The number of people either too dense or too willfully misogynistic to understand what this is about is depressing.
If you’re arguing bear statistics or saying “not all men” or decrying misandry, then you’ve totally missed the point. If you are doing it intentionally, you’re the type of men women would choose the bear over.
The fact that anyone would choose a dangerous animal over a random man is an indictment against the culture surrounding male privilege and should spark introspection and change. Arguments against this is just ignoring women and solidifies the decision that the bear is better.
Honestly, no matter what side of the debate you are on its still dystopian to think that women would actually think to go to a bear over a random man when faced with the choice.
I am being introspective about this though. We created a culture of fear. A lot of it is through the consequences of rape culture and I think a large part is through an unhealthy about of true crime that’s being made. Constantly blasting worse case scenarios into people’s heads. I dunno, I just despise how we all just accepted not to trust one another and it seems like we’ve all just accepted that this to way to be about it. I just see it as a example of the alienation being pushed by capitalism.
It’s makes me a little mad tbh. Being perfectly honest it should make everyone mad. Like tbh I still think going with a random guy is the correct answer to this but we all should come together, look at this whole situation and realise the dystopian implications of this.
I agree totally with the first sentiment but I don’t think the recent prevalence of True Crime media really plays into it at all. This is not a new thing. Women have been making these risk assessment decisions for generations in the modern age. Girls are taught this kind of thing with how to protect themselves at a young age.
This is primarily a cultural issue and it won’t change unless the majority of people propagating (intentionally or not) realize what’s happening and work to change.
I dunno, the media and its relationship to crime is well documented. Many people accept that old people that panic about inner city crime despite it being at a record low since the 1970s are victims of this phenomenon. Why is it difficult to believe that young women who consume a lot of true crime content aren’t also effected by this phenomenon in some way. I have studied psychology and I did do a journalism course which, admittedly, I dropped out of. I just don’t like how fear based society has become. People are just too quick to assume the absolute worst and I kinda view this bear question as a reflection on that.
I don’t know a single woman who hasn’t been at the very least harrassed by men they don’t know. I know so, so many who have been assaulted, and that’s just the women who have chosen to share their experience. Thinking your couple college classes means you know more about women’s experiences than women themselves is ridiculous.
Are people arguing statistics about it? Like how many women are killed by bears every year compared to men? Lmao, they’re not even close.
I’ve seen one video on the subject that my wife showed me, then I had a conversation with my wife about it.
When you’re looking at statistics, women attacked by bears per year vs women attacked by men per year, it’s not taking into account the fact that 99% of women don’t get into situations where they are near bears. Most women (and men) don’t go hiking in bear populated woods frequently. Like how the overall odds of getting struck by lightning is low, but some people are struck 8 times are survive.
The better statistic for this argument is that a man is more likely going to kill you in an encounter, should it escalate. I didn’t fact check this, but I’ll take this video at it’s word.
Almost like that was part of the original article.
Louis CK has a bit about how women have to take a terrible risk when dating, since men very often can be aggressive to the point of violent. In the 70s and 80s this was just accepted as a thing (and there was still a debate whether wife-rape was a thing). Since then, we’ve been trying to push the notion that romantic relationships should be consensual, not something that women should just have to weather, like it’s an act of nature. And we’re seeing the pushback from the Christian nationalist movement / transnational white power movement, to the point where rolling back women’s suffrage is on the table.
This is that dominance hierarchy thing again. It seems our society likes men with prowess, especially sports chops, though money chops or political chops are also enjoyed. Our school administrators favor schoolyard bullies over their victims, which is only one example out of dozens how we favor men who are more bestial than civil.
So yeah, having to contend with a bear in the woods may not be worse than having to contend with a man in the woods.
Although, this is about the choice between a strange man and a strange bear, and the scenario comes down to hoping the beastie doesn’t get too hungry / horny or otherwise is willing to respect you and your personhood. If not, it’s a problem of escaping, and while the bear is way faster and stronger (we’re assuming one of the larger ursine species) the man is smarter and may have tools. Given a strange man in the woods, we cannot automatically assume he has the manners of a New York family man with a robust office-clerk résumé.
A related question can be applied to a lot of our elected officials. Would the public be served better if we replaced our current official with a bear? There are a lot of them – people who are allegedly exemplary citizens of our society to which our kids can aspire – who behave worse than a bear might in their position.
It could be a good place for introspection. If you are a guy, and ended up stuck in a survival situation with a woman, would she be lucky she encountered you and not a bear? Similarly, if a woman drank to much at a social gathering and was too inebriated to think clearly, or even needed a place to rest, would your presence improve her safety or pose an additional risk? Not being a threat to our fellow humans is a very low bar, but it is a bar that a lot of people fail to clear.
I opine this is not fully their doing. US society really resents its teenagers and young adults, and did so even when I was a kid in the 1970s-1980s, which drove a lot of guys towards the alt-right even before Steve Bannon worked to turn it into a voting bloc. Here in the States we have a longstanding tradition of letting our young men turn into War Boys, join up with Immorten Joe, ever looking for an opportunity to go out in glory all shiny and chrome. ( Witness me! ) I got out by pure luck in the early 1990s, never quite finding my divine wind moment.
The Louis C.K. who pulled out his little Louis and masturbated in front of female coworkers without their consent? That one?
Yes, sadly. That one.
Found it Here under Dating Takes Courage
A woman saying yes to a date with a man is literally insane and ill-advised, and the whole species’ existence counts on them doing it, and I don’t know how they– How do women still go out with guys when you consider the fact that there is no greater threat to women than men? We’re the number-one threat to women. Globally and historically, we’re the number-one cause of injury and mayhem to women. We’re the worst thing that ever happens to them…
How do they still do it? If you’re a guy, try to imagine that you could only date a half-bear, half-lion, And you’re like, “I hope this one’s nice. I hope he doesn’t do what he’s going to do.”
I mean yeah, Louis is a putz and a predator, but he did make a valid point.
AFAIK he asked for consent and the women thought he was joking.
Informed consent is important. If one party is unaware that it is NOT a joke, that’s not informed consent.
Society is made of the stories we tell ourselves.
Our stories have been pretty bad lately and selling fear and power fantasy still works as well as it always did.
I know it feels like bullshit and we all just say that people should just know and act better but they don’t and they won’t. They operate on what they think in their head is right.
I dunno. Maybe we need less stories maybe we need to tell better ones to inspire better. Maybe we do just need to BE better. I don’t see it happening. We love the bad just way to much. Far more interesting.
Yeah this is gonna be a whole measured and productive comments section
So wonderful that Joseph Allen is here to tell us what women think. This is the kind of investigative journalism the world needs more of!
The true solution is to be single. It’s great, I suggest everyone try it.
7 years single, I dated someone several months ago, went back to being single, not sure I want a serious relationship again.
Being single and sticking to your guns i.e standards when it comes to dating. Don’t be flexible. Don’t be lenient. Don’t compromise. Showing either means exploitation and people will want you to do things that’ll undermine your standards.
I’m so sick of hearing about this bear thing. I don’t care. It’s a thought experiment. A reminder that humans are easily controlled by the internet. Everyone has an opinion about this stupid shit.
Wait, you mean the animal bear, not the fun large and hairy gay dude bear?!.. Well this game isn’t fun anymore.
I’m going to bear weekend at a gay campground soon. Woohoo! 🐻❄️🐻🐨🧸
So like if a woman prefers the strange bear does the strange man get let out of the woods?
Asking the real questions here.
Can the woman choose which kind of bear?
Is it a black bear or polar bear? What kind of bear are we talking about here? If she can choose the bear, can she also choose the man?
Is it random bear and random man? Random bear gives a rather high chance of polar bear. Random man gives a rather low chance of violent man.
We need a random bear man simulator to run the data. We deserve answers!
I don’t care for the debate. I care for statistics.
Does anybody know the cheat code for Panda? Cuz the moment I figure it out I am choosing bear for absolutely goddamn everything.
Lost in the woods? Up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, Start - Panda time bitches!
Lost in downtown? Up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, Start - Panda time!
Lost in thought? Up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, Start - PaaaAaaNnnnnDdaaaa!
Sitting on the shitter and browsing the Internet? Up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, Start - PANDA!!!
This whole thread is absurd lol. Like always these are extremist arguments that most than not paint a black or white scenario that is created to be divisive.
…it’s about whether women are safer around a strange man or a bear. Of course it’s extremist, it’s meant to be an exaggerated hypothetical.
It’s not just about whether they’re safe for statistically, although of course that’s true, but also to point out that there’s the extra mental burden of keeping track of that safety aspect.
Wow, y’all cannot handle a little trolling huh. Are incels really taking this whole thing seriously? Just remember guys, it is personal, hahaha
Whoever originally asked this bear question should be in prison
Why?
Don’t you find this discussion super annoying
I mean I think it’s being overblown, but I don’t think it merits jail time.
The question is designed to be as divisive as possible. It categorizes large swathes of people into just 2 groups - man or bear. The man group contains mansplainers, but it also contains regular people who simply view humanity as naturally altruistic. The bear group contains people with concerns about men overpowering women, but also contains people who earnestly believe that most if not all men will try to do it if given the chance.
The problem is that people either are unable to or unwilling to acknowledge that these categories are not monolithic. And in claiming that all people in the man group are incels, you are inadvertently insulting everyone in that group. Likewise, in claiming that all people in the bear group are misandrists, you are inadvertently dismissing everyone in that group.
It is not productive to make claims about people based only on their answer to the question. In fact, it appears to be entirely the intention of the question to divide even rational people by exploiting the general human inability to see subgroups within larger categories
I thought it was from the woman’s perspective. She doesn’t know if the man is an incel or a regular, well behaved person.
The point is: do you roll the dice on the man, who could be anything, or the bear, who is a bear.
The known potential bad is better than the unknown potential bad. At least a bear won’t rape you before/while killing you.
IMO, the answer given exposes more about the life experiences of the women answerers, and the result seems to be that their experiences have been bad.
I’m pretty sure it’s mostly just talk, when actually faced with a 🐻.
I dunno, I’ve seen a few bears in forests, and mostly they wandered off annoyed that they couldn’t reach the food, or just sat around minding their own business.
I’ve had zero issues with every bear I’ve ever seen.
Obviously, I’ve seen more humans than bears, but the score is wildly in the bears favour.
People are taking this way too literally. It’s just a goofy meme that’s expressing a general sentiment.
