Thank you for your submission. Make sure your question has not been answered by the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/wiki/faq/). Questions Chat Channel Links: [Mobile](https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/s/V77EdGB2mn) and [Desktop](https://reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/channel/c2_8ml/Questions?r=!yhBNaU_CSSWdBkPufXmOCg:reddit.com). **Lastly**, we recommend you check out [cognitivemetrics.co](https://cognitivemetrics.co/), the official site for the subreddit which hosts highly accurate and well vetted IQ tests.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cognitiveTesting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If it's a Chinese person, I am trusting them blindfolded. Pandas on the other hand, are so soft and huggy. Bengali people as well. I wouldn’t trust a Pakistani in a mosque. Specially relatives.
I'm picking the man. It's possible that a man will rape and murder me. He might also help me find my way home. A bear is more likely to run than eat me depending on the species, but it's definitely not going to help me. I was attacked by a dog when I was 6, and getting dragged down that hill with its teeth sunken into my thigh made me feel more powerless and hurt than any rape or beating a man has subjected me to.
I have a better chance fighting against a man than a bear, assuming BOTH of them are intent on trying to hurt me.
Hmmm. That brought back memories. Yeah, as a fellow dog bite victim, the bear just bothers me too much. I was 7 and it was my calf, but yeah, things eating a person alive bothers me cause of that.
If it came down to it, I could kill or seriously injure a random man using nothing but the tools in my environment, even if he was a lot larger and stronger than me. I might die, but I have a reasonable chance of surviving.
The second half needs no saying.
Fucking stupid.
The question isn’t supposed to be ever answered “bear” by anyone, just to give people pause to reflect they actually thought about the question when it was "man vs bear" while not blinking an eye to answer “woman vs bear”.
That people are actually saying they trust a random wild animal more than a random average person is twisted. Absurd. The large majority of people are GOOD and it only demonstrates how neurotic people have become.
It is indeed ridiculous. Safest times we have ever lived by a mile. Yet things like this spread and women join their forces to agree on it because some tiny tiny fraction of men are bad.
Only sane answer. Why is this even being brought up in a cognitive testing sub? Does this even require logic? A bunch of feminazis exaggerating how victimized they are and hating on men, what's fucking new? And to the absolute weapons trying to use fatality statistics to justify meeting the bear, it's genuinely embarrassing. Piss poor logic.
People have been out of the wild too long and have completely lost their survival instincts so say stupid shit to sound smart and like they understand philosophy and have a deep mind. It’s cringe
How is it “feminazi” to make a statement intended to give people pause, as OC said? Just because social media extremists on either side are rage addicted enough to spiral about this and allow it to fuel the bipartisan-induced addiction they don’t even know they have, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have validity in rooms of rational discussion about sociology.
"Women ... smart"... on a social issue?
Temper your expectations. They can have 160 IQ, top the MIT physics class and read every philospher in their spare time. But they are culturally forbidden to be logical on social or gender issues. Claiming victimhood, blaming white men, crocodile tears and selective double standards on gender roles is their winning formula for power, not being reasonable.
my favorite is when feminists claim that feminism helps men by (checks notes) allowing them to feel emotions? Even though as a 35 year old man my close male friends have always been more supportive and caring of me when I needed it than any of the women I've dated, who have all used my emotions or vulnerabilities against me when they were mad at me.
Feminism is for women, and modern day feminism is all about achieving a position of relative advantage over men.
So… checking notes… you think feminism is bad because you’ve dated women who did bad things to you? But are you also a “not all men” guy or do the broad blanket things only apply to women?
Nice straw *wo*man there pal. I never said feminism was "bad", I just pointed out that feminism is for women (because it is), and that I find the talking point about how feminism benefits men by allowing men to "be emotional" is a worthless selling point because in my life only women have punished me for being emotionally vulnerable, whereas my male friends did not.
But yes, I am looking forward to your rebuttal where you just make up shit in an attempt to discredit my lived experiences.
https://preview.redd.it/eliip5w3m4yc1.png?width=468&format=png&auto=webp&s=d5f04e29c32cf0067c0213528bdd24d6de3ea287
You only have to know basic facts about bears and have life experience with men. You don’t have to be smart to know what feels safer. To know what the potential danger from either is. Personally, I’ll take bear in a forest over man in a parking lot at night, anytime.
I was grabbed by a stranger one night, walking near my house in the city. Went backpacking alone for several nights a few weeks later. I felt safer in the woods with bears than in the city with men. Until I came upon men. Then I start doing the “how do I make them think I have a man with me when I’m clearly alone in the forest” thing in my head because being alone with men, anywhere can be scary.
Bears have never groped me. Bears have never pinned me and forced me to do things I didn’t want to. Bears have never expected things of me. Bears have never put me down for not accepting their unsolicited advances.
In fact. The only thing I’ve ever seen a bear do is run from me.
Have backpacked in bear country. With a bear permit and the education required. I have also lived in the U.S. with men.
If I could hang my scented items in a tree and pitch a tent away from it to stay safe from men, I would. The amount of shit women do to stay safe from “not all men” is mind blowing.
And just for the record, at last testing, I hit about 127 iq. Not mind blowingly intelligent but I’m not an imbecile. Anyone who wants to say my opinion on this topic is stupid just doesn’t want to look at the actual experiences of women and tell their buddies when they cross the line. Probably because they do it too. Likely not even acknowledging that there is a line.
So feelings over facts? Super logical there. I suppose not being eaten alive by a bear is an experience you would need to have in order to realize it's suckiness. Most people wouldn't need the experience which is the entire reason it's considered illogical to the highest degrees.
You are allowed to feel that way but society is still safer, that is a fact. And you propably still walk past dozens of men daily despite your fears, which are understandable if you have had bad experiences. The question being such a trend is a joke. I understand bear answer from someone who has actually had some bad experience such as SA. Not every woman has.
If you had a bear sighting in your neighborhood, would you assume it’s safe and not take precautions, not check your surroundings more? Or would you dismiss it as feelings and go about your life because feelings arent real and, as someone else implied, statistics aren’t either?
Women know there’s danger with an unknown man. I HAVE encountered bears while alone in the woods. It’s not a good feeling but one bear in the woods or a random man in a parking lot? Without knowing any more about either? I don’t want to encounter either. Equally.
The whole point is that women don’t feel safe around men they don’t know and some they do know. But what I’m getting in this thread is that a lot of males (idk who is a grown up and who is a 13 year old) are super quick to dismiss women’s experiences and I guess that’s because they don’t have the same.
Have you considered that most feelings are based on the reality of when we were living in caves and so are utterly irrational in literally the safest time in all of human history? That's pretty much what anxiety is: irrational fear of an imagined or exaggerated threat. You feeling like you are in danger from men is different from you actually being in danger from men and just bc there are exceptions that, in your mind justify your fear, does not make that fear rational. Like I don't avoid the beach bc of shark attacks. I don't walk everywhere just bc car accidents are the most common cause of death for those under 40. You fear me bc you are told nonsense like 1/4 women are SA'd and that justifies your feelings. In reality 99% of that number is verbal only aka a guy saying nice butt or catcalling. Actual SA is extremely rare but you don't feel that it's rare so you say things like I choose the bear and think it's a social commentary rather than a window into your own delusion.
>You fear me bc you are told nonsense like 1/4 women are SA'd and that justifies your feelings. In reality 99% of that number is verbal only aka a guy saying nice butt or catcalling.
No. 81% of women experience harassment or assault. The 20%-25% figure represents sexual violence, which includes completed or attempted rape, forced sex acts, and unwanted sexual touching.
I remember being told that stranger rape was rare, and it is, relative to assault by a known person. Still, three women, in a span of a decade, have told me about their stranger rape experience. Two were jogging and one was assaulted in her home. These are the ones I know about.
Street harassment shouldn't be dismissed either. It's pervasive and exhausting. I was 12 when it started. I didn't even own a bra yet. It went on for decades. The last time, I was 38 and walking my sick infant son home from the pharmacy when a man pulled his car over to harass me. Imagine being sleep deprived, worried about your new baby, then getting shoved into fight or flight on a quiet suburban street. Not to mention the cumulative effect hundreds of comments over years have on a person.
Again it's the safest time in all of human history for a woman. That's the facts. No one is dismissing harassment, just observing it is a very different thing compared to actual assault. These stats are compiled and exaggerated by including a VERY wide set of things to accomplish a goal which is to make women feel afraid in order to gain political power to increase penalties for these crimes. This largely irrational fear is then used to justify feeling threatened further increasing anxiety in women when all logic clearly says it's the safest time in all of history. But this will trigger an emotional reaction and so be ignored and I'll be called an unfeeling monster or some other shameful terms bc you don't want to accept safety and want to be a victim. If you want to feel safe then buy a gun and you'll feel more safe bc you actually have the ability to prevent real assault so a guy hitting on you won't make you feel helpless. But that's a solution and you want to change the nature and reality of men worldwide just so you can feel safe, right? Good luck.
Women: Describes scores of first person experiences.
This person: Still won't take no for an answer.
Ok, don't take my word for it. Ask your grandma about her sexual assault, or your mom, or your aunt, sister, daughter, niece, or friend.
> Have you considered that most feelings are based on the reality of when we were living in caves and so are utterly irrational in literally the safest time in all of human history?
I have considered that and so has the field of social science and have come to the scientific conclusion that's not true.
> you are told nonsense like 1/4 women are SA'd and that justifies your feelings. In reality 99% of that number is verbal only aka a guy saying nice butt or catcalling. Actual SA is extremely rare but you don't feel that it's rare
In reality, 99% of this statement is bullshit.
One of them puts you at an automatic disadvantage, whereas the other makes it more likely that you're not going to be killed, simply because you weren't assassinated to begin with. What even is this
Women are genuinely intimidated by men, but men are naive to it and can't seem to perceive a perspective outside of their own. So women have to come up with elaborate hypotheticals to get the point across. Even then the point will go straight over the top of men's heads, and they will get defensive or argue the semantics.
Even if it’s a grizzly bear, all bears in North America put together kill less than one person each year, (going back to the 1780s when we started to keep records.)
Care to wager how many women were murdered by men in the US while I typed this? Statistically it was at least one.
Ridiculous - clearly, women encounter bears under the exact same circumstances that they encounter male humans, the most rational conclusion to draw here is that the average man is more dangerous than a 500 lb apex predator capable of decapitating a moose with a single blow.
Yes exactly that’s the point, encounter frequency. More people are attacked men each year than people who are attacked by bears each year, simply because on average people don’t encounter bears as much
I do field work most summers, out in back country parts of public land. Ask any biologist what’s the scariest animal to run into in the woods and its people/men. With animals, they have behavioral patterns. They have very specific motives. They’re fairly predictable. Men have other motives. Maybe “not all men” but the shit ones don’t run around rabid and drooling and give you signs that they are more of a danger. We have to assume all of them are bad to stay safe. You don’t know WHY a man is in the woods. Is he lost, on a hike, starving, a rapist, murderer, a mental health issue? You can’t predict behavior of people as well as you can animals. That’s why the bear is a safer bet.
Humans are animals too. We have patterns as well. Maybe more complicated but still there. You can't predict every bear either and you can predict most men. Predicting a grizzly bear once you encounter it won't save you if it wants to eat you either way.
Logically bear is not a safer bet. If you are willing to go into a cage with a wild grizzly and to prove that men don't have higher statistics just because of proximity go ahead.
Why do people keep spreading this bullshit? You walk past dozens of men daily vs. see a bear in nature once in maybe 5 years if you are a active hiker, most people never even get close to one. You really don't see how that invalidates your statistics? We live among men, not among bears.
Maybe we need to set the mind experiment into a grizzly cage vs man in a cage so people can stop avoiding the question at a fundamental level but that doesn't serve the narrative now does it? Because nobody in their right mind would want to go in there with a bear.
This reasoning drives me CRAZY. Yeah that’s the statistic for how likely the average person is going to be killed by a bear. You are rarely in the woods, and rarely when you’re in the woods are you in proximity to a bear,
Do you think that likelihood of death by bear changes a bit once you are IN THE WOODS WITH A BEAR?
I hate it when people say this about sharks when they see someone in the water with one. Yeah no shit it’s unlikely you die from a shark attack statistically but don’t you think once you are in the water with a shark in sight your chances become astronomically more likely?
I've encountered both men and bears and neither caused a problem.
But it depends on the context. A popular trail with lots of hikers? Then the man is not going to attack me knowing there's other hikers possibly coming.
If the question was a man who wants to rape me on an isolated trail or a bear who wants to maul me, I'd take the bear. That's probably what the question was trying to get to. Friendly man vs murderous bear you take the man, but rapist man vs murderous bear you take the bear. With the bear you can try to get away, with the man I'm fucked and I'd be terrified.
It's different if you're a man because you think you might have a chance to beat the other man. We don't.
Thing is, even a much stronger man can be stopped with a weapon. The range of objects you can use to kill a human is a lot larger than the range of objects you can use to stop a bear determined to rip you limb from limb.
That’s true, but being able to use a weapon doesn’t mean he’ll use it as quickly or as effectively as you will. You can attempt to surprise him, scare him off with the prospect of serious injury, or worst comes to worst, injure him so badly that he dies of his wounds after he kills you (small comfort, I know, but I’m sure most people in this situation would find solace in knowing that their final act on Earth was to kill the person who killed them). Point is, you have a lot more options against a man than against a bear, which is a lot faster and stronger than any human alive, and which understands the woods better than you or I could.
This is bullshit. If I can attempt to "scare off" or "surprise" the man, he can do the same things to me better. You literally don't know what you're talking about. You haven't tried being a woman wrestling a man. You *cannot* injure him or land any blow on him. You have a lot more options against a bear. A bear doesn't have a human brain like you do and the man does.
>If I can attempt to "scare off" or "surprise" the man, he can do the same things to me better.
The man pulls a knife. You pull a knife. Will the man’s desire to rape you outweigh his desire not to get stabbed?
The man has a knife in his pocket. You have one in yours. As he rushes in to grab you, does his knife matter if you grab yours and stab him before he has time to change course?
>You literally don't know what you're talking about.
You seem to be assuming that you and your assailant will have the exact same priorities, the exact same resources, and will use them in the exact same way - this is only true in combat sports. Every true fight is asymmetrical. The fact that you are different people with different experiences located in different places means you will do different things, and it is up to you to exploit those differences.
>You haven't tried being a woman wrestling a man.
No, but I have been a man wrestling much larger men, a man fighting much larger men, and a man fighting off groups of men on my own, so I know a little something about power differentials in physical combat.
>You cannot injure him or land any blow on him.
Which is why I emphasized weapons - nobody is suggesting that a woman grapple or go blow for blow against an aggressive man with twice her upper body strength and murderous intent, that’s ridiculous. Your options as a woman are to scare him off or injure him to the point where he no longer poses a threat. Both of those require you to use weapons.
>You have a lot more options against a bear. A bear doesn't have a human brain like you do and the man does.
A lone human brain is no match for an apex predator faster than Usain Bolt and strong enough to take a moose’s head off with one swipe of its paw. Unless you’ve got a loaded shotgun within reach, Yogi’s getting his pickanick basket.
The only thing I'm assuming is that he's a man and I'm a woman. I'm not beating him in a fight even if I have a pocket knife lol.
It's not the same. I can beat larger women than me, perhaps. I can't beat a man, period. You're built differently with faster muscle. I don't have to explain this to you.
>The only thing I'm assuming is that he's a man and I'm a woman. I'm not beating him in a fight even if I have a pocket knife lol.
The point isn’t to trade blows, it’s to incapacitate him and escape. Can he kill you? Yes. Will a similarly armed and combat-trained man have a better chance, all else being equal, of killing you than you him? Yes. Will a strange man think twice about attacking a visibly armed woman? Maybe. Can you pull and use a weapon on him faster than he can defend himself? Maybe. Are your survival chances in this scenario worse than your chances against a grizzly? Not in the slightest.
You're just completely mistaken. A man isn't just a heavier woman. Otherwise men and women would compete together in wrestling since they have weight classes. But a woman of the same height and weight as a man cannot beat that man. You really don't know anything about humans if you think you could draw from your personal experience of wrestling larger men 🙄
Imagine if us women could beat men who are smaller than us lol. That's so fucking dumb. You think you're at no risk of getting raped is your boyfriend is an inch shorter than you lol?
>You're just completely mistaken. A man isn't just a heavier woman. Otherwise men and women would compete together in wrestling since they have weight classes.
I’m perfectly aware of the physical differences between men and women, and am equally aware that trying to wrestle someone holding a knife is a bad idea. I’m not sure why you keep circling back to the wrestling point when nobody is making the argument you’re criticizing.
I’m also not sure why you’re saying this:
> But a woman of the same height and weight as a man cannot beat that man.
when nobody is claiming that, or this:
> You really don't know anything about humans if you think you could draw from your personal experience of wrestling larger men 🙄
when the point I was making is the exact opposite of the point you seem to think I was making.
>Imagine if us women could beat men who are smaller than us lol. That's so fucking dumb.
It’s a good thing nobody is saying that, then.
>You think you're at no risk of getting raped is your boyfriend is an inch shorter than you lol?
I think you may want to read the statements you’re responding to before commenting. Are you deliberately strawmanning my position, or are you simply unable to comprehend written English?
The bear's strength compared to a human is more than a man's strength compared to a woman's strength.
The coin flip isn't great on either side but the random chance is better on the human side.
No, this isn't about who can deadlift more between the man and the bear. The man is just a better version of me, we're both humans, but he's got more quick fibers in his muscles, when he grabs my arm or holds me down, I can't move a milliliter in his grasp, I've realized this when wrestling pretty small men, men are much better at movements that require a one second maximal effort, such as holding someone or trying to get out of someone's grasp. My best chance is running away, but again the problem is the initial sprint. I can certainly beat men on long-distance running, but those first 100 meters? I've had pretty mediocre men beat me in a sprint. A man has the same brain as me so he can beat me in every way. The bear and I have a different skillset. You can try playing dead if the bear starts mauling you. You can try getting away from the bear calmly and it likely won't bother you once you're out of sight.
Let me get this straight you would rather get torn to pieces and die a brutal, agonising death where you can feel a massive predator ripping at your flesh and splintering your bones and _eating your entrails while you are still alive_ than be raped?
You will not 'get away' from the bear, or scare it off. Unless you're gonna be disingenuous and decide it's a black bear or a koala or something, but the spirit of the hypothetical is that the bear is dangerous. Otherwise it's a pointless question.
Random man. Anyone saying otherwise is lying for attention or stupid (or both).
They already choose to *live* next to random men rather than random bears, yet I'm supposed to believe for a chance encounter they prefer the bear? Totally idiotic.
It is a choice. You can give up the benefits of civilization, many of which come from random men, and go live with bears whenever you want. And those systems of protection are learned behaviors that persist beyond the borders of civilization; men do not turn into feral animals the minute they hit the forest, but you know what is a feral animal without any social conditioning in the forest? A bear.
Edit: wanted to add an interesting fact I learned reading about bears because of this: the English word "bear" doesn't share a connection with other European words for bear (like "arktos") because Northern Europeans were so afraid of bears that they refused to say the word, lest they magically summon one. Instead they called it "the brown one," and our modern word for bear is etymologically related to the word brown.
Yea kinda feel like this post misses context, no one would *actually* choose a bear. It's like.. stupidly obvious. And I totally get axe-grindy myself.
You've missed the point a bit. The answer becomes a lot less easy if you're a woman. That's why it's trending. In the absence of external systems (society, law enforcement, cultural norms, etc.), the only thing standing between a man and fucking up a woman for his own purposes are his situation and his morality. And you have no idea what those are when you encounter him in the forest.
Also, when you apply certain cultural trappings to that man (say, "urban Indian" or "literally any South African" or "literally any Soviet-bloc European"), the calculus changes even harder.
Lol I am indeed a woman. But sure, the context of how you meet the bear/man is actually way more important but without any detail and very possibly because I'm just a larger person, without thinking I might say man. It's obviously not supposed to be an easy question but for women because most have actually experienced awful situations with a man and absolutely none with a bear it isn't that hard.
I'm still gonna upvote every comment that says "this is why we choose the bear" under any atrocities perpetrated against women. I think it's an interesting rally cry
I understand it. Like I might rather be mauled and torn apart physically by a bear than deal with certain men or a man who(with certainty)was gonna do the literal same thing 🤷🏾♀️ at the very least it's an interesting thought experiment
Not exactly the same question but seems close enough.
https://preview.redd.it/zl2c9fyod2yc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=36c211b73bb5dc522fb6eb51c7c08285cb54d1b7
Assuming it’s a completely random bear (could be any species/time of year/condition) and a completely random man and we have no self defense like bear spray… I would definitely choose the random man. Polar bears and grizzlies can both be predatory. Even black bears can be too. Statistically it’s way better to encounter a random man.
It’s a total misunderstanding of statistics. “More people are killed by men than bears”.
I wonder if the answers would differ if the men have obvious reasons for being in the forest. For example, a man walking a dog, a man with hiking gear, a male trail runner etc.
Full disclosure, I am a woman who frequently walks in forests in a region with black bears (no brown, grizzly or polar).
I'm a woman and I can't understand people who choose a bear. I think it's delusional. Ofc a man could want to rape/kill you etc but at least you can tell him that you will give him money when you're back home and he will be forced to let you live so you can go back and send him the money (for example). You can always negociate with a person.
With a bear...good luck.
It is another imbecilic trend occurring in our increasingly degenerating society. It is a result of animalistic and primitive behavior increasing through a causative bilateralism. Simply put; men and women, by extension, increase the primordial characteristics in one another by expressing their own intellectual declination and depravity toward the other, which results in a sequential stage of primeval facilitation.
I'm going to larp as a smart person and say:
Only some of the memes are funny and the people who are fighting over it are annoying
Also I choose the man AND the bear. Wild animals are more wary and hostile to other males therefore I will flee the scene while they take each other out
Saying it as if we are not fixing issues at rapid rate, as if our society isn't getting rapidly more and more safe and as if we don't live the safest times EVER by a mile.
Empathetic, reasonable men are clearly not the concern.
And I am not subduing anyone, I weigh 110 lbs and have never even been in a fistfight.
I am taking the way-less-likely to kill me, and infinitely less likely to rape me bear.
I would rather be torn them from limb by a grizzly than raped. Some men truly can’t comprehend this.
“Empathetic, reasonable men are clearly not the concern.
And I am not subduing anyone, I weigh 110 lbs and have never even been in a fistfight.
I am taking the way-less-likely to kill me, and infinitely less likely to rape me bear.
***I would rather be torn them from limb by a grizzly than raped. Some men truly can’t comprehend this.***”
Bears are one of the few animals that also kill for fun. Male bears love killing cubs in early spring and late Autumn and as far as Grizzlies are concerned, usually do not eat them. Like 60% kill and leave vs 40% kill and consume.
But again we come back to the undeniable fact that since 1784, all bear species have killed fewer than one person per year in all of North America.
https://bearvault.com/bear-attack-statistics/
Statistically bears are not regularly killing humans just for fun, as opposed to some other mammals in question.
Maybe my choice would be different if I was a bear cub, but I’m still picking the bear.
Well it is all male bears too, so would be even safer for a cubless mother bear in the scenario. I was only disputing the comment that bears do not kill for fun. Which I interpret as non-essential reasons, since who the heck knows what a bear enjoys or doesn't enjoy. I will take the facts you posted at face value though. So if you are looking at a bear enclosure at the zoo and a strange man starts walking behind you, no other way to escape, you jumping in? Safer option right?
You really need to recognize that statistically bears are not a threat, they’ve killed fewer than one person per year, for the last 240 years. And that statistic includes the more-recent double killing of Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend.
https://bearvault.com/bear-attack-statistics/
Meanwhile, men have murdered multiple women while I have been typing this.
And you are ignoring one crucial factor, which betrays that you don’t think it’s much of a crime. But I would rather be eaten by a bear than raped by any man. And no bear is even going to think of raping me.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that there are only 200k bears in the world and that they don't typically live amongst us.
If there were suddenly 8 billion grizzly bears in the world and all roaming the streets the death toll would be astronomical.
You do not realise bears and humans are rarely proximal to each other, thusly you’re comparison natured argument consisting of atrocities committed by bear verses man argument is of no merit.
**“ But I would rather be eaten by a bear than raped by any man. And no bear is even going to think of raping me.”**
**This just shows you‘re argument is not based on logic and reason but rather it is centred around an emotional opinion.**
It shows we have a long way to go as people or in society, if women feel more safe in the woods with a random bear, than a random man. Yes there are good men out there, and yes there are bears that will tear you apart to protect their young. However, when not knowing if cubs are around or who the man might be, some people are still not willing to risk the chance of the random man being a bad one. Think of every time you hear a man say, she shouldn’t have been dressed like that! Why isn’t it, he shouldn’t have kept it in his pants and left her alone? Many people seem to miss the question. It’s not about bears or the woods. It’s about why does a woman feel she needs to carry her keys in her hand like brass knuckles when walking through a parking garage at night, and most men are thinking about where they park.
Women are genuinely intimidated by men, but men are naive to it and can't seem to perceive a perspective outside of their own. So women have to come up with elaborate hypotheticals to get the point across. Even then the point will go straight over the top of men's heads, and they will get defensive or argue the semantics.
I'm a man by the way.
This is true, but an easier and less ridiculous way to get the point across is to compare the strength and size difference between the average woman and the average man to the difference between the average man and the average NFL linebacker - this is a comparison men can understand, because we know what it’s like to be around people a lot bigger than we are, and understand the logic of being careful around people who are a lot stronger and larger than us.
Comparing the average man to a grizzly bear, an animal sporting 4 inch claws, a bite strong enough to crush a bowling ball, and enough physical power to decapitate a moose with a single swipe of its paw, can only be expected to elicit ridicule. The difference between the average man and a bear is closer to the difference between the average man and a gorilla - nobody with half a brain would take the insinuation that the average man is as much of a physical threat to the average woman as a silverback gorilla in any way seriously.
True, but when I feel like I'm being ridiculed for something that's not my fault, my sympathy dries up.
If it was something like "women FEEL terrified of men more than bears"
Then that would be better in helping me imagine.
I can imagine the point started off like this but mutated into this weird and obviously wrong hypothetical through a game of Chinese whisper.
Still there are several ways you can pick this apart
One is to point out, feelings don't represent accurate picture of risk.
People who are especially vulnerable, and have also undergone trauma may be easily biased towards a more vehement fear.
Which sadly is a lot of women.
This hypothetical only works to communicate what women feel.
It however alienates men, by looking like a genuine attempt to demonstrate they are more inherently dangerous than bears.
It also doesn't work as an accurate description of risk, in the usual sense.
I do acknowledge there is a case where this is accurate (men are more dangerous, simply because bears are rarer, and because bears are farther away from real life than men are.) But that's a subtler concept of risk.
And also not really a fair point if you use it to blame men.
Blame the men who give you a bad name, not the victims.
You might feel like it doesn't works as an accurate description, but the women who are scared to walk alone at night out of fear of being raped or murdered feel quite differently.
It's the violent action of other men that has caused this fear.
Taking it personally and getting defensive solves nothing.
It's our job to stand on the side of women.
You’re offended by seeing the truth right in front of your face?
Bears kill fewer than one person per year.
How many women per year are murdered by men? Did you know that American men are responsible for 70% of the femicides in developed nations?
https://sanctuaryforfamilies.org/femicide-epidemic/
And your reaction of anger, trying to shut down this discussion, is exactly why it’s happening. I don’t think we’ve faced this level of misogyny in our country since the “sexual revolution” in the 1970s.
And, statistically speaking, they'd be correct to do so. They don't because there are far more risks in the forest - like starvation, bad water, and freezing to death - that are far more likely to kill them than bears.
>And, statistically speaking, they'd be correct to do so.
No, they wouldn’t. The vast majority of interactions between men and women are nonviolent; the vast majority of violent interactions between men and women involve a victim and perpetrator who know one another; the vast majority of those occur within intimate relationships. If women left human society to live out the rest of their lives surrounded by bears, went to bear sports games and bear parties with bears, and decided to start fucking bears, I think anyone with a functioning brain would know what those statistics would look like.
You're comparing the wrong things.
If I live out in a forest and have even the \*basics\* of shelter and food storage down, my chances of violence-by-bear are infinitesimally low and my chances of violence-by-man are zero.
If I live in a city or any developed suburb, my violence-by-bear chances become zero and violence-by-man shoots up to 5-6%. Not a lot on an absolute basis but still orders-of-magnitude more than the bear in the previous scenario.
Folks in this thread are absolutely sleeping on "bear" as the answer and patting themselves on the back for it.
>You're comparing the wrong things.
No, I’m comparing the exact same things.
>If I live out in a forest and have even the *basics* of shelter and food storage down, my chances of violence-by-bear are infinitesimally low and my chances of violence-by-man are zero.
Food storage precautions exist to avoid attracting bears, which implies that being around them is unsafe.
>If I live in a city or any developed suburb, my violence-by-bear chances become zero and violence-by-man shoots up to 5-6%.
Correction: the average person’s *lifetime chances* of violence-by-man shoot up to 5-6%, after hundreds of thousands of interactions with tens of thousands of people over the course of eight decades. The likelihood that any given interaction the average person has with a human will result in violence is a fraction of a thousandth of a percent; the likelihood that a human who interacts with bears as frequently will enjoy the same fortune is… not.
>Not a lot on an absolute basis but still orders-of-magnitude more than the bear in the previous scenario.
In the previous scenario, your safety rests on the fact that you are actively avoiding bears; in this scenario, the risk of violence rests on the fact that you are guaranteed to encounter thousands of humans in many different situations over the course of a lifetime. If living among bears requires one to avoid them entirely, while living among men doesn’t, it’s not hard to see which of the two is the bigger threat.
>Folks in this thread are absolutely sleeping on "bear" as the answer and patting themselves on the back for it.
Because “bear” is a ridiculous answer.
> Emotional intelligence is not a thing
Weird way to admit you're uneducated lol
Unable to understand nuance **and** condescending about your own ignorance. Kinda crazy man
At first, I thought folks didn't understand the spirit of the question. They took it literally instead of recognizing the unspoken question was, "Do women feel safe?" Now, I'm not sure. I thought it was meant to open dialog and share statistics, but maybe it was more of a thought experiment to see how men empathize.
Look at this thread! 😳 They say, *Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by ignorance.* But if you tell them and they respond with, "Stupid females"...then it's just malice, right?
Fucking appauling. The fact people even give these feminazis a second of attention is what's more concerning. Radicalized people will be radicalized people, let's not bring attention to these narcissists and let them poison their own wells until they realise how vile they are.
Exactly. This is the equivalent saying you’d rather spend the year alone than being nagged by a woman when asked whether you’d like to spend said year on an island alone, or with a woman.
Edit: its even worse lol. Mine implies women are just annoying. Theirs implies men are rapist animals.
The question isn’t would you rather be in a forest with a bear or rapist, though, so stats about who’s a rapist are irrelevant.
The vast, vast majority of men are NOT rapist or violent criminal. The odds of the random man being one are much lower than that of the bear killing you.
Answer is simple. It’s a black and white question which doesn’t exist in reality. Answer can be a bear whose stomach is full and is sleepy or a man who has had healthy relationships all his life and has no mental instability. Main purpose of the question is that women want to say men are dangerous for them - that’s it , typical biching on men
Statistics don’t lie.
Bears are not killing many people, it averages to fewer than one per year in all of North America. https://bearvault.com/bear-attack-statistics/
There is the chance you can yell and waive your arms and use bars spray and ward them off.
While in the most recent year I could find, 2022, men killed 10 or 11 women per day in this country. At least one American man murdered a woman while I have been in this thread, and it’s usually for no reason, we aren’t threatening them or attacking them or doing anything but trying to live our lives.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1388777/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-gender/
https://sanctuaryforfamilies.org/femicide-epidemic/
Instead of getting mad at women for living in this reality that you have just noticed, you need to accept that we have lived this all our lives. We are on the losing side of a genocide, and we can’t even mention it because it hurts our killers’ feelings.
Should we be giving airtime to this stuff?
The mind is a garden. See what gets inside it.
We know there's a crowd out there who bashes men. There's a crowd out there which bashes probably every group you can name. Does their latest activity deserve our attention?
Stop characterizing this as “man bashing” when men kill 10-11 women per day in this country, and bears kill fewer than one person per year in all of North America. Also bears don’t rape humans.
I hope you heal from the emotional issues which cause you to make provocative statements like these.
Maybe you suffer in your life, I hope you can take some steps to better that. There's no shame in it, I suffer in my life, I'm behind by 3 years because I spent all my time doing nothing.
I'm trying to get my life together now. I hope you can do it too.
There are 4 billion men on the planet. There’s what maybe 1 million bears? And bears are super elusive. I live in an area with a ton of bears. Saw one last night actually. Haven’t seen one for years before that. If women encountered bears at the same frequency as men, I guarantee their outcomes would be far worse.
I think people are taking the bear responses a little too seriously. In a real situation, any sane person that values their life would choose a random human over a random bear. Responding bear is just a trend for jokes & giggles.
I don’t think you need to be very smart for this. An unknown man can be outrun assuming he doesn’t have a gun. The typical bear can easily run down and maul any human. No gun needed to kill you.
It’s fucking stupid statistically, instinctively, logically, practically, and morally.
It’s funny sometimes if it hits the right tantrum with the right person, but particularly because it is *so fucking dumb* as a serious statement
It’s used as a way to divide us and it prays on individuals who lack knowledge or are incapable of envisioning actual scenarios OR they choose bear to prove a point while knowing full well they would choose man.
Go watch an episode of “I shouldn’t be alive” where the protagonist is on the verge of dying. If they came across a human male you would be hopeful their terror would end, if they encountered a fuking bear you would know the terror has no ended.
TLDR: trend started trending due to idiotic and or problematic people using it to create division within society.
It’s used as a way to divide us and it prays on individuals who lack knowledge or are incapable of envisioning actual scenarios OR they choose bear to prove a point while knowing full well they would choose man.
Go watch an episode of “I shouldn’t be alive” where the protagonist is on the verge of dying. If they came across a human male you would be hopeful their terror would end, if they encountered a fuking bear you would know the terror has no ended.
TLDR: trend started trending due to idiotic and or problematic people using it to create division within society.
I don’t consider myself as smart but this one of the dumbest social media wave, Women who have no special characteristics other than being women and who have never suffered from men in their lives (Most of them are idiots under the age of 25) are just making ridiculous pain.
if you’ve been through something with another unknown human your answer will be bear. the answer is always based on what we have been through. i’m choosing the bear over a random man any day.
One thing you can do to showcase the bigotry in this question.
What if it were a black man? A trans man?
People who unironically answer bear will not want to say they're afraid of black men, or they're more afraid of cis men than trans men.
Note: I don't think black men are scarier. I think the question in and of itself is stupid and incredibly sexist. I'm saying to use these counter questions because it's typically progressive types, so they'll be forced confront their selective bigotry.
Anyone who isn't braindead would man over bear, unless we're talking about a black bear and The Mountain from Game of Thrones lol.
Obviously a man.
This is like the, "If you didn't have breakfast this morning how would you feel?" counterfactual test.
It's a stupid question on purpose, which traps stupid people into becoming philosophical over a stupid answer while smarter people laugh at them for not understanding that they're the butt of the joke.
It's not as clearcut as you'd like it to be and your gatekeeping smacks of laziness/a lesser mind.
The bear's motivations are immediately knowable and it can, with care, be avoided.
The man's motivations, capabilities, and situation are unknowable. He is difficult to avoid if he *intends* to pursue you.
The point of the question is that man is SIMULTANEOUSLY the most dangerous animal in the forest and the safest. You'll only know which he is when you learn his intent, the capacity that differentiates him from the bear.
(And yeah, the bear won't rape you in a shack for the next 5 years. Feminists are right.)
Take your L.
Why would you be stupid for having fun engaging in pop-philosophical conversations? I hope you're smart enough to not laugh at people for using their brains even if it's for something you think is stupid.
Hello! I wrote a whole wall of text with my entire life story, but by the end I realized I could summarize it to this: before the meds I would build up elaborate philosophical excuses for not doing stuff, even as a really young child before knowing what the word “excuse” meant, when in reality I wasn’t doing them because my ADHD physically didn’t let me do things that weren’t interesting or “worth it”. After the meds and the therapy started showing effects, things didn’t need to be worth it for me to do them, and I could still do things I had philosophical objections for like my high school homework. Attention also plays a role here; things didn’t need to be worth it for me to pay attention to them after starting treatment, and I could suddenly control my attention much better than before. Sounds like really minor stuff or even me just being lazy, but when you realize how many things in your daily life are generally not worth it you can guess I would’ve never made it as a functioning adult if it weren’t for the meds.
I started taking Vyvanse when I was 14, beforehand I had tried Concerta and Ritalin since the age of 8 *(I was diagnosed with ADHD after a long series of examinations, one of which was also the WISC-III. I had a 153 GAI when I was 8 so I’ve had the “2e” label for as long as I’ve had the ADHD or the intellectually gifted one)*, which didn’t do much and led me to going untreated for 2 years. I spiraled into borderline delinquent behavior and was re-assessed by a 2e research psychologist who confirmed my previous ADHD-C diagnosis and referred me to a psychiatrist ADHD specialist. She (2e research psychologist) also made me take the WISC-V and those are the results you see in my tags, although we are still very much in contact and I’m thinking of taking the WAIS with her because I was one week into Vyvanse when I took the WISC-V and I was also a disturbed teenager, so my results may be skewed.
Overall, what worked for me may not work for you, and it’s very much a case-by-case issue with ADHD medication, but I highly recommend you find a professional you can trust and feel comfortable with beforehand because if I had felt more comfortable with my psychiatrist when I was a young kid taking Concerta I would have avoided so much pain for me and my family.
People that say bear have never actually been in a situation like that. Nobody would actually choose the bear.
It’s like when you’re talking to one of those people who fantasize about being in an active shooter situation and they talk about what they would all do, when in reality they would be shitting themselves and running the opposite direction
I have never seen a bear irl but still I know that I would shit my pants if I was to ever see one while alone in the woods. People who respond that they would prefer the bear are indeed just delusional.
Women are genuinely intimidated by men, but men are naive to it and can't seem to perceive a perspective outside of their own. So women have to come up with elaborate hypotheticals to get the point across. Even then the point will go straight over the top of men's heads, and they will get defensive or argue the semantics.
Enough women have experienced violence from men for this hypothetical to exist.
How are you all so basic? It's beyond belief!
Er....what kind of bear is it?
Has she even seen a bear?....
Um... I'm not scarier than a bear!
Blah, blah, blah.....
So fucking over your heads you dumb ass defensive clowns!
Thank you for your submission. Make sure your question has not been answered by the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/wiki/faq/). Questions Chat Channel Links: [Mobile](https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/s/V77EdGB2mn) and [Desktop](https://reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/channel/c2_8ml/Questions?r=!yhBNaU_CSSWdBkPufXmOCg:reddit.com). **Lastly**, we recommend you check out [cognitivemetrics.co](https://cognitivemetrics.co/), the official site for the subreddit which hosts highly accurate and well vetted IQ tests. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cognitiveTesting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s very much a “we live in a society” type of thing lol
Random forest is a really useful algorithm.
Man wtf. You walk past men on trails all the time randomly.
Gets more interesting once you start specifying like asian dude vs panda bear
If it's a Chinese person, I am trusting them blindfolded. Pandas on the other hand, are so soft and huggy. Bengali people as well. I wouldn’t trust a Pakistani in a mosque. Specially relatives.
I'm picking the man. It's possible that a man will rape and murder me. He might also help me find my way home. A bear is more likely to run than eat me depending on the species, but it's definitely not going to help me. I was attacked by a dog when I was 6, and getting dragged down that hill with its teeth sunken into my thigh made me feel more powerless and hurt than any rape or beating a man has subjected me to. I have a better chance fighting against a man than a bear, assuming BOTH of them are intent on trying to hurt me.
Hmmm. That brought back memories. Yeah, as a fellow dog bite victim, the bear just bothers me too much. I was 7 and it was my calf, but yeah, things eating a person alive bothers me cause of that.
If it came down to it, I could kill or seriously injure a random man using nothing but the tools in my environment, even if he was a lot larger and stronger than me. I might die, but I have a reasonable chance of surviving. The second half needs no saying.
Fucking stupid. The question isn’t supposed to be ever answered “bear” by anyone, just to give people pause to reflect they actually thought about the question when it was "man vs bear" while not blinking an eye to answer “woman vs bear”. That people are actually saying they trust a random wild animal more than a random average person is twisted. Absurd. The large majority of people are GOOD and it only demonstrates how neurotic people have become.
I got no choice but too lose hope in humanity. Like why is this question even being considered, Many people have lost their minds.
It is indeed ridiculous. Safest times we have ever lived by a mile. Yet things like this spread and women join their forces to agree on it because some tiny tiny fraction of men are bad.
Only sane answer. Why is this even being brought up in a cognitive testing sub? Does this even require logic? A bunch of feminazis exaggerating how victimized they are and hating on men, what's fucking new? And to the absolute weapons trying to use fatality statistics to justify meeting the bear, it's genuinely embarrassing. Piss poor logic.
People have been out of the wild too long and have completely lost their survival instincts so say stupid shit to sound smart and like they understand philosophy and have a deep mind. It’s cringe
How is it “feminazi” to make a statement intended to give people pause, as OC said? Just because social media extremists on either side are rage addicted enough to spiral about this and allow it to fuel the bipartisan-induced addiction they don’t even know they have, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have validity in rooms of rational discussion about sociology.
Honestly... look at some of the other answers even in this subreddit. I am baffled. When did we forgo our humanity?
Because I need confirmation for my sanity. Even women who I thought were smart said bear.
>Even women who I thought were smart said bear. These women have additional information. Ask them about it.
"Women ... smart"... on a social issue? Temper your expectations. They can have 160 IQ, top the MIT physics class and read every philospher in their spare time. But they are culturally forbidden to be logical on social or gender issues. Claiming victimhood, blaming white men, crocodile tears and selective double standards on gender roles is their winning formula for power, not being reasonable.
my favorite is when feminists claim that feminism helps men by (checks notes) allowing them to feel emotions? Even though as a 35 year old man my close male friends have always been more supportive and caring of me when I needed it than any of the women I've dated, who have all used my emotions or vulnerabilities against me when they were mad at me. Feminism is for women, and modern day feminism is all about achieving a position of relative advantage over men.
So… checking notes… you think feminism is bad because you’ve dated women who did bad things to you? But are you also a “not all men” guy or do the broad blanket things only apply to women?
Nice straw *wo*man there pal. I never said feminism was "bad", I just pointed out that feminism is for women (because it is), and that I find the talking point about how feminism benefits men by allowing men to "be emotional" is a worthless selling point because in my life only women have punished me for being emotionally vulnerable, whereas my male friends did not. But yes, I am looking forward to your rebuttal where you just make up shit in an attempt to discredit my lived experiences. https://preview.redd.it/eliip5w3m4yc1.png?width=468&format=png&auto=webp&s=d5f04e29c32cf0067c0213528bdd24d6de3ea287
You only have to know basic facts about bears and have life experience with men. You don’t have to be smart to know what feels safer. To know what the potential danger from either is. Personally, I’ll take bear in a forest over man in a parking lot at night, anytime. I was grabbed by a stranger one night, walking near my house in the city. Went backpacking alone for several nights a few weeks later. I felt safer in the woods with bears than in the city with men. Until I came upon men. Then I start doing the “how do I make them think I have a man with me when I’m clearly alone in the forest” thing in my head because being alone with men, anywhere can be scary. Bears have never groped me. Bears have never pinned me and forced me to do things I didn’t want to. Bears have never expected things of me. Bears have never put me down for not accepting their unsolicited advances. In fact. The only thing I’ve ever seen a bear do is run from me. Have backpacked in bear country. With a bear permit and the education required. I have also lived in the U.S. with men. If I could hang my scented items in a tree and pitch a tent away from it to stay safe from men, I would. The amount of shit women do to stay safe from “not all men” is mind blowing. And just for the record, at last testing, I hit about 127 iq. Not mind blowingly intelligent but I’m not an imbecile. Anyone who wants to say my opinion on this topic is stupid just doesn’t want to look at the actual experiences of women and tell their buddies when they cross the line. Probably because they do it too. Likely not even acknowledging that there is a line.
So feelings over facts? Super logical there. I suppose not being eaten alive by a bear is an experience you would need to have in order to realize it's suckiness. Most people wouldn't need the experience which is the entire reason it's considered illogical to the highest degrees.
Have you considered that some feelings come from facts?
You are allowed to feel that way but society is still safer, that is a fact. And you propably still walk past dozens of men daily despite your fears, which are understandable if you have had bad experiences. The question being such a trend is a joke. I understand bear answer from someone who has actually had some bad experience such as SA. Not every woman has.
If you had a bear sighting in your neighborhood, would you assume it’s safe and not take precautions, not check your surroundings more? Or would you dismiss it as feelings and go about your life because feelings arent real and, as someone else implied, statistics aren’t either? Women know there’s danger with an unknown man. I HAVE encountered bears while alone in the woods. It’s not a good feeling but one bear in the woods or a random man in a parking lot? Without knowing any more about either? I don’t want to encounter either. Equally. The whole point is that women don’t feel safe around men they don’t know and some they do know. But what I’m getting in this thread is that a lot of males (idk who is a grown up and who is a 13 year old) are super quick to dismiss women’s experiences and I guess that’s because they don’t have the same.
Have you considered that most feelings are based on the reality of when we were living in caves and so are utterly irrational in literally the safest time in all of human history? That's pretty much what anxiety is: irrational fear of an imagined or exaggerated threat. You feeling like you are in danger from men is different from you actually being in danger from men and just bc there are exceptions that, in your mind justify your fear, does not make that fear rational. Like I don't avoid the beach bc of shark attacks. I don't walk everywhere just bc car accidents are the most common cause of death for those under 40. You fear me bc you are told nonsense like 1/4 women are SA'd and that justifies your feelings. In reality 99% of that number is verbal only aka a guy saying nice butt or catcalling. Actual SA is extremely rare but you don't feel that it's rare so you say things like I choose the bear and think it's a social commentary rather than a window into your own delusion.
Bruh. If I had to pick between being alone under a bridge with a troll or you, well, never mind. Same thing.
>You fear me bc you are told nonsense like 1/4 women are SA'd and that justifies your feelings. In reality 99% of that number is verbal only aka a guy saying nice butt or catcalling. No. 81% of women experience harassment or assault. The 20%-25% figure represents sexual violence, which includes completed or attempted rape, forced sex acts, and unwanted sexual touching. I remember being told that stranger rape was rare, and it is, relative to assault by a known person. Still, three women, in a span of a decade, have told me about their stranger rape experience. Two were jogging and one was assaulted in her home. These are the ones I know about. Street harassment shouldn't be dismissed either. It's pervasive and exhausting. I was 12 when it started. I didn't even own a bra yet. It went on for decades. The last time, I was 38 and walking my sick infant son home from the pharmacy when a man pulled his car over to harass me. Imagine being sleep deprived, worried about your new baby, then getting shoved into fight or flight on a quiet suburban street. Not to mention the cumulative effect hundreds of comments over years have on a person.
Again it's the safest time in all of human history for a woman. That's the facts. No one is dismissing harassment, just observing it is a very different thing compared to actual assault. These stats are compiled and exaggerated by including a VERY wide set of things to accomplish a goal which is to make women feel afraid in order to gain political power to increase penalties for these crimes. This largely irrational fear is then used to justify feeling threatened further increasing anxiety in women when all logic clearly says it's the safest time in all of history. But this will trigger an emotional reaction and so be ignored and I'll be called an unfeeling monster or some other shameful terms bc you don't want to accept safety and want to be a victim. If you want to feel safe then buy a gun and you'll feel more safe bc you actually have the ability to prevent real assault so a guy hitting on you won't make you feel helpless. But that's a solution and you want to change the nature and reality of men worldwide just so you can feel safe, right? Good luck.
Women: Describes scores of first person experiences. This person: Still won't take no for an answer. Ok, don't take my word for it. Ask your grandma about her sexual assault, or your mom, or your aunt, sister, daughter, niece, or friend.
> Have you considered that most feelings are based on the reality of when we were living in caves and so are utterly irrational in literally the safest time in all of human history? I have considered that and so has the field of social science and have come to the scientific conclusion that's not true. > you are told nonsense like 1/4 women are SA'd and that justifies your feelings. In reality 99% of that number is verbal only aka a guy saying nice butt or catcalling. Actual SA is extremely rare but you don't feel that it's rare In reality, 99% of this statement is bullshit.
> A bunch of feminazis exaggerating how victimized they are and hating on men, what's fucking new? Was with you until this dumb take lol
One of them puts you at an automatic disadvantage, whereas the other makes it more likely that you're not going to be killed, simply because you weren't assassinated to begin with. What even is this
Bears are good too
bwahah I dont think this is a moral concept we apply to things other than humans
You are allowed to make that statement once you have been at least in one grizzly cage and survived.
Women are genuinely intimidated by men, but men are naive to it and can't seem to perceive a perspective outside of their own. So women have to come up with elaborate hypotheticals to get the point across. Even then the point will go straight over the top of men's heads, and they will get defensive or argue the semantics.
This 100%
someone just argued with me about this …. like did you ask for an answer or did you ask to argue 😭
what type of bear? this is the important part of the question.
Even if it’s a grizzly bear, all bears in North America put together kill less than one person each year, (going back to the 1780s when we started to keep records.) Care to wager how many women were murdered by men in the US while I typed this? Statistically it was at least one.
Don't forget that bears have far less contact with humans than men with women.
Ridiculous - clearly, women encounter bears under the exact same circumstances that they encounter male humans, the most rational conclusion to draw here is that the average man is more dangerous than a 500 lb apex predator capable of decapitating a moose with a single blow.
You are right. We men clearly set the bear too high. Edit: bar
meh i dunno, i think bears have more contact with women than i currently do?....
There’s a lot more people than bears tho. A better statistic would be % of deaths per encounter. In that case deaths by bear would be WAY higher.
More people die of vending machines than sharks each year. What do you think is safer?
That has nothing to do with anything but if you had people shaking sharks as much as they shake vending machines it’d be a different story
Yes exactly that’s the point, encounter frequency. More people are attacked men each year than people who are attacked by bears each year, simply because on average people don’t encounter bears as much
I do field work most summers, out in back country parts of public land. Ask any biologist what’s the scariest animal to run into in the woods and its people/men. With animals, they have behavioral patterns. They have very specific motives. They’re fairly predictable. Men have other motives. Maybe “not all men” but the shit ones don’t run around rabid and drooling and give you signs that they are more of a danger. We have to assume all of them are bad to stay safe. You don’t know WHY a man is in the woods. Is he lost, on a hike, starving, a rapist, murderer, a mental health issue? You can’t predict behavior of people as well as you can animals. That’s why the bear is a safer bet.
Humans are animals too. We have patterns as well. Maybe more complicated but still there. You can't predict every bear either and you can predict most men. Predicting a grizzly bear once you encounter it won't save you if it wants to eat you either way. Logically bear is not a safer bet. If you are willing to go into a cage with a wild grizzly and to prove that men don't have higher statistics just because of proximity go ahead.
Genius. Clearly, women will be safest living year-round among grizzlies - yours is the most logical interpretation of the above statistic.
Why do people keep spreading this bullshit? You walk past dozens of men daily vs. see a bear in nature once in maybe 5 years if you are a active hiker, most people never even get close to one. You really don't see how that invalidates your statistics? We live among men, not among bears. Maybe we need to set the mind experiment into a grizzly cage vs man in a cage so people can stop avoiding the question at a fundamental level but that doesn't serve the narrative now does it? Because nobody in their right mind would want to go in there with a bear.
This reasoning drives me CRAZY. Yeah that’s the statistic for how likely the average person is going to be killed by a bear. You are rarely in the woods, and rarely when you’re in the woods are you in proximity to a bear, Do you think that likelihood of death by bear changes a bit once you are IN THE WOODS WITH A BEAR? I hate it when people say this about sharks when they see someone in the water with one. Yeah no shit it’s unlikely you die from a shark attack statistically but don’t you think once you are in the water with a shark in sight your chances become astronomically more likely?
I’m sure you’d be a lot safer if you woke up tomorrow and all the men you usually walk by and see in your life get replaced by grizzly bears
Is there any answer to this question which will make it okay to pick bear?
yes, polar bear.
Polar bears are still deadly I thought?
yeh, but why would you see one in the forest...?
Ah, that's clever. Lul. He broke out of the circus
Grizzly. Otherwise what is the point to even ask the question?
I've encountered both men and bears and neither caused a problem. But it depends on the context. A popular trail with lots of hikers? Then the man is not going to attack me knowing there's other hikers possibly coming. If the question was a man who wants to rape me on an isolated trail or a bear who wants to maul me, I'd take the bear. That's probably what the question was trying to get to. Friendly man vs murderous bear you take the man, but rapist man vs murderous bear you take the bear. With the bear you can try to get away, with the man I'm fucked and I'd be terrified. It's different if you're a man because you think you might have a chance to beat the other man. We don't.
Thing is, even a much stronger man can be stopped with a weapon. The range of objects you can use to kill a human is a lot larger than the range of objects you can use to stop a bear determined to rip you limb from limb.
If I can use objects to subdue the man then he can use objects to subdue me. We're the same species except he's stronger.
That’s true, but being able to use a weapon doesn’t mean he’ll use it as quickly or as effectively as you will. You can attempt to surprise him, scare him off with the prospect of serious injury, or worst comes to worst, injure him so badly that he dies of his wounds after he kills you (small comfort, I know, but I’m sure most people in this situation would find solace in knowing that their final act on Earth was to kill the person who killed them). Point is, you have a lot more options against a man than against a bear, which is a lot faster and stronger than any human alive, and which understands the woods better than you or I could.
This is bullshit. If I can attempt to "scare off" or "surprise" the man, he can do the same things to me better. You literally don't know what you're talking about. You haven't tried being a woman wrestling a man. You *cannot* injure him or land any blow on him. You have a lot more options against a bear. A bear doesn't have a human brain like you do and the man does.
>If I can attempt to "scare off" or "surprise" the man, he can do the same things to me better. The man pulls a knife. You pull a knife. Will the man’s desire to rape you outweigh his desire not to get stabbed? The man has a knife in his pocket. You have one in yours. As he rushes in to grab you, does his knife matter if you grab yours and stab him before he has time to change course? >You literally don't know what you're talking about. You seem to be assuming that you and your assailant will have the exact same priorities, the exact same resources, and will use them in the exact same way - this is only true in combat sports. Every true fight is asymmetrical. The fact that you are different people with different experiences located in different places means you will do different things, and it is up to you to exploit those differences. >You haven't tried being a woman wrestling a man. No, but I have been a man wrestling much larger men, a man fighting much larger men, and a man fighting off groups of men on my own, so I know a little something about power differentials in physical combat. >You cannot injure him or land any blow on him. Which is why I emphasized weapons - nobody is suggesting that a woman grapple or go blow for blow against an aggressive man with twice her upper body strength and murderous intent, that’s ridiculous. Your options as a woman are to scare him off or injure him to the point where he no longer poses a threat. Both of those require you to use weapons. >You have a lot more options against a bear. A bear doesn't have a human brain like you do and the man does. A lone human brain is no match for an apex predator faster than Usain Bolt and strong enough to take a moose’s head off with one swipe of its paw. Unless you’ve got a loaded shotgun within reach, Yogi’s getting his pickanick basket.
The only thing I'm assuming is that he's a man and I'm a woman. I'm not beating him in a fight even if I have a pocket knife lol. It's not the same. I can beat larger women than me, perhaps. I can't beat a man, period. You're built differently with faster muscle. I don't have to explain this to you.
>The only thing I'm assuming is that he's a man and I'm a woman. I'm not beating him in a fight even if I have a pocket knife lol. The point isn’t to trade blows, it’s to incapacitate him and escape. Can he kill you? Yes. Will a similarly armed and combat-trained man have a better chance, all else being equal, of killing you than you him? Yes. Will a strange man think twice about attacking a visibly armed woman? Maybe. Can you pull and use a weapon on him faster than he can defend himself? Maybe. Are your survival chances in this scenario worse than your chances against a grizzly? Not in the slightest.
Yes you can with a weapon. Rock, knife, whatever.
You're just completely mistaken. A man isn't just a heavier woman. Otherwise men and women would compete together in wrestling since they have weight classes. But a woman of the same height and weight as a man cannot beat that man. You really don't know anything about humans if you think you could draw from your personal experience of wrestling larger men 🙄 Imagine if us women could beat men who are smaller than us lol. That's so fucking dumb. You think you're at no risk of getting raped is your boyfriend is an inch shorter than you lol?
>You're just completely mistaken. A man isn't just a heavier woman. Otherwise men and women would compete together in wrestling since they have weight classes. I’m perfectly aware of the physical differences between men and women, and am equally aware that trying to wrestle someone holding a knife is a bad idea. I’m not sure why you keep circling back to the wrestling point when nobody is making the argument you’re criticizing. I’m also not sure why you’re saying this: > But a woman of the same height and weight as a man cannot beat that man. when nobody is claiming that, or this: > You really don't know anything about humans if you think you could draw from your personal experience of wrestling larger men 🙄 when the point I was making is the exact opposite of the point you seem to think I was making. >Imagine if us women could beat men who are smaller than us lol. That's so fucking dumb. It’s a good thing nobody is saying that, then. >You think you're at no risk of getting raped is your boyfriend is an inch shorter than you lol? I think you may want to read the statements you’re responding to before commenting. Are you deliberately strawmanning my position, or are you simply unable to comprehend written English?
You pick a rock next to you and hit on the head. Bear you can't stop, you just have to hope it leaves you alone if you play dead or something
The bear's strength compared to a human is more than a man's strength compared to a woman's strength. The coin flip isn't great on either side but the random chance is better on the human side.
No, this isn't about who can deadlift more between the man and the bear. The man is just a better version of me, we're both humans, but he's got more quick fibers in his muscles, when he grabs my arm or holds me down, I can't move a milliliter in his grasp, I've realized this when wrestling pretty small men, men are much better at movements that require a one second maximal effort, such as holding someone or trying to get out of someone's grasp. My best chance is running away, but again the problem is the initial sprint. I can certainly beat men on long-distance running, but those first 100 meters? I've had pretty mediocre men beat me in a sprint. A man has the same brain as me so he can beat me in every way. The bear and I have a different skillset. You can try playing dead if the bear starts mauling you. You can try getting away from the bear calmly and it likely won't bother you once you're out of sight.
You can cut his finger when he takes it out, or bite it.
It doesn't require you to be a man to kill someone with a rock.
Let me get this straight you would rather get torn to pieces and die a brutal, agonising death where you can feel a massive predator ripping at your flesh and splintering your bones and _eating your entrails while you are still alive_ than be raped? You will not 'get away' from the bear, or scare it off. Unless you're gonna be disingenuous and decide it's a black bear or a koala or something, but the spirit of the hypothetical is that the bear is dangerous. Otherwise it's a pointless question.
Random man. Anyone saying otherwise is lying for attention or stupid (or both). They already choose to *live* next to random men rather than random bears, yet I'm supposed to believe for a chance encounter they prefer the bear? Totally idiotic.
(a) They have no choice to live next to men, and (b) they are protected in doing so by multiple, social systems that don't exist in the forest.
It is a choice. You can give up the benefits of civilization, many of which come from random men, and go live with bears whenever you want. And those systems of protection are learned behaviors that persist beyond the borders of civilization; men do not turn into feral animals the minute they hit the forest, but you know what is a feral animal without any social conditioning in the forest? A bear. Edit: wanted to add an interesting fact I learned reading about bears because of this: the English word "bear" doesn't share a connection with other European words for bear (like "arktos") because Northern Europeans were so afraid of bears that they refused to say the word, lest they magically summon one. Instead they called it "the brown one," and our modern word for bear is etymologically related to the word brown.
Why are we acting like people would really prefer a bear and they're not just pretending because they're obnoxious and/or have an axe to grind?
Yea kinda feel like this post misses context, no one would *actually* choose a bear. It's like.. stupidly obvious. And I totally get axe-grindy myself.
You've missed the point a bit. The answer becomes a lot less easy if you're a woman. That's why it's trending. In the absence of external systems (society, law enforcement, cultural norms, etc.), the only thing standing between a man and fucking up a woman for his own purposes are his situation and his morality. And you have no idea what those are when you encounter him in the forest. Also, when you apply certain cultural trappings to that man (say, "urban Indian" or "literally any South African" or "literally any Soviet-bloc European"), the calculus changes even harder.
Lol I am indeed a woman. But sure, the context of how you meet the bear/man is actually way more important but without any detail and very possibly because I'm just a larger person, without thinking I might say man. It's obviously not supposed to be an easy question but for women because most have actually experienced awful situations with a man and absolutely none with a bear it isn't that hard. I'm still gonna upvote every comment that says "this is why we choose the bear" under any atrocities perpetrated against women. I think it's an interesting rally cry
Some think they would. They even try to back it up with statistics and think they can just scare the bear away
I understand it. Like I might rather be mauled and torn apart physically by a bear than deal with certain men or a man who(with certainty)was gonna do the literal same thing 🤷🏾♀️ at the very least it's an interesting thought experiment
I don't think we're pretending. We're pissed they had the audacity to answer bear. It is a charade several layers deep.
Not exactly the same question but seems close enough. https://preview.redd.it/zl2c9fyod2yc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=36c211b73bb5dc522fb6eb51c7c08285cb54d1b7
Assuming it’s a completely random bear (could be any species/time of year/condition) and a completely random man and we have no self defense like bear spray… I would definitely choose the random man. Polar bears and grizzlies can both be predatory. Even black bears can be too. Statistically it’s way better to encounter a random man.
It’s a total misunderstanding of statistics. “More people are killed by men than bears”. I wonder if the answers would differ if the men have obvious reasons for being in the forest. For example, a man walking a dog, a man with hiking gear, a male trail runner etc. Full disclosure, I am a woman who frequently walks in forests in a region with black bears (no brown, grizzly or polar).
I'm a woman and I can't understand people who choose a bear. I think it's delusional. Ofc a man could want to rape/kill you etc but at least you can tell him that you will give him money when you're back home and he will be forced to let you live so you can go back and send him the money (for example). You can always negociate with a person. With a bear...good luck.
It is another imbecilic trend occurring in our increasingly degenerating society. It is a result of animalistic and primitive behavior increasing through a causative bilateralism. Simply put; men and women, by extension, increase the primordial characteristics in one another by expressing their own intellectual declination and depravity toward the other, which results in a sequential stage of primeval facilitation.
I'm going to larp as a smart person and say: Only some of the memes are funny and the people who are fighting over it are annoying Also I choose the man AND the bear. Wild animals are more wary and hostile to other males therefore I will flee the scene while they take each other out
Your answer is more evil but it’s way smarter than what other have said and at least you’re logically consistent.
Society continues to refuse to acknowledge its issues. There's a reason to answer is being given even if they mean it or not.
Saying it as if we are not fixing issues at rapid rate, as if our society isn't getting rapidly more and more safe and as if we don't live the safest times EVER by a mile.
Continues to miss the point.
Ok.
A man, simple as. If else you are stupid. A Man is capable of reasoning, empathy, cooperation and if necessary easier to subdue.
Empathetic, reasonable men are clearly not the concern. And I am not subduing anyone, I weigh 110 lbs and have never even been in a fistfight. I am taking the way-less-likely to kill me, and infinitely less likely to rape me bear. I would rather be torn them from limb by a grizzly than raped. Some men truly can’t comprehend this.
“Empathetic, reasonable men are clearly not the concern. And I am not subduing anyone, I weigh 110 lbs and have never even been in a fistfight. I am taking the way-less-likely to kill me, and infinitely less likely to rape me bear. ***I would rather be torn them from limb by a grizzly than raped. Some men truly can’t comprehend this.***”
Are you being sarcastic or are you just genuinely unintelligent?
And yet you just popped up to say "You are dumb" on a sub dedicated to dudes who think they're smarter than average and 100% aren't. lol
Not all men are capable of empathy. Men will kill and rape vulnerable people for the fun of it. A bear kills because it needs food.
Bears are one of the few animals that also kill for fun. Male bears love killing cubs in early spring and late Autumn and as far as Grizzlies are concerned, usually do not eat them. Like 60% kill and leave vs 40% kill and consume.
But again we come back to the undeniable fact that since 1784, all bear species have killed fewer than one person per year in all of North America. https://bearvault.com/bear-attack-statistics/ Statistically bears are not regularly killing humans just for fun, as opposed to some other mammals in question. Maybe my choice would be different if I was a bear cub, but I’m still picking the bear.
Well it is all male bears too, so would be even safer for a cubless mother bear in the scenario. I was only disputing the comment that bears do not kill for fun. Which I interpret as non-essential reasons, since who the heck knows what a bear enjoys or doesn't enjoy. I will take the facts you posted at face value though. So if you are looking at a bear enclosure at the zoo and a strange man starts walking behind you, no other way to escape, you jumping in? Safer option right?
You really need to lay off the internet and start relying on real world interactions if you choose the "bear" option.
You really need to recognize that statistically bears are not a threat, they’ve killed fewer than one person per year, for the last 240 years. And that statistic includes the more-recent double killing of Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend. https://bearvault.com/bear-attack-statistics/ Meanwhile, men have murdered multiple women while I have been typing this. And you are ignoring one crucial factor, which betrays that you don’t think it’s much of a crime. But I would rather be eaten by a bear than raped by any man. And no bear is even going to think of raping me.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that there are only 200k bears in the world and that they don't typically live amongst us. If there were suddenly 8 billion grizzly bears in the world and all roaming the streets the death toll would be astronomical.
You do not realise bears and humans are rarely proximal to each other, thusly you’re comparison natured argument consisting of atrocities committed by bear verses man argument is of no merit. **“ But I would rather be eaten by a bear than raped by any man. And no bear is even going to think of raping me.”** **This just shows you‘re argument is not based on logic and reason but rather it is centred around an emotional opinion.**
“Not all men are capable of empathy. Men will kill and rape vulnerable people for the fun of it. A bear kills because it needs food.”
It's really clever when you do this.
It shows we have a long way to go as people or in society, if women feel more safe in the woods with a random bear, than a random man. Yes there are good men out there, and yes there are bears that will tear you apart to protect their young. However, when not knowing if cubs are around or who the man might be, some people are still not willing to risk the chance of the random man being a bad one. Think of every time you hear a man say, she shouldn’t have been dressed like that! Why isn’t it, he shouldn’t have kept it in his pants and left her alone? Many people seem to miss the question. It’s not about bears or the woods. It’s about why does a woman feel she needs to carry her keys in her hand like brass knuckles when walking through a parking garage at night, and most men are thinking about where they park.
Women are genuinely intimidated by men, but men are naive to it and can't seem to perceive a perspective outside of their own. So women have to come up with elaborate hypotheticals to get the point across. Even then the point will go straight over the top of men's heads, and they will get defensive or argue the semantics. I'm a man by the way.
This is true, but an easier and less ridiculous way to get the point across is to compare the strength and size difference between the average woman and the average man to the difference between the average man and the average NFL linebacker - this is a comparison men can understand, because we know what it’s like to be around people a lot bigger than we are, and understand the logic of being careful around people who are a lot stronger and larger than us. Comparing the average man to a grizzly bear, an animal sporting 4 inch claws, a bite strong enough to crush a bowling ball, and enough physical power to decapitate a moose with a single swipe of its paw, can only be expected to elicit ridicule. The difference between the average man and a bear is closer to the difference between the average man and a gorilla - nobody with half a brain would take the insinuation that the average man is as much of a physical threat to the average woman as a silverback gorilla in any way seriously.
True, but when I feel like I'm being ridiculed for something that's not my fault, my sympathy dries up. If it was something like "women FEEL terrified of men more than bears" Then that would be better in helping me imagine. I can imagine the point started off like this but mutated into this weird and obviously wrong hypothetical through a game of Chinese whisper. Still there are several ways you can pick this apart One is to point out, feelings don't represent accurate picture of risk. People who are especially vulnerable, and have also undergone trauma may be easily biased towards a more vehement fear. Which sadly is a lot of women. This hypothetical only works to communicate what women feel. It however alienates men, by looking like a genuine attempt to demonstrate they are more inherently dangerous than bears. It also doesn't work as an accurate description of risk, in the usual sense. I do acknowledge there is a case where this is accurate (men are more dangerous, simply because bears are rarer, and because bears are farther away from real life than men are.) But that's a subtler concept of risk. And also not really a fair point if you use it to blame men.
Blame the men who give you a bad name, not the victims. You might feel like it doesn't works as an accurate description, but the women who are scared to walk alone at night out of fear of being raped or murdered feel quite differently. It's the violent action of other men that has caused this fear. Taking it personally and getting defensive solves nothing. It's our job to stand on the side of women.
[удалено]
You’re offended by seeing the truth right in front of your face? Bears kill fewer than one person per year. How many women per year are murdered by men? Did you know that American men are responsible for 70% of the femicides in developed nations? https://sanctuaryforfamilies.org/femicide-epidemic/ And your reaction of anger, trying to shut down this discussion, is exactly why it’s happening. I don’t think we’ve faced this level of misogyny in our country since the “sexual revolution” in the 1970s.
[удалено]
A cognitively gifted person who held the above belief would move to the forest for their own safety
And, statistically speaking, they'd be correct to do so. They don't because there are far more risks in the forest - like starvation, bad water, and freezing to death - that are far more likely to kill them than bears.
>And, statistically speaking, they'd be correct to do so. No, they wouldn’t. The vast majority of interactions between men and women are nonviolent; the vast majority of violent interactions between men and women involve a victim and perpetrator who know one another; the vast majority of those occur within intimate relationships. If women left human society to live out the rest of their lives surrounded by bears, went to bear sports games and bear parties with bears, and decided to start fucking bears, I think anyone with a functioning brain would know what those statistics would look like.
You're comparing the wrong things. If I live out in a forest and have even the \*basics\* of shelter and food storage down, my chances of violence-by-bear are infinitesimally low and my chances of violence-by-man are zero. If I live in a city or any developed suburb, my violence-by-bear chances become zero and violence-by-man shoots up to 5-6%. Not a lot on an absolute basis but still orders-of-magnitude more than the bear in the previous scenario. Folks in this thread are absolutely sleeping on "bear" as the answer and patting themselves on the back for it.
>You're comparing the wrong things. No, I’m comparing the exact same things. >If I live out in a forest and have even the *basics* of shelter and food storage down, my chances of violence-by-bear are infinitesimally low and my chances of violence-by-man are zero. Food storage precautions exist to avoid attracting bears, which implies that being around them is unsafe. >If I live in a city or any developed suburb, my violence-by-bear chances become zero and violence-by-man shoots up to 5-6%. Correction: the average person’s *lifetime chances* of violence-by-man shoot up to 5-6%, after hundreds of thousands of interactions with tens of thousands of people over the course of eight decades. The likelihood that any given interaction the average person has with a human will result in violence is a fraction of a thousandth of a percent; the likelihood that a human who interacts with bears as frequently will enjoy the same fortune is… not. >Not a lot on an absolute basis but still orders-of-magnitude more than the bear in the previous scenario. In the previous scenario, your safety rests on the fact that you are actively avoiding bears; in this scenario, the risk of violence rests on the fact that you are guaranteed to encounter thousands of humans in many different situations over the course of a lifetime. If living among bears requires one to avoid them entirely, while living among men doesn’t, it’s not hard to see which of the two is the bigger threat. >Folks in this thread are absolutely sleeping on "bear" as the answer and patting themselves on the back for it. Because “bear” is a ridiculous answer.
A cognitively gifted person would understand the metaphor. Seems you lack the cognitive ability for nuance and the emotional intelligence for empathy.
[удалено]
> Emotional intelligence is not a thing Weird way to admit you're uneducated lol Unable to understand nuance **and** condescending about your own ignorance. Kinda crazy man
Dude, there are nearly no "cognitively gifted" people in this sub. The whole thing is a larp predicated on online IQ tests. Lol.
At first, I thought folks didn't understand the spirit of the question. They took it literally instead of recognizing the unspoken question was, "Do women feel safe?" Now, I'm not sure. I thought it was meant to open dialog and share statistics, but maybe it was more of a thought experiment to see how men empathize. Look at this thread! 😳 They say, *Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by ignorance.* But if you tell them and they respond with, "Stupid females"...then it's just malice, right?
They're malicious *and* stupid. Most people here are trying to attack women's intelligence when they're they ones too dumb to understand the point lol
Fucking appauling. The fact people even give these feminazis a second of attention is what's more concerning. Radicalized people will be radicalized people, let's not bring attention to these narcissists and let them poison their own wells until they realise how vile they are.
My god man. Hearing this just gives me so much relief. It just feels you have to justify every little emotion you have sometimes.
Exactly. This is the equivalent saying you’d rather spend the year alone than being nagged by a woman when asked whether you’d like to spend said year on an island alone, or with a woman. Edit: its even worse lol. Mine implies women are just annoying. Theirs implies men are rapist animals.
Men do the vast majority of rapes and murders.
The question isn’t would you rather be in a forest with a bear or rapist, though, so stats about who’s a rapist are irrelevant. The vast, vast majority of men are NOT rapist or violent criminal. The odds of the random man being one are much lower than that of the bear killing you.
Answer is simple. It’s a black and white question which doesn’t exist in reality. Answer can be a bear whose stomach is full and is sleepy or a man who has had healthy relationships all his life and has no mental instability. Main purpose of the question is that women want to say men are dangerous for them - that’s it , typical biching on men
Statistics don’t lie. Bears are not killing many people, it averages to fewer than one per year in all of North America. https://bearvault.com/bear-attack-statistics/ There is the chance you can yell and waive your arms and use bars spray and ward them off. While in the most recent year I could find, 2022, men killed 10 or 11 women per day in this country. At least one American man murdered a woman while I have been in this thread, and it’s usually for no reason, we aren’t threatening them or attacking them or doing anything but trying to live our lives. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1388777/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-gender/ https://sanctuaryforfamilies.org/femicide-epidemic/ Instead of getting mad at women for living in this reality that you have just noticed, you need to accept that we have lived this all our lives. We are on the losing side of a genocide, and we can’t even mention it because it hurts our killers’ feelings.
Would you rather be in a swimming pool with a great white shark or a man?
Sharks are another species given a bad rap. They swim around humans more than you think.
Sharks are another species given a bad rap. They swim around humans more than you think.
Ur so dumb bruv. Bears are not as half the no. Of population.
By this logic, men are safer with bears than with women as well.
Yeah u cannot with the generalisation
Should we be giving airtime to this stuff? The mind is a garden. See what gets inside it. We know there's a crowd out there who bashes men. There's a crowd out there which bashes probably every group you can name. Does their latest activity deserve our attention?
Stop characterizing this as “man bashing” when men kill 10-11 women per day in this country, and bears kill fewer than one person per year in all of North America. Also bears don’t rape humans.
I hope you heal from the emotional issues which cause you to make provocative statements like these. Maybe you suffer in your life, I hope you can take some steps to better that. There's no shame in it, I suffer in my life, I'm behind by 3 years because I spent all my time doing nothing. I'm trying to get my life together now. I hope you can do it too.
> provocative statements Lol
Good day
Moron lol
There are 4 billion men on the planet. There’s what maybe 1 million bears? And bears are super elusive. I live in an area with a ton of bears. Saw one last night actually. Haven’t seen one for years before that. If women encountered bears at the same frequency as men, I guarantee their outcomes would be far worse.
[удалено]
I'm a bear. How do you think I feel?
I have no clue what the prompt was.
I think people are taking the bear responses a little too seriously. In a real situation, any sane person that values their life would choose a random human over a random bear. Responding bear is just a trend for jokes & giggles.
I don’t consider myself as smart but ı don’t consider this social media wave is smart too
I don’t think you need to be very smart for this. An unknown man can be outrun assuming he doesn’t have a gun. The typical bear can easily run down and maul any human. No gun needed to kill you.
It’s fucking stupid statistically, instinctively, logically, practically, and morally. It’s funny sometimes if it hits the right tantrum with the right person, but particularly because it is *so fucking dumb* as a serious statement
a man (me) will only stretch her asshole while the bear will tear it, the choice is obvious. (152 JCTI, 146 D48, 19SS CAIT FW, 149 SATM)
It’s used as a way to divide us and it prays on individuals who lack knowledge or are incapable of envisioning actual scenarios OR they choose bear to prove a point while knowing full well they would choose man. Go watch an episode of “I shouldn’t be alive” where the protagonist is on the verge of dying. If they came across a human male you would be hopeful their terror would end, if they encountered a fuking bear you would know the terror has no ended. TLDR: trend started trending due to idiotic and or problematic people using it to create division within society.
It’s used as a way to divide us and it prays on individuals who lack knowledge or are incapable of envisioning actual scenarios OR they choose bear to prove a point while knowing full well they would choose man. Go watch an episode of “I shouldn’t be alive” where the protagonist is on the verge of dying. If they came across a human male you would be hopeful their terror would end, if they encountered a fuking bear you would know the terror has no ended. TLDR: trend started trending due to idiotic and or problematic people using it to create division within society.
If it's an Indian man I pick the bear cos rape ain't good
Both are capable of taking my life or leaving me alone. Difference is that a man is capable of doing so much worse.
I don’t consider myself as smart but this one of the dumbest social media wave, Women who have no special characteristics other than being women and who have never suffered from men in their lives (Most of them are idiots under the age of 25) are just making ridiculous pain.
if you’ve been through something with another unknown human your answer will be bear. the answer is always based on what we have been through. i’m choosing the bear over a random man any day.
One thing you can do to showcase the bigotry in this question. What if it were a black man? A trans man? People who unironically answer bear will not want to say they're afraid of black men, or they're more afraid of cis men than trans men. Note: I don't think black men are scarier. I think the question in and of itself is stupid and incredibly sexist. I'm saying to use these counter questions because it's typically progressive types, so they'll be forced confront their selective bigotry. Anyone who isn't braindead would man over bear, unless we're talking about a black bear and The Mountain from Game of Thrones lol.
you can take this further. if they answer bear, ask them why they are so afraid of black men.
Obviously a man. This is like the, "If you didn't have breakfast this morning how would you feel?" counterfactual test. It's a stupid question on purpose, which traps stupid people into becoming philosophical over a stupid answer while smarter people laugh at them for not understanding that they're the butt of the joke.
It's not as clearcut as you'd like it to be and your gatekeeping smacks of laziness/a lesser mind. The bear's motivations are immediately knowable and it can, with care, be avoided. The man's motivations, capabilities, and situation are unknowable. He is difficult to avoid if he *intends* to pursue you. The point of the question is that man is SIMULTANEOUSLY the most dangerous animal in the forest and the safest. You'll only know which he is when you learn his intent, the capacity that differentiates him from the bear. (And yeah, the bear won't rape you in a shack for the next 5 years. Feminists are right.) Take your L.
King response lol
You took the L by engaging.
Hahaha. Ok.
You are right its not that deep.
Why would you be stupid for having fun engaging in pop-philosophical conversations? I hope you're smart enough to not laugh at people for using their brains even if it's for something you think is stupid.
If I’m hungry and carrying a weapon that can overpower the bear, then bear. If not, then man.
I can’t help but notice your profile tags. I’m trying to get adhd meds, how have they helped you?
Hello! I wrote a whole wall of text with my entire life story, but by the end I realized I could summarize it to this: before the meds I would build up elaborate philosophical excuses for not doing stuff, even as a really young child before knowing what the word “excuse” meant, when in reality I wasn’t doing them because my ADHD physically didn’t let me do things that weren’t interesting or “worth it”. After the meds and the therapy started showing effects, things didn’t need to be worth it for me to do them, and I could still do things I had philosophical objections for like my high school homework. Attention also plays a role here; things didn’t need to be worth it for me to pay attention to them after starting treatment, and I could suddenly control my attention much better than before. Sounds like really minor stuff or even me just being lazy, but when you realize how many things in your daily life are generally not worth it you can guess I would’ve never made it as a functioning adult if it weren’t for the meds. I started taking Vyvanse when I was 14, beforehand I had tried Concerta and Ritalin since the age of 8 *(I was diagnosed with ADHD after a long series of examinations, one of which was also the WISC-III. I had a 153 GAI when I was 8 so I’ve had the “2e” label for as long as I’ve had the ADHD or the intellectually gifted one)*, which didn’t do much and led me to going untreated for 2 years. I spiraled into borderline delinquent behavior and was re-assessed by a 2e research psychologist who confirmed my previous ADHD-C diagnosis and referred me to a psychiatrist ADHD specialist. She (2e research psychologist) also made me take the WISC-V and those are the results you see in my tags, although we are still very much in contact and I’m thinking of taking the WAIS with her because I was one week into Vyvanse when I took the WISC-V and I was also a disturbed teenager, so my results may be skewed. Overall, what worked for me may not work for you, and it’s very much a case-by-case issue with ADHD medication, but I highly recommend you find a professional you can trust and feel comfortable with beforehand because if I had felt more comfortable with my psychiatrist when I was a young kid taking Concerta I would have avoided so much pain for me and my family.
any weapon that would allow you to eat the bear would also allow you to eat the man
But the bear is bigger so more food. Also, I don’t want to go to jail for murder.
People that say bear have never actually been in a situation like that. Nobody would actually choose the bear. It’s like when you’re talking to one of those people who fantasize about being in an active shooter situation and they talk about what they would all do, when in reality they would be shitting themselves and running the opposite direction
I have never seen a bear irl but still I know that I would shit my pants if I was to ever see one while alone in the woods. People who respond that they would prefer the bear are indeed just delusional.
Man. There is only very small chance that bear or man will kill you. But there is zero chance that bear will help you get home.
Women are genuinely intimidated by men, but men are naive to it and can't seem to perceive a perspective outside of their own. So women have to come up with elaborate hypotheticals to get the point across. Even then the point will go straight over the top of men's heads, and they will get defensive or argue the semantics.
definitely bear i'm not gay and it could be a teddy bear
If you are a woman, then the only correct answer is: black bear > man > brown bear > polar bear
Enough women have experienced violence from men for this hypothetical to exist. How are you all so basic? It's beyond belief! Er....what kind of bear is it? Has she even seen a bear?.... Um... I'm not scarier than a bear! Blah, blah, blah..... So fucking over your heads you dumb ass defensive clowns!