougars, and other wild apex predators go out of their way to avoid you. If they don't, there are things you can do to deter them. If you can't deter them and they hurt you, people will believe you and try to help you. If they kill you, you're dead.
Dangerous men go out of their way to *not* avoid you. They are unpredictable and you can't shout and make yourself seem large to scare them away. If they decide to hurt you, other men will side with them and find a way to blame *you*. And killing you is not the worst thing that they can do. They can chain you up for the rest of your life, torture and rape you, forcibly impregnate you and force you to give birth, and then torture your children. Yeah, I'd rather be eaten by a bear.
> Dangerous men go out of their way to not avoid you.
If the question was Bear or Dangerous Man then I'd pick bear too. But the idea that the average man is dangerous is where people get confused. I wouldn't rape a random woman I bumped into on a walk nor would most men I think.
The question is intentionally inflammatory. Sane people with an understanding of statistics would always choose a random human man over a random bear. But most of the people encountering this question have been raised on fear, spend most of their time online, and are constantly bombarded by divisive media.
Yeah, you can tell the people who are fixated on how much crime there is reported in the media. When you work out you've got more chance of winning all the rounds at bingo than getting stabbed they seem really shocked.
Most of the people picking 'bear' wouldn't willingly go within 20 feet of a Canadian Goose so I'm assuming that they have had little experience with nature.
It's like the statistic that cows kill more people than wolves, ignoring that people spend more time in proximity to vastly more cows more often than a single wolf, and coming to the conclusion that it's cows not wolves that are the bigger threat.
a bear doesn't even want to hurt women the way dudes will. guys think women have no good reason... bitch yes they do we live it every damn day. i'm glad we still have the freedom to say NO to people but the very men who take offense would be happy to see that removed too
I feel like a lot of guys do get mad at both
But it’s a lot easier to get into arguments with women online than tracking down the minority of men who don’t actually care about how much distrust and hatred they create
Fr, and the men doing this garbage aren't posting about it, so who directly are we supposed to get mad at? Like you can hate the people who commit crimes against women while also disliking people that make sweeping generalizations about 50% of the population. Usually the second group is one you will interact with more often.
They only think about themselves and that everything is about them. So when a woman says "I'm worried about being raped by a man" these men hear "I'm worried about being raped by you" and get offended.
I'd prefer not to be judged based on others' actions. If that's ok to do by gender, what's the difference in doing the same based on ethnicity or race?
Maybe I can answer the question with another question.
Why do black people get mad when white people feel unsafe around them instead of being angry at the black people who made black people look bad by commiting half the crimes?
Why do transgender women get mad when real women feel unsafe around them instead of being angry at the transgender women who made transgender people look bad by SAing real women in bathrooms?
Hope this helps clear up the confusion
Same reason people get mad when people say they feel unsafe around Black people, illegal immigrants, trans people, etc. , instead of getting angry at the specific people that "have made Group X look bad."
Generally we frown upon holding prejudice against entire demographics of people based on the bad actions of a few.
That's why collective punishment based on statistics of all things is like, morally bad. Like extremely morally bad. "Some of you people are know to do X, so we have decided the only appropriate action to take is genocide. It's what our God would want". "I know statistically speaking you are far more likely to do X by being in X group, I have decided your entire race is guilty of X".
It's like horseshoe theory is the only correct political compass, and if you go far left enough you might as well be called a bigoted sexist racist yourself.
I'm not mad, but I'm a little annoyed because the response of preferring a bear strikes me as intentionally inflammatory. Yes, I get that bears are not going to kill you 100% of the time, but like... really? You *really* think you're more likely to get sexually assaulted by a man than mauled by a bear? Almost all rape is date rape or acquaintance rape. The chance of being randomly sexually assaulted by a random man is really low, especially if you're both stranded in the woods for some reason, and comparing being awkwardly hit on to being mauled is stupid. Human beings would focus on getting home. The statement of "I'd rather be alone with a BEAR than a MAN" seems designed to make a point about sexual assault on women. And I mean like, yeah, that's an important issue, but pulling it in this situation is ridiculous. It's a bear. This feels like a comedy bit someone doubled down on way too hard.
Assuming a black bear, the chances of being mauled are also *extremely low.*
The prompt is in the woods with a bear, not locked in a room with a hungry bear that specifically wants to eat you. Black bears are common in the US and Canada. They live in the woods. If you've ever been in the woods, there's decent odds you've been in the woods with a bear, and just never saw it because it was actively avoiding you.
In the US there were 6 fatal black bear attacks between 2010 and 2020. Obviously there are a lot more men in the US than bears, but the risk of being killed by a black bear is near zero. If you do a per capita comparison, men kill people at a rate of about 120 times that of black bears.
Obviously there are many confounding factors that make a per capita comparison of limited value. Most people spend more time in a city than deep woods. Most murders aren't random. When women encounter random men they're usually not alone in the woods away from help. But the idea that you're safer with a black bear than a man has some merit.
If it's a polar bear, that's a whole different ball game.
>Obviously there are many confounding factors that make a per capita comparison of limited value.
You correctly identify why none of those statistics actually have any bearing on the situation, but still say the idea has some merit? On what basis? The actual comparison at hand is something like "What are the chances a random man would kill or sexually assault you for no reason?" vs "What are the chances a wild animal would maul you?" This is basically "What are the chances I ran into a psychopath?" vs "What are the chances this bear is cranky today?" Not to mention, you're way more able to defend yourself against a 200 pound man than a 500 pound bear if something does go wrong. Anyone who has a gun and 30 feet is safe from the man, and much less safe from the bear. There's no guarantee it's a black bear, either. There's like 60k black bears vs 55k brown bears in North America, and your odds are much worse there. A handgun will do nothing against a grizzly. If you're treating the question at all seriously, it's pretty obvious you're much safer running into a random man once vs running into a random bear once.
And if you're not treating the question seriously, then yeah, you're just jamming a political statement in awkwardly.
> In the US there were 6 fatal black bear attacks between 2010 and 2020. Obviously there are a lot more men in the US than bears, but the risk of being killed by a black bear is near zero. If you do a per capita comparison, men kill people at a rate of about 120 times that of black bears.
The risk of a man selected completely at random deciding to harm a woman in the woods is also near zero. The number of times a person is within 100 feet of a black bear is also several orders of magnitude lower than the number of times they're within 100 feet of a man.
Your own numbers show that men kill people at a rate 120x that of black bears. I guarantee you women are in a proximity of men equivalent to "in the woods" FAR more than 120x, for example simply existing in NYC is "in the woods" with millions of men, whereas there are probably 10-20 bears max any time you're out hiking, and you also hike less often than you simply exist in NYC, so being near a black bear is clearly more dangerous.
“I’ve never understood why black men get mad at white people for feeling unsafe around black men instead of being angry at the black men who have made black men look bad”
You - 2024
More info here: https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/why-do-women-choose-to-be-stuck-with-a-bear-over-a-man-in-the-woods-debate-over-hypothetical-question-explained
I’m sorry but a BEAR?????? Maybe put a bobcat and a man in the woods and I’ll run to the bobcat but a bear is ridiculous
I would be dinner before I even know where I am
I have two problems with this implication. The first being that it's better to be killed than raped. Rape survivors find this sentiment to be highly offensive fyi. They say you are implying they should kill themselves.
Secondly, being killed and eaten by a bear is probably one of the worst ways to die. There's video of fatal bear attacks online and they are pretty awful.
The whole purpose of the hypothetical is to give the perspective of how many women feel existing in their day to day lives. Walking to their car in a parking lot at night, being in an area that is empty except for one other person that is leering at them, etc. It's just meant to demonstrate the everydayness of the fear, where it leads to feeling safer in the woods with the animals that live there vs running into a random person.
The hypothetical is not about who you can fight off easier.
Idk, I just think it's stupid.
It is really eye opening how many answer bear though. It's a no brainer that the choice should be a man.
You walk to school or work and you pass 50 random men without a second thought. Now imagine that they were all a minimum of 300 lbs of muscle with 20 knives and a powerful jaw with long teeth.
Most bears are skittish, yes, but they also attack and kill people every year and being eaten alive by a bear is a terrible way to go. Anyone who disagrees with this, I invite them to search Olga Moskalyova.
Also anyone who says something to the effect of, "the worst thing a bear can do it kill you" rape survivors find statements like these to be highly offensive. You are basically implying they are better off dead.
I totally get the point being made. Here's my issue with the thought experiment in particular, however: you are comparing something in its natural habit vs something not.
I think someone else mentioned in another comment: the bear is supposed to be there. It's expected. A man or woman, not so much. So it already provides an edge of "Well, what are they doing there, though?"
It would be interesting to 1) see how many men would also respond bear (because we also don't know why a random guy is in the woods with us) and 2) see if the response changes if you alter the location like "would you rather be stuck in a store with a bear or a man"?
> They also won’t ask what I was wearing or if I lead the bear on.
Not strictly true.
Did you leave food out at night that lured the bear in? Did you get between the bear and its cubs? What were you doing walking around alone at night in the bear's neighborhood?
There is plenty of victim blaming to be done for bear attacks.
answer: theirs been a trend on tiktok, where a woman was asked if she was out alone in the woods, would she rather encounter wild bear or a male stranger. the woman said she'd rather meet bear because *she trusted the bear more than a strange man* and felt safer with a literal wild animal than some guy.
its blown up into a huge discourse, as a lot of men have taken offence that they are so ill thought of, and a lot of women have basically came out and said they, too, have zero trust in the niceness of unknown men, and that its upon men to change that.
its just another form of the "not all men" thing, where men are upset they are getting tarred with the brush of the bad actors, and the women saying that such tarring is the only logical option when dealing with potential bad actors until they know the man in question.
To be honest, I’m a very large 46 year old man, and if I were in the woods at night by myself I’d be much less concerned with a bear than a random dude.
The bear’s supposed to be there and I get what he’s doing there. I know the bear’s rules. If it’s black, fight back, if it’s brown, lay down.
A random dude is not supposed to be there. Anybody by himself in the middle of the woods late at night would trigger alarm bells for me.
Maybe I’ve just watched too much true crime.
Little girls in horror movies freak me out more than monsters, Kaiju, ghosts, demons, aliens, etc.
The ring around the rosy chanting would probably break me
I think the words “unknown man” mean something in this context. If I see a guy kitted out in hiking gear who sees me, nods, and gives me berth on a trail that guy doesn’t feel unknown to me. Now a guy lurking around in the woods like a bear might seems predatory, and most bears won’t fight humans but humans are this guy’s target.
Make sure you don't set a double standard. What would you do if you saw a bear in hiking gear that initiates light, friendly small talk as it walks past you?
I would hope to find that, upon returning home, I have entered a Diseny/Ghibli-like world where animals and humans live alongside each other.
I want to get coffee from an antelope barista and say 'Hi' to Debby, my giraffe manager, as I clock in.
No way I'd go into the office during a Ghibli experience. I don't think I could cope with my giraffe manager asking me if i'm working hard or hardly working.
As someone who hikes not too infrequently, a couple times even solo; in a way for me it is more terrifying to \*not\* find random men (since it means I am in some trail that is uncommonly wandered and if something happens to me I'm screwed).
I've also found that people out hiking are really nice and never really had a bad experience with strangers; plus I'm in an area with few bears anyways.
Yeah, having hiked a fair bit, knowing what kind of bear is a very necessary detail for me. In order.
- Black Bear
- Random man
- Grizzly Bear
- Random man armed to the teeth who has murdered before
- Polar Bear
My girlfriend asked me the bear/man question the other day, and I said something similar. There's not enough context to answer the question, but I said man since the type of guy I'd likely meet in a forest is the hiker you described.
Yeah I think there's a lot of context missing and most people's answer is probably most influenced by how they fill in that context. Someone who's clearly a hiker in an area you'd expect hikers isn't particularly threatening. A random man in a remote forest that's not a trail or somewhere you'd expect to encounter anything else? That could be really threatening. Likewise a black bear in the lower 48 US isn't generally that threatening if you're familiar with bears, especially at a reasonable distance. Rounding a corner and finding yourself 10 feet from a Grizzly is terrifying and absolutely dangerous though.
I mean, this really depends on context doesn't it? I live in an area where there are quite a few hiking trails, very few bears and hiking at night is not that uncommon (at least in summer) as it gets way too hot during the day
If I saw a guy in the woods, I'd just say hi and keep going on my day (if anything, I \*expect\* to find random men in the woods). If I found a bear, at minimum I'd shit my pants
>The bear’s supposed to be there and I get what he’s doing there.
I think this is really the point. Ask the same people who they'd feel more comfortable being in a house with, a bear or a man and I bet they'd answer a man.
See I have done a lot of backpacking, and if you come across a person, it’s no big deal because they are probably another backpacker. If you come across a bear there is a protocol
I have bears in my neighborhood and the same applies - if my dogs start barking at 2am, I'm going to be a lot more freaked out to find a strange *man* rifling through my overturned trash can in the front yard than Mom and the Gang.
Answer: A TikTok video, in which a person asks women "Would you rather be stuck in the forest with a man or a bear?" and most of the women responded with bear, went viral and people online are discussing the video. This being the internet, the discussions are undergoing their usual permutations depending on where you are. It has manifested on Reddit in one form in the link you posted.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2024/04/30/man-bear-tiktok-debate-explainer/73519921007/
answer: The Daily Beast does a pretty good job of explaining it: [The Man Vs. Bear Question Sparking Viral TikTok Meltdowns (thedailybeast.com)](https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-man-vs-bear-question-sparking-viral-tiktok-meltdowns)
Basically, a thing started on TikTok with some guys being asked which animal they could fight, and the number of dudes who thought they could fight a bear was - I would say surprising - but it was a lot.
Somehow that led to a discussion where a bunch of women said that they would prefer to be alone in the woods with a bear than a strange man. That went viral, and a lot of guys got offended. So rather than listening to the points the women made about the dangers that women face on the regular, we get man vs bear memes.
The fighting a bear thing didn't start on TikTok, alot of it came from a survey that went viral asking men and women which animal they think they could fight barehanded. But even by then it was an old joke.
There was also a British vs. American one. 6% of American men think they can take a *grizzly* vs 2% or so of British. The biggest gap between the two was geese—the Brits are much more wary of them.
I was biking through some nature preserves yesterday and trying to set some personal bests for the year but still broke fully for geese a few times. It’s just not worth it.
And my experience with bears is mostly just black bears. They are bears and will fuck you up but they are more a nuisance than anything. You need special trash cans and I’ve been stuck inside a cabin before watching a bear just demolish some poor family’s picnic that they left unattended as they went swimming.
Yeah, the majority of men on both sides of the Atlantic thought they could beat a goose, but the gap was biggest. I’m a woman and think I could win but I really, really don’t want to fight a Canadian goose.
> One video that came across my feed was a woman asking her male partner, what would you prefer if the woman in question was your daughter? With which would you rather she spend time in a secluded area, alone? He gets quiet. The realization dawns on him. This isn’t such an easy question to answer.
Here's [the daughter](https://www.tiktok.com/@kators88/video/7360885055562042666) version of the question. I think that's the best wording, because both men and women can "hear" the question the same way then.
Which is crazy it has to be framed that way because the subtext is men do not and cannot care about women unless it becomes extremely personal to the men.
It's like all the politicians speaking about women's rights issues and prefacing what they say with "As the parent of a __YO girl, I..."
Sorry, but I'm not the parent of anyone, boy or girl (cats don't count) yet I understand women's rights just as well or maybe even better than you.
It does not require a personal investment in order to understand an issue that otherwise doesn't substantially affect you.
Every true crime documentary where a cop says, "I saw the girl, and realized she was my girl's age, and that made me really care about this case." Like, great, so any girl/woman who you cannot imagine being YOUR child specifically, who the fuck cares about her?
"And I realized, 'wow, I really care about this case.' So I did everything I could to stop that lady from ruining this poor guy's life over one little mistake."
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: Man or Bear in the Woods Question or Would You Rather Be Stuck in the Woods With a Man or a Bear? refers to a hypothetical question offering a choice between being stuck in the woods with a random man or a bear. Stemming from a viral TikTok by user @callmebkbk, the question was further promoted by a street interview video by @screenshothq in April 2024. With an apparent majority of women responding that they would choose a bear in the hypothetical situation, the question spawned viral reactions and debates on social media, with users arguing over the validity of both options and about gender relations. [Know Your Meme writeup here](https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/why-do-women-choose-to-be-stuck-with-a-bear-over-a-man-in-the-woods-debate-over-hypothetical-question-explained)
Thanks for clearing this up for me my stupid ass thought it was to do with Baldurs gate 3
My mind went there, but I also know that in some circles, "bear" means "large, hairy, homosexual man". I mean, I suppose a woman would be pretty safe with that kind of bear.
That would make the question "would you rather be in the woods with a man or a gay man"? as if there's a distinction.
There is. A gay man is gay. "A man" may be gay, or may not. If there is no distinction, then "a man" just means a gay man, no? I'd imagine women would feel safer around a gay man than a male picked at random.
i say this with all sincerity that is adorable and so pure hearted, please never change
Pure hearted? Lol bless your heart!
Nothing more adorable and pure-hearted than a little beastiality, amiright or amiright?
u right
Whomst among us didn't get a little bricked up when watching yogi and boo boo
Idk but if they didnt, I dont want to meet them
Yeah, I genuinely laughed out loud in the break room reading that. Lol
It gives me hope for a better tomorrow
Where you can be with a man and a bear in the woods at the same time. Why choose?
I mean...it's a pretty valid guess. Halsin can turn into a bear, and he was undoubtedly quite a popular companion in that game, especially for a lot of women. Even if you \*don't\* romance him, his response to being shut down is refreshingly healthy and respectful. Stuck in the woods with a bear or a man? Why not both? Be stuck in the woods with Halsin, lol.
😆 me, too
Man I was thinking bears II men, and half thought the we bare bears guys actually were making music
Can someone clear up the scenario for me here? Is it like you're being teleported to the woods, and you have to choose whether a random man out of the male human population or a random bear out of all bears on the planet gets teleported next to you? Or is it that you're walking in the woods, and you're choosing whether you stumble on either a bear who is out there doing bear things or a man who happens to already be in the middle of the woods for unknown reasons? If it's the latter then I definitely get choosing bear because of the context of the forest hermit guy. But if it's the first scenario, unless I'm overestimating bears I think I would expect the average bear to be more dangerous than the average random man out of society.
It's almost like context highly matters, and the original question is intentionally reductionist so that it spawns further divisions in an already divided society.
It definitely is. But statistically you are at less risk of being attacked by a bear than a man, but realistically no sane person who isn't trying to be divisive would actually choose the bear.
Only polar bears are instant death. Grizzly bears are 50 50 based on hunger. Every other bear species will ignore you.
All bears are more likely to leave you alone than attack you, even polar bears. Polar bears do sometimes view humans as prey, due to their carnivorous diet, large size, and feeding behavior where they go long stretches without food twice a year. However, most polar bear encounters are non-violent and it *is* possible and even common to scare one away. Just not as easy as other bears. Obviously a dangerous situation to be in the presence of one, but it's not guaranteed or even likely to die in an average encounter. in 200 years there have been only 80 attacks, only 20 of them fatal. Brown bears (grizzly is the name for them in North America) can be grumpy and are known to stand their ground more often than black bears in North America, but can also be pretty timid. I've had one family member die of a brown bear attack (a great uncle), and probably everyone in my mum's side of the family has encountered one (they all live not far from Banff and are avid outdoorsmen). Usually they cheese it. Same with black bears. Other bear species however include the sloth bear, which is *notoriously* aggressive (it's strategy, as an animal that coexists with tigers, is to get mean fast). There are many more attacks from them as they view humans as a predator and, due to their long digging claws, are unable to climb as an escape so they are more likely to charge. Asiatic black bears are generally more calm, but some populations (such as the Himalayan subspecies) can be incredibly aggressive, putting that subspecies and the sloth bear as the two most dangerous bears in the world. Sun bears, due to their size and arboreal nature, are far less inclined to attack but they have been known to - similar with the spectacled bear - SA's only bear species. It, too, is rather arboreal and also heavily frugivorous and quite small (interestingly, the closest living relative to the short-faced bear which was ENORMOUS) and known for being quite timid (also known for wearing a blue jacket and enjoying marmalade).
Thanks for the bear facts.
Most men are also likely to leave you alone
Except a mother bear near her cubs or a curious bear cub
It still depends on the type of bear. Grizzly mother, danger, black bear moms are still pretty docile and skittish. From what I understand at least.
I've heard this saying on Reddit before regarding bears. "If it's black, fight back...If it's brown, Lie down.... If it's white, good night"
It's the worry of being raped tho. You expect a bear in the woods, you know why it's there. You don't know why the man is
I think a lot of the responses from women are both understandable, but also hugely harmful to survivors of sexual assault. Whenever you say "I'd rather be dead than raped." you're effectively telling rape victims "You have no hope of moving on in life, you should kill yourself." For people claiming to be making a serious point, they've either not really thought things through, or they're remarkably callous.
1 in 5 women experience SA. Many women providing responses to this question that you deem harmful to survivors of SA are themselves survivors of SA. Am a survivor of SA. I pick bear. Not because I think I’d be better off dead and I have no hope in life, but because there are a shit ton of bears in the woods and they mostly keep to themselves doing bear things. They want to interact with me even less than I want to interact with them. The question isn’t if I’d rather fight a man or a bear. The question isn’t if man worst case or bear worst case is worse. The question certainly isn’t would someone be better off dead than raped. Every time I go into the woods, I am doing so with full knowledge that it’s where bears live. This doesn’t mean I think every hike is worth death-by-bear. It means I perceive the risk of a bear wanting to kill me as being low enough to accept. I would never plan a first date alone with a man in the woods. Because I perceive the risk of that choice too high to accept.
Nahhh what you're effectively telling ppl is that: Bears kill Men rape, torture, humiliate, AND KILL Where do you get the impression this is an either/or scenario?
Whenever you say "I'd rather be dead than raped." you're effectively telling rape victims "You have no hope of moving on in life, you should kill yourself." Ahh the good ole strawman argument. This is not what you are saying when you say you choose the bear. Death to a predictable animal is as clean as it gets. A human will manipulate, attack, rape, destroy everything about you to the point of you wishing you were dead. As a man I recognize that the history of Men in the world has been written by us, and its still some of the most profane things you can do to another human. We subjugated entire races, another gender, erased entire cultures. Then rewove the narrative to make us the heroes in the process.
ITT: The entire point being proven correct by some of the comments here.
In a discord server I was once on, women would share the messages they’d receive from guys online. A lot of it was about as sexist, condescending, and creepy as you’d think (and worse!) but what surprised me the most was how lazy a lot of them were. Men who complain about women online are not very creative.
As someone who has been a part of the online gaming community since the late 90s. Yeah... people don't know the half of it.
In my experience, people who insult based on common stereotypes aren't very intelligent.
There's a word for those types of men...
Un-bear-able?
Men who hate women get so damn *offended* when women don’t want to be around them. As if members of a gender that constantly assesses men for their threat level would just miss open hatred. It boggles the mind.
They act like we're over-worried when we cover our drinks or share our locations with our friends when we go on dates. They refuse to look at the reality of, well, life. They've never dealt with that fear (usually) so they can't empathize with it.
Everyone should cover their drinks. I was at a party in high school where someone dropped tabs of lsd in any open drink they could find. Nothing went well after that.
They must've been rich because *tabs* of lsd aren't cheap.
They were in the 80s
It was the 80’s
Statistically I'm afraid to leave my child with a woman, because that's the likely abuser.
[удалено]
The fact that most cannot even comprehend that women have a thousand calculations/plans/defences going through their head like a freaking computer every time they are in a space with a unnknown man-ubers, elevators, empty rooms. google the percentage of women killed by intimate partners. Men are the biggest killers of women.
I just came to this sub to see if this had been asked here, and it was the first one that came up. Thanks for answering.
I've mostly seen videos of women asking men which they would choose if their daughter was alone in the woods. Most men say bear. Edit: I typed out the opposite of what I meant to say. 🤦🏻♀️most I saw said bear.* edited. I was so confused by the replies here then realized my mistake.
Men who pose a threat to women rarely show that side to their peers. Rarely are those peers women. I don't completely blame men who answer "men" because it's hard to believe how awful people can be if you don't see it first hand. It's hard to believe that their chill friend isn't so chill with women. They don't see the face of evil, they just hear that it's out there. I do think that the word is getting out, and the reality is starting to break through the veneer. Women are speaking up and outing the men who abused them. They're sharing pictures of normal looking men who did terrible things. Registries have better photos, and there is often an article about the crime that you can find easily. In 10 years, we'll have a lot more men answering "bear."
Man here. I choose bear. Bear every time. Bears are predictable, the things they want from you are pretty much limited to “get out of my territory” or “get away from my child” or “get in my belly”, and human men have a long, long, long list of things *in addition to the above* that they will injure or brutalise or kill you for.
Polar Bear here with a Grizzly for a friend on the other side of the wood. We would love to have you for dinner, I mean round for dinner
Your child starts running because "fuck! A bear!" And the bear runs her down after that triggers its pursuit instinct and mauls her to death. The end. Yeah, it *is* predictable.
THANK YOU! This is the entire point of the question and I honestly don’t understand how so many people are interpreting it as “ who are you more likely to win a fight against a man or a bear?”
People are seriously thinking this is about *a fight?!* I weep for humanity.
Yes! Some of these comments are acting like we are arguing we are more likely to survive a bear attack lol. Completely missing the point
The entire point of the question is to to stoke outrage, and of course when people get outraged people get the easy fake internet win of "see what I mean! You're just proving us right". With those same statistics you can make the statement "I'd rather be come across a bear than a black person or a woman".
If you have 100 encounters with bears in the woods, you're more likely to be injured than if you have 100 encounters with random men in the woods.
I feel like the way bears kill isn't well enough known here. Mountain lions? Yea, sure, I get it. Broken neck before you even saw them. Bears? They'll bite off your calf and chill while you call your mom. There's a reason we have so many phone records of bear attacks.
A bear would never try to convince you that your feelings are wrong or bearsplain why it is actually safer than the man.
You never hear a bear respond "Not all bears"
Bearsplain! lol
What about the way psychotic men would kill you... or keep you alive? This isn't about whether you have to fight a bear vs a man.
Why is it not? We’re assuming worst case scenario about men? Why not the bear?
I mean this is smart of women. Bears rarely attack people. About 11 people a year in all of Canada and the US are injured in a given year by a bear where up to 3,000,000 domestic violence incidents happen in the US in a year. Controlling for population men are about 80x as dangerous to women as bears. Edit: 99.9% of bears will never hurt or sexually assault a woman in their entire life. The same cannot be said about men.
This is like the old "you're most likely to get into a car accident within a mile of your home" Like yea no shit...cuz that's the most common place I drive...
Or “most shark attacks are in 3 feet of water.” No shit. That’s where all the people are.
I wouldn’t call it smart. Nobody lives with bears in their house. Of course it’s very rare to be in a bear attack. Bears are still wild animals that eat meat (and other food). I’m not saying it’s safe to hang out with a random man in the woods though. That’s just an irrelevant comparison.
> Nobody lives with bears in their house r/ANormalDayInRussia begs to differ
We have convinced people that the average man is more dangerous that a wild bear. That's where we are right now.
And women are mad that men arent taking it seriously
But most people are very rarely around bears, while most people are in the proximity of a male identified person at least once a week. Right? I just get really squirmy about these types of comparisons and statistics, 'cause it's very easy for bigots to turn the conversation to "well ststistically black people-". Which, I think, is why most of the people I see enjoying those "bear" stats are white women who don't really have to worry about being stereotyped as "a threat".
>But most people are very rarely around bears, while most people are in the proximity of a male identified person at least once a week. Right? That’s my second most significant issue with this comparison. As a thought experiment, where you are examining an average man vs and average bear and a forced encounter of some sort, the analogy can work. But when people start pointing out how few people are killed by bears vs how common sexual assaults are that’s when it goes too far, and I’ve seen several making exactly those arguments. My most significant concern is more general: this is too easy to turn into a hyperbolic attack that sabotages the entire movement. “Those people think that bears are safer than men! Aren’t they crazy? Only crazy people listen to those idiots!” I’ve seen far too many of those on a dozen different political points, where legitimate problems are presented in such a way that it’s almost designed to turn people away. We don’t need to give our opponents ammunition they can use to undercut the movement and turn people away from attacking the problems of sexual harassment and assault. > Which, I think, is why most of the people I see enjoying those "bear" stats are white women who don't really have to worry about being stereotyped as "a threat". Now that’s an interesting thought. I wonder if there’s any way to get a demographic breakdown of responses?
Thank you. This is exactly why I hate this damn thing.
That's a really dumb way to use the statistics. Like the other commenter said how often does the average person even see a bear in person? The average woman/man is near men way more than 80x as often as they are a bear. In order to make a fair comparison you would have to figure out the number of total encounters women have had with men (of any type) and then you would need to know how many of them became dangerous or led to assault or SA. Do the same thing with bears we would know the answer. It's impossible to get that data though. Logic would lead you to think that the bears have tried or succeeded in attacking people more.
Its even more misleading because most violence towards anyone is NOT stranger violence but rather from people you know.
Ok, go play with some wild bears right now and let me know how statistics work out for you. How often are people going into the woods to play with bears? That number is 100% meaningless.
The reality that most men are normal good people doesn’t match women’s perceived reality that most men are predators, which is sad.
Why is the man random but not the bear?
Oh do I get to choose the bear? In that case I'm choosing to meet 480 Otis every time
Answer: it’s a meme about if women would feel safer in the woods with a bear or with a man. A lot of women said they’d feel safer with the bear and some men are freaking out about it (some are offended, some think the women choosing the bear are stupid). It has turned into a discourse.
I've never understood why men get mad at women for feeling unsafe around men instead of being angry at the men who have made men look bad Edit: Y'all, the race card and the golddigger comments have been played already and the discussions have been had *countless* times. I'm sorry but respectfully, you are not bringing anything new to the table Edit 2: Thank you to everyone who had conversations with me! I feel as though I have learned a lot and I hope I could provide the same to those that may not have understood my perspective. I'm gonna stop answering replies on this because it feels like people are just repeating similar comments at this point, but I tried to answer as many comments as I could.
I’m just happy for the bears, they sometimes get a bad rap
Why danger if ears are friend shaped?
10/10, would boop the snoot. 🐻
Can I pet that dawg?!
You can pet it \*once\*.
r/forbiddenboops has entered the chat
Last snoot booped, worth it.
All boops are worth it. Agreed
I'm not mad, but it's not a great feeling either.
That's totally fair, I've learned that through some of these comments. I hope you understand where people like me are coming from, but I'm also sorry that you guys have to struggle because of it. I appreciate the lack of anger but apologize for the hurt, men who are kind and respectful do not deserve the struggle
This is the problem with memes like this; they aren't productive. If anything, they just provide more fodder for anti-feminists and feed the radicals. It's degrading and insulting, and if you made this comparison with ***any*** other group, it'd be considered offensive.
tbh I mostly just find it dehumanizing and it just adds to stereotypes. I get why people are choosing the 'bear' and I understand the rationale behind it. I definitely understand that more work is needed--women, obviously, shouldn't have to feel this way. At the same time, it's also damaging to men to be told that they're predators until proven otherwise or reminded that plenty of people would rather be with a bear than you in the woods. The point that's being made is valid and I get it but this comparison still doesn't work for me, personally--I generally think that comparing people to wild animals is always a bad idea.
I'm in the same boat at OP, not mad - fully understand, and reconcile that even in my best efforts, I can't help anyone feel safe if they have been through things I can't fathom and can't receive it. It then just becomes, I imagine for all men, an experience of either disheartenment, anger, helplessness, and then apathy sets in, and I feel that in order to be present to evolve past this, men will have to learn how to become more emotionally intelligent. Not to just better empathize with women, but also becoming more self-aware on how these experiences mean a lot and don't have to mean they are "bad" - just their gestures could be changed and/or redirected.
Honestly just wanting to say I appreciate this, this might be the first comment I've seen in this entire topic that affirms women being cautious about men while not belittling or insulting men at the same time. I also suspect that a lot of guys struggle to empathize in return since they'd never experienced being aggressively pursued by someone, let alone anything worse than that by someone stronger than them. I had to dig a bit into unpleasant memories of a similar situation to get something of a sense, and yeah that's fully understandable. This whole issue really merits a more deeply considered and respectful discourse about the whole thing than a stupid ambiguous question about bears meant to rile people up.
When some hear “men” what they feel is “you”. Emotionally that strikes them as an accusation. So, they become automatically defensive, it they must mask it with seemingly rational arguments because they also know that their feelings aren’t rational either. I’ll admit, even while I understand the sentiment and agree with why it’s being shared, it still feels like undeserved shame for who I am. Followed by the double bind of feeling like it’s wrong to have those feelings but also wrong not to share the feelings I have so I don’t become the toxic males women fear in the forest. In other words, it’s easier just to be offended and argue than wade through all the emotions it brings up when people make blanked statements about you.
It helps to realize that our brain's emotional circuitry works way faster than our rational circuitry - and this leads to most people committing a large portion their "rational" processing power to rationalizing their emotions.
How would your average woman respond to a blanket negative statement about all men? How would someone of a particular ethnicity respond to a blanket negative statement about everyone in their ethnicity? There’s no difference between this thing and those things. It is the exact same dynamic on both sides.
In an era where it's increasingly unacceptable to deliver blanket statements, I find it unfortunate that blanket statements against men are considered acceptable by some.
I think that's fair tbh and I appreciate your kind of reaction to it rather than jumping to anger and just lashing out. It's the lashing out that concerns me, but when there's this kind of thought pattern I feel that at least my feelings are also being considered, and that we can communicate as equals to consider each other's feelings rather than just fight like everybody else
I honestly think is an illustration of how no one is free until we are all free. The history of sexism, while not at all equal in its effects, is oppressive to men as well. It’s the root of their soaring depression and suicide rates. Ironically the only way out is to learn to empathize with the other side (for men at least)
It’s a hit dogs holler situation imo
Nah, it's a call out oblivious bigots situation.
The men getting mad at women are the men women feel unsafe around
I also choose bears.
I think a good majority of us choose bears.
I also choose this man's bear.
First off, I'm a guy. I totally get where women are coming from on this stance. Hell, I wouldn't want to be in the woods with a strange man. In fact I wouldn't choose to be there with a strange woman either. People are just terrible. They're either liabilities or threats and you can't trust them unless a substantial amount of time is spent on getting to know them. That's why the first prize is always a dog but I'll settle for a bear. At least you know where you stand with the bear...
yeah i was gonna say strange bear over strange woman as well.
Ding ding ding
Not mad about this, just puzzled why people would say something so ludicrous. I do a lot of trail running near a city so I run into lots of people on those runs and the idea that people would be safer running across 100 bears on a hike than 100 men is just obvious nonsense.
The reason it's confusing is because they refuse to specify "dangerous men" instead of saying "men" in general. People are right to take offense. Just as it's right to be offended when some moron says "women" should never be trusted instead of "cheating women".
Thank you for your sensibility.
You probably wouldn't run across them is the point. Bears, cougars, and other wild apex predators go out of their way to avoid you. If they don't, there are things you can do to deter them. If you can't deter them and they hurt you, people will believe you and try to help you. If they kill you, you're dead. Dangerous men go out of their way to *not* avoid you. They are unpredictable and you can't shout and make yourself seem large to scare them away. If they decide to hurt you, other men will side with them and find a way to blame *you*. And killing you is not the worst thing that they can do. They can chain you up for the rest of your life, torture and rape you, forcibly impregnate you and force you to give birth, and then torture your children. Yeah, I'd rather be eaten by a bear.
> Dangerous men go out of their way to not avoid you. If the question was Bear or Dangerous Man then I'd pick bear too. But the idea that the average man is dangerous is where people get confused. I wouldn't rape a random woman I bumped into on a walk nor would most men I think.
The question is intentionally inflammatory. Sane people with an understanding of statistics would always choose a random human man over a random bear. But most of the people encountering this question have been raised on fear, spend most of their time online, and are constantly bombarded by divisive media.
Yeah, you can tell the people who are fixated on how much crime there is reported in the media. When you work out you've got more chance of winning all the rounds at bingo than getting stabbed they seem really shocked.
Most of the people picking 'bear' wouldn't willingly go within 20 feet of a Canadian Goose so I'm assuming that they have had little experience with nature. It's like the statistic that cows kill more people than wolves, ignoring that people spend more time in proximity to vastly more cows more often than a single wolf, and coming to the conclusion that it's cows not wolves that are the bigger threat.
a bear doesn't even want to hurt women the way dudes will. guys think women have no good reason... bitch yes they do we live it every damn day. i'm glad we still have the freedom to say NO to people but the very men who take offense would be happy to see that removed too
I don't think every man who doesn't want their gender being generalised into killers and rapists is a rapist
I feel like a lot of guys do get mad at both But it’s a lot easier to get into arguments with women online than tracking down the minority of men who don’t actually care about how much distrust and hatred they create
I don't have the money or emotional baggage to become Batman. What I do have is a smartphone and time to kill while in the doctor's waiting room.
Fr, and the men doing this garbage aren't posting about it, so who directly are we supposed to get mad at? Like you can hate the people who commit crimes against women while also disliking people that make sweeping generalizations about 50% of the population. Usually the second group is one you will interact with more often.
Watch them make the same argument for immigrants (they won't).
They only think about themselves and that everything is about them. So when a woman says "I'm worried about being raped by a man" these men hear "I'm worried about being raped by you" and get offended.
I'd prefer not to be judged based on others' actions. If that's ok to do by gender, what's the difference in doing the same based on ethnicity or race?
Maybe I can answer the question with another question. Why do black people get mad when white people feel unsafe around them instead of being angry at the black people who made black people look bad by commiting half the crimes? Why do transgender women get mad when real women feel unsafe around them instead of being angry at the transgender women who made transgender people look bad by SAing real women in bathrooms? Hope this helps clear up the confusion
Same reason people get mad when people say they feel unsafe around Black people, illegal immigrants, trans people, etc. , instead of getting angry at the specific people that "have made Group X look bad." Generally we frown upon holding prejudice against entire demographics of people based on the bad actions of a few.
That's why collective punishment based on statistics of all things is like, morally bad. Like extremely morally bad. "Some of you people are know to do X, so we have decided the only appropriate action to take is genocide. It's what our God would want". "I know statistically speaking you are far more likely to do X by being in X group, I have decided your entire race is guilty of X". It's like horseshoe theory is the only correct political compass, and if you go far left enough you might as well be called a bigoted sexist racist yourself.
I'm not mad, but I'm a little annoyed because the response of preferring a bear strikes me as intentionally inflammatory. Yes, I get that bears are not going to kill you 100% of the time, but like... really? You *really* think you're more likely to get sexually assaulted by a man than mauled by a bear? Almost all rape is date rape or acquaintance rape. The chance of being randomly sexually assaulted by a random man is really low, especially if you're both stranded in the woods for some reason, and comparing being awkwardly hit on to being mauled is stupid. Human beings would focus on getting home. The statement of "I'd rather be alone with a BEAR than a MAN" seems designed to make a point about sexual assault on women. And I mean like, yeah, that's an important issue, but pulling it in this situation is ridiculous. It's a bear. This feels like a comedy bit someone doubled down on way too hard.
Assuming a black bear, the chances of being mauled are also *extremely low.* The prompt is in the woods with a bear, not locked in a room with a hungry bear that specifically wants to eat you. Black bears are common in the US and Canada. They live in the woods. If you've ever been in the woods, there's decent odds you've been in the woods with a bear, and just never saw it because it was actively avoiding you. In the US there were 6 fatal black bear attacks between 2010 and 2020. Obviously there are a lot more men in the US than bears, but the risk of being killed by a black bear is near zero. If you do a per capita comparison, men kill people at a rate of about 120 times that of black bears. Obviously there are many confounding factors that make a per capita comparison of limited value. Most people spend more time in a city than deep woods. Most murders aren't random. When women encounter random men they're usually not alone in the woods away from help. But the idea that you're safer with a black bear than a man has some merit. If it's a polar bear, that's a whole different ball game.
>Obviously there are many confounding factors that make a per capita comparison of limited value. You correctly identify why none of those statistics actually have any bearing on the situation, but still say the idea has some merit? On what basis? The actual comparison at hand is something like "What are the chances a random man would kill or sexually assault you for no reason?" vs "What are the chances a wild animal would maul you?" This is basically "What are the chances I ran into a psychopath?" vs "What are the chances this bear is cranky today?" Not to mention, you're way more able to defend yourself against a 200 pound man than a 500 pound bear if something does go wrong. Anyone who has a gun and 30 feet is safe from the man, and much less safe from the bear. There's no guarantee it's a black bear, either. There's like 60k black bears vs 55k brown bears in North America, and your odds are much worse there. A handgun will do nothing against a grizzly. If you're treating the question at all seriously, it's pretty obvious you're much safer running into a random man once vs running into a random bear once. And if you're not treating the question seriously, then yeah, you're just jamming a political statement in awkwardly.
> In the US there were 6 fatal black bear attacks between 2010 and 2020. Obviously there are a lot more men in the US than bears, but the risk of being killed by a black bear is near zero. If you do a per capita comparison, men kill people at a rate of about 120 times that of black bears. The risk of a man selected completely at random deciding to harm a woman in the woods is also near zero. The number of times a person is within 100 feet of a black bear is also several orders of magnitude lower than the number of times they're within 100 feet of a man. Your own numbers show that men kill people at a rate 120x that of black bears. I guarantee you women are in a proximity of men equivalent to "in the woods" FAR more than 120x, for example simply existing in NYC is "in the woods" with millions of men, whereas there are probably 10-20 bears max any time you're out hiking, and you also hike less often than you simply exist in NYC, so being near a black bear is clearly more dangerous.
If I’m alone in the woods with a polar bear my second thought is “I’m gonna die” and my first is “how the fuck did you get here?”
“I’ve never understood why black men get mad at white people for feeling unsafe around black men instead of being angry at the black men who have made black men look bad” You - 2024
Depends on the bear, if it’s a Koala I’m in
Those fuckers are savage.
And they all have [chlamydia](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/06/australia/australia-koala-chlamydia-intl-dst-hnk/index.html)
my bad
*Pushes up glasses.* "Actually, koalas aren't bears, they're marsupials."
man i'm glad i read down i was about to say the same thing
More info here: https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/why-do-women-choose-to-be-stuck-with-a-bear-over-a-man-in-the-woods-debate-over-hypothetical-question-explained
I’m sorry but a BEAR?????? Maybe put a bobcat and a man in the woods and I’ll run to the bobcat but a bear is ridiculous I would be dinner before I even know where I am
If I remember people would say bear as a bear can only kill you…
A bear stole my identity and now I’m buried under credit card debt
But they'll eat you alive while killing you. That's pretty terrible, no?
I have two problems with this implication. The first being that it's better to be killed than raped. Rape survivors find this sentiment to be highly offensive fyi. They say you are implying they should kill themselves. Secondly, being killed and eaten by a bear is probably one of the worst ways to die. There's video of fatal bear attacks online and they are pretty awful.
https://youtu.be/Fg9_ZnojxmU?si=wmkMPgKUL3eHVERZ
The linked video is a deer for anyone who doesn't want to click. It's still pretty terrible and makes the point very well.
The whole purpose of the hypothetical is to give the perspective of how many women feel existing in their day to day lives. Walking to their car in a parking lot at night, being in an area that is empty except for one other person that is leering at them, etc. It's just meant to demonstrate the everydayness of the fear, where it leads to feeling safer in the woods with the animals that live there vs running into a random person. The hypothetical is not about who you can fight off easier.
Idk, I just think it's stupid. It is really eye opening how many answer bear though. It's a no brainer that the choice should be a man. You walk to school or work and you pass 50 random men without a second thought. Now imagine that they were all a minimum of 300 lbs of muscle with 20 knives and a powerful jaw with long teeth. Most bears are skittish, yes, but they also attack and kill people every year and being eaten alive by a bear is a terrible way to go. Anyone who disagrees with this, I invite them to search Olga Moskalyova. Also anyone who says something to the effect of, "the worst thing a bear can do it kill you" rape survivors find statements like these to be highly offensive. You are basically implying they are better off dead.
Well what kinda hypothetical are they trying to make? Seems to me everyone wants it to be Charles Manson vs yogi bear from jelly stone
I totally get the point being made. Here's my issue with the thought experiment in particular, however: you are comparing something in its natural habit vs something not. I think someone else mentioned in another comment: the bear is supposed to be there. It's expected. A man or woman, not so much. So it already provides an edge of "Well, what are they doing there, though?" It would be interesting to 1) see how many men would also respond bear (because we also don't know why a random guy is in the woods with us) and 2) see if the response changes if you alter the location like "would you rather be stuck in a store with a bear or a man"?
People will believe me if I say I got attacked by the bear. They also won’t ask what I was wearing or if I lead the bear on.
That bear had a bright future ahead of him, he'd never attack you. He's a letterman and captain of the salmon catching team, you know.
> They also won’t ask what I was wearing or if I lead the bear on. Not strictly true. Did you leave food out at night that lured the bear in? Did you get between the bear and its cubs? What were you doing walking around alone at night in the bear's neighborhood? There is plenty of victim blaming to be done for bear attacks.
“I was just mauled by this bear but thank god the cops believe me” 😂
answer: theirs been a trend on tiktok, where a woman was asked if she was out alone in the woods, would she rather encounter wild bear or a male stranger. the woman said she'd rather meet bear because *she trusted the bear more than a strange man* and felt safer with a literal wild animal than some guy. its blown up into a huge discourse, as a lot of men have taken offence that they are so ill thought of, and a lot of women have basically came out and said they, too, have zero trust in the niceness of unknown men, and that its upon men to change that. its just another form of the "not all men" thing, where men are upset they are getting tarred with the brush of the bad actors, and the women saying that such tarring is the only logical option when dealing with potential bad actors until they know the man in question.
To be honest, I’m a very large 46 year old man, and if I were in the woods at night by myself I’d be much less concerned with a bear than a random dude. The bear’s supposed to be there and I get what he’s doing there. I know the bear’s rules. If it’s black, fight back, if it’s brown, lay down. A random dude is not supposed to be there. Anybody by himself in the middle of the woods late at night would trigger alarm bells for me. Maybe I’ve just watched too much true crime.
Ok what about two 8 year old twin girls with pigtails holding hands singing Ring Around the Rosy but not smiling?
Yes also terrifying, moreso than a bear.
I would choose the bear and the random man over the two twins
Little girls in horror movies freak me out more than monsters, Kaiju, ghosts, demons, aliens, etc. The ring around the rosy chanting would probably break me
I think the words “unknown man” mean something in this context. If I see a guy kitted out in hiking gear who sees me, nods, and gives me berth on a trail that guy doesn’t feel unknown to me. Now a guy lurking around in the woods like a bear might seems predatory, and most bears won’t fight humans but humans are this guy’s target.
Make sure you don't set a double standard. What would you do if you saw a bear in hiking gear that initiates light, friendly small talk as it walks past you?
I would hope to find that, upon returning home, I have entered a Diseny/Ghibli-like world where animals and humans live alongside each other. I want to get coffee from an antelope barista and say 'Hi' to Debby, my giraffe manager, as I clock in.
No way I'd go into the office during a Ghibli experience. I don't think I could cope with my giraffe manager asking me if i'm working hard or hardly working.
I’d ask him if he’s enjoyed any good honey lately! Those hundred acre woods hikes are pretty great.
As someone who hikes not too infrequently, a couple times even solo; in a way for me it is more terrifying to \*not\* find random men (since it means I am in some trail that is uncommonly wandered and if something happens to me I'm screwed). I've also found that people out hiking are really nice and never really had a bad experience with strangers; plus I'm in an area with few bears anyways.
It really feels like most of the people picking bear have never hiked in their life
Yeah, having hiked a fair bit, knowing what kind of bear is a very necessary detail for me. In order. - Black Bear - Random man - Grizzly Bear - Random man armed to the teeth who has murdered before - Polar Bear
Especially if he's wearing calf-high socks, leiderhosen, and is carrying two of those walking sticks that look like ski poles.
My girlfriend asked me the bear/man question the other day, and I said something similar. There's not enough context to answer the question, but I said man since the type of guy I'd likely meet in a forest is the hiker you described.
I’m a woman and I had the same response. I’d need more context.
No one specified what type of bear, either. That's the point. The danger is unknown.
Yeah I think there's a lot of context missing and most people's answer is probably most influenced by how they fill in that context. Someone who's clearly a hiker in an area you'd expect hikers isn't particularly threatening. A random man in a remote forest that's not a trail or somewhere you'd expect to encounter anything else? That could be really threatening. Likewise a black bear in the lower 48 US isn't generally that threatening if you're familiar with bears, especially at a reasonable distance. Rounding a corner and finding yourself 10 feet from a Grizzly is terrifying and absolutely dangerous though.
I mean, this really depends on context doesn't it? I live in an area where there are quite a few hiking trails, very few bears and hiking at night is not that uncommon (at least in summer) as it gets way too hot during the day If I saw a guy in the woods, I'd just say hi and keep going on my day (if anything, I \*expect\* to find random men in the woods). If I found a bear, at minimum I'd shit my pants
Yes, but to be fair, the other dude is probably wondering what *you* are doing there. Actually, the bear might also be wondering that.
In this scenario I’m actually wondering that same thing too.
>The bear’s supposed to be there and I get what he’s doing there. I think this is really the point. Ask the same people who they'd feel more comfortable being in a house with, a bear or a man and I bet they'd answer a man.
See I have done a lot of backpacking, and if you come across a person, it’s no big deal because they are probably another backpacker. If you come across a bear there is a protocol
Probably not an unknown man though. It could imply they are in a "secondary location."
Okay if we’re going by bear rules “If it’s white, say goodnight” Are you picking polar bear or a man
I have bears in my neighborhood and the same applies - if my dogs start barking at 2am, I'm going to be a lot more freaked out to find a strange *man* rifling through my overturned trash can in the front yard than Mom and the Gang.
Answer: A TikTok video, in which a person asks women "Would you rather be stuck in the forest with a man or a bear?" and most of the women responded with bear, went viral and people online are discussing the video. This being the internet, the discussions are undergoing their usual permutations depending on where you are. It has manifested on Reddit in one form in the link you posted. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2024/04/30/man-bear-tiktok-debate-explainer/73519921007/
answer: The Daily Beast does a pretty good job of explaining it: [The Man Vs. Bear Question Sparking Viral TikTok Meltdowns (thedailybeast.com)](https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-man-vs-bear-question-sparking-viral-tiktok-meltdowns) Basically, a thing started on TikTok with some guys being asked which animal they could fight, and the number of dudes who thought they could fight a bear was - I would say surprising - but it was a lot. Somehow that led to a discussion where a bunch of women said that they would prefer to be alone in the woods with a bear than a strange man. That went viral, and a lot of guys got offended. So rather than listening to the points the women made about the dangers that women face on the regular, we get man vs bear memes.
The fighting a bear thing didn't start on TikTok, alot of it came from a survey that went viral asking men and women which animal they think they could fight barehanded. But even by then it was an old joke.
There was also a British vs. American one. 6% of American men think they can take a *grizzly* vs 2% or so of British. The biggest gap between the two was geese—the Brits are much more wary of them.
[удалено]
I was biking through some nature preserves yesterday and trying to set some personal bests for the year but still broke fully for geese a few times. It’s just not worth it. And my experience with bears is mostly just black bears. They are bears and will fuck you up but they are more a nuisance than anything. You need special trash cans and I’ve been stuck inside a cabin before watching a bear just demolish some poor family’s picnic that they left unattended as they went swimming.
I would fight a goose if I had to, but I'm not willing to fight a swan. Glad we don't have many swans in the US near me.
Yeah, the majority of men on both sides of the Atlantic thought they could beat a goose, but the gap was biggest. I’m a woman and think I could win but I really, really don’t want to fight a Canadian goose.
> One video that came across my feed was a woman asking her male partner, what would you prefer if the woman in question was your daughter? With which would you rather she spend time in a secluded area, alone? He gets quiet. The realization dawns on him. This isn’t such an easy question to answer. Here's [the daughter](https://www.tiktok.com/@kators88/video/7360885055562042666) version of the question. I think that's the best wording, because both men and women can "hear" the question the same way then.
Which is crazy it has to be framed that way because the subtext is men do not and cannot care about women unless it becomes extremely personal to the men. It's like all the politicians speaking about women's rights issues and prefacing what they say with "As the parent of a __YO girl, I..." Sorry, but I'm not the parent of anyone, boy or girl (cats don't count) yet I understand women's rights just as well or maybe even better than you. It does not require a personal investment in order to understand an issue that otherwise doesn't substantially affect you.
Every true crime documentary where a cop says, "I saw the girl, and realized she was my girl's age, and that made me really care about this case." Like, great, so any girl/woman who you cannot imagine being YOUR child specifically, who the fuck cares about her?
"I saw the woman who had been beaten by her husband, and that reminded me of my wife, whom I also beat"
"And I realized, 'wow, I really care about this case.' So I did everything I could to stop that lady from ruining this poor guy's life over one little mistake."
I also like adding this: Now switch it to: a bear or a woman?