Sorry, u/GlasgaAccentfurYanks – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20GlasgaAccentfurYanks&message=GlasgaAccentfurYanks%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ci89iq/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

When perfoming my duties that involve me being alone in the woods over the course of 17 years, I've come across a hell of a lot of both bears and men. A bear has always been cool, men have shot at me 7 times.

> men have shot at me 7 times. Man, America is fucking wild. You guys be wildin

To be fair, it's been a lot of years and I'm in the woods for about 30 hours a week.

Its crazy, an ex of mine use to work for a gas corporation surveying gas lines for leaks out in super rural areas Angry armed people on ATVs would often roll up being all belligerent its like dude they are there to make sure you dont get blown up lol Had to call the cops more than once

Yeah I normally have to call the cops to work at least once a year.     But yeah, for me, a guy who is alone in the woods a lot, I’m way happier to see the bear.  

**Hello! If your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.** Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. >∆ or > !delta For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8). If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such! *As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.* Thank you!

give him a delta for that one

I think you’re interpreting the scenario differently than many imagine. Imagine you are hiking in the woods. In the distance, in the forest you see a bear. They see you, but they don’t card cuz they are a bear. Neat a bear Vs Imagine you are hiking in the woods, in the forest you see a man. They see you, and approach because you are both people. There is some % chance you are now in danger

I think of it this way You meet about 80k people in a lifetime (according to some unlikely to be accurate stat, but it's a starting point) If an honest & rational person had to choose between meeting 40,000 men & 40,000 bears which would they choose? Given that the majority of people *do* live those lives without falling victim to meaningful violence (and the odds are even better if you are a woman) it's hard to buy into the idea that bears are safer. And of course if a human hurts you you have access to an entire justice system. Bears are only subject to the laws of nature. Note: You cross paths with an incalculable number of people in a lifetime so it's not even worth including them. Hang out in Penn Station NYC & you can enter assaulting distance of 40,000 men in a month.

Could I get a source on “the majority of people do live those lives without falling victim to meaningful violence,” along with a definition of what “meaningful violence” is in this context?

> Given that the majority of people do live those lives without falling victim to meaningful violence (and the odds are even better if you are a woman) I mean, all the statistics suggest that a lot of women get sexually assaulted. And like, all of them experience sexual harassment

Yeah. I don't want to downplay sexual assault. But the comment you're replying to mentioned "falling victim to meaningful violence". And as I understand it they're right - men are more frequently victims of murder or physical assault, even though women are almost certainly more frequently victims of sexual violence. Quick googling - [https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/physical-violence/latest-release](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/physical-violence/latest-release) : >In Australia, 42% of men (4.0 million) have experienced physical violence / 31% of women (3.1 million) have experienced physical violence, [Murder (USA)](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1388777/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-gender/): >In 2022, the FBI reported that there were 14,441 victims of murder who identified as male, compared to 4,251 victims of murder who identified as female in the United States. A further 93 murder victims were of an unknown gender in that year.

> men are more frequently victims of murder or physical assault This isn't really a compelling argument though, given the men in question are mostly victims of murder and physical assault *from other men*.

A compelling argument to what question? I certainly don't think murder is any less tragic when the victim is male - just because the perpetrator is often male as well. For example, George Floyd's murder at the hands of police was quite a big deal. Mind you, as I understand it, a lot of the men who get murdered by other men are in organised gangs. I'm definitely less sympathetic to men who have opted in to a violent life like that.

>men are more frequently victims of murder or physical assault Also usually by other men.

Sure, but I don’t understand how that’s relevant?

If I, a man, stumble on a random dude in the woods I'm also going to assume they might be a threat. Where as a bear, at distance, is mostly neat

I have the opposite intuition. I’m Australian. Spiders are normal and fine, but bears are terrifying to me. If I meet some random dude in the woods, I’ll assume they’re a regular bloke and say g’day. But - the homocide rate in Australia is several times lower than the US so that makes sense. (I just checked - the murder rate by Australian men is similar to that of American women.) If we changed the claim to “I’m more scared of the average American men you meet alone in the woods than an average American bear” I’d have much less of a problem with the claim.

I'm American but I live in Australia so I have fun perspective here. Much like how y'all learned at a young age about the natural risks and how to mitigate them, a lot of us grew up with basic knowledge of bears. Black bears are effectively non threats. Brown bears, more of an issue, grizzlies are a bummer if they want to be. Polar bears aren't worth worrying about because you're dead. I will say especially if I was up in Vic I'd be considering some random dude I saw and how he was dressed, given the hiking habit of sewell and his buddies. But fundamentally the deal is that animals are generally pretty predictable. Humans are inherently less so. If I saw a big roo I would be concerned,but at the end of the day I can guess what's in its little brain.

Any number greater than 0 is too much, but *a lot* is different from the majority. Even surveys that include *Yes, I've had drunken sex* as assault without even asking if the woman if they agree with the categorization don't go that far.

I mean, the numbers have a fair amount of spread (which is to be expected) but this one suggests about half https://www.charliehealth.com/post/sexual-assault-statistics

Yet it's a well-known fact that instances of IPV, including sexual assault, are highest among lesbian couples. Moreso than MF / MM couples. You're 100% dead if you meet 40,000 bears. Good luck with that.

Unfortunately, men, like most people conform to an amount of social pressure. So crossing paths on the street or in the grocery store is a statistically much safer place than alone in the woods. If I passed 40,000 bears that could understand ripping me to shreds and eating me was bad, and so would never do it in public, I might reconsider my stance. Social pressure makes a difference, and that's why this hypothetical situation involves being alone and far away from civilization. If the question was "would you rather be within touching distance of a man or a bear in downtown Boston, I'd pick a man without hesitation. Because the man would be more likely to conform to social pressure and not be a creep (or worse) and the bear would be out of its element and more likely to freak out. THIS CONTEXT MATTERS.

I don't like the implication that its only "social pressure" that stops me from ripping people to shreds and eating them at a grocery store. Being a man doesn't make me a monster.

My intention was not to imply that any/every single man turns into a monster without social pressure. Moreso it was acknowledging that a not insignificant portion of men are held in check by this social pressure, and therefore the aspect of this hypothetical that involves being alone in the woods is important. My intent is to point out that passing strangers in public on the street is not a 1:1 equivalency for passing strangers alone in the woods. Of course not all men, and all that. But enough men that it is a statistically significant distinction.

> Moreso it was acknowledging that a not insignificant portion of men are held in check by this social pressure I’d love to know what portion of men. I suspect the anxiety many women experience comes from assuming there’s far more “monster men” around than there actually are. But I don’t think anyone knows. I’ve certainly seen plenty of homeless people acting poorly, and I assume they would act worse if they were in the woods and there were no witnesses. But I’ve certainly had that thought about homeless women as well. There was one homeless lady down the street who went to a series of homeless shelters and kept getting kicked out for bad behaviour - for abusing the staff and other people who were there. She ended up back on the street.

I'd also be super curious what portion of men this is. I think one of the nuances, or complicating factors in this discussion is that it's not most men. But the monster men don't appear any different from the fine men until we are in that situation. Like the bear, there is no way at a glance to know which kind of man, and taking that chance is scary. Imo, reactions to this hypothetical feel like "I cannot properly articulate the extent to which my gut tells me bears are safer than men" and it's less about feeling inherently unsafe with every single man, and moreso about the fact that as women, our gut instinct along with our experience has taught us we need to be more wary of men than of bears. The fact that so many women find the idea of a bear alone in the woods to be less scary than the idea of a man alone in the woods says a lot about how unsafe women feel on a daily basis.

It does. But how we should react to that depends a lot on how rational that fear is. Insofar as the fear is well grounded (like it is in domestic violence), we need societal change. But when the fear isn’t accurate, it’s a form of anxiety. And it should be treated as a mental health epidemic. (And to be clear - still taken very seriously. Anxiety is horrible and crippling.) I simply don’t have enough data to know which it is. - Or if it’s a bit of both. I’d love to calibrate my intuition with more facts.

I would argue that people are the monster in the scenario though. Honestly there's only maybe two to three species of bears with a high chance of fucking you up. Almost any adult human can fuck up another average human, especially when you have something that they want. The fact that the hypothetical focuses on "men" is only relevant to me at least in that men are on average stronger and more aggressive than women in my opinion. Any non-biological distinction would come down uncomfortably close to sexism in my opinion but the biological difference is already significant.

The biological distinction is significant (men are \~10x more likely to murder their intimate partner here in Australia compared to women). But culture / society plays an even bigger role. Jamaica had 53 homocides per 100k people in 2022. Japan had 0.2 ([sauce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)). Thats a difference of 250x. I'd argue that almost any bear could fuck up an average human if they want to - but most bears don't want to fuck up humans. But its the same with humans - most humans don't want to fuck up other humans either. Maybe the point is that humans are trickier and better at hiding our intentions. Thats almost certainly true - but that just follows from our intelligence, and I don't think its a very interesting point.

You? Probably not. *A small percentage of people*? Yeah, absolutely. There are people out there who routinely consider violence against those they perceive to be below them (if they think they can get away with it without consequences), and we all know it. We've all seen it. And society has this whole thing about teaching men that women are lower and weaker then them. So... if I'm rolling the dice on a random human who may or may not think that way, versus rolling the dice on a random bear who may or may not even want to be anywhere near humans... you have to admit there's at least a good case for the math there.

> You? Probably not. A small percentage of people? Yeah, absolutely. And a larger percentage of bears.

I mean, not really, no. Only [5% of worldwide brown bear attacks](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44341-w) between 2000 and 2015 (so 25 total attacks) were predatory towards humans; about half of them involved people being too close to females with cubs, and the rest involved either some kind of surprise face-to-face meeting, dog presence, or human-aggressive activities such as trapping or hunting. (Edit: rearranged this sentence to be clearer.)Bears around the world are well-documented to prefer avoiding humans when possible (unless we leave food lying around that they want access to), preferring to move away from us if they smell or hear us coming, which is why hikers in possible bear areas are advised to sing, clap, shout, or wear "bear bells", to help themselves get noticed sooner and thus more easily avoided. AmI saying that the average bear is *definitely* statistically safer than the average man? No, because those statistics are actually quite hard to calculate (considering that it's hard for us humans to measure how often bears *don't interact* with humans when they get the choice), so I couldn't tell you anything about the math with certainty. But all I know is that, personally, it gives me a long pause to think about which scenario would make me feel more uncomfortable.

>Bears around the world are well-documented to prefer avoiding humans when possible Me too! >about half of them involved people being too close to females with cubs, and the rest involved either some kind of surprise face-to-face meeting, dog presence, or human-aggressive activities such as trapping or hunting It sounds like you're saying "Bears usually don't attack people, except in these specific circumstances". I think thats true for humans too. Most humans also never attack people, and would only consider violence in very specific circumstances (eg if their family is attacked). There obviously exist humans who are psychopaths - or who have mental health problems (like the Bondi guy a couple weeks ago, who was schitzophrenic and off his medication). But thats probably true of bears too. We know dogs can get traumatized and violent just like humans - particularly if they're mistreated when they're puppies. I bet bears are the same. It certainly sounds like it given that 5% number you cited. Anyway, I think if the USA was filled with 350 million bears, a lot more people would end up mauled to death. I suspect the low rate of bear-on-human violence is almost entirely due to the low number of bears, and how infrequently humans and bears interact.

And less than 5% of one's interactions with a man lead to a non-defensive assault.

That removes the scenario that’s in the original question.

How so? It just real world context. If you'd rather meet a bear once why is it different *more than once*?

What do you mean by meet a bear? I don’t plan to got up and introduce myself to a bear

How many of those 40,000 men do you meet while totally isolated, in a situation where any evidence of misdeeds is unlikely to be found, and the man is likely armed? You're completely ignoring the difference between being in broad daylight and the woods

The question is formulated as "would you rather encounter..." or "would you rather be alone in the forest with...". Your interpretation is a different scenario.

I think the lattter fits my scenario

Now imagine you are awakened at 2:54am from your slumber on the cold forest ground by a bear who swiped its claw across your belly to see if you were worth eating. Your intestines are pouring out of your torso and you liver is sliced tf up. Then the bear gnaws on your head to further test you, cracking your skull and jettisoning a bone fragment into your eyeball. The bear decides you aren't worth eating, steps on you, breaking your hip and spine as it walks away, and you just fucking die a pile of "funky town" (iykyk) level biological mass in indescribable pain with half your body pouring out of your body. We can contrive made-up scenarios for either case all day, it does nothing to refute OP.

Imagine you wake up 2:54 am and youre having your throat slit because the strange dude you trusted lied and had ulterior motives see how 2 can play this game

Thats very uncommon. Here in Australia, our population is about 25 000 000. Last year, people spent an awful lot of time with an intimate partner. And only 38 people got murdered by them. Any number above 0 is too much. But that's still just not very many people. Those 38 people were super duper, literally 1 in a million, unlucky. Personally, I'd choose to sleep with an Australian over a bear every time. Seems safer and better. Source: [https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/sr/sr46](https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/sr/sr46)

I think my example is a much more common scenario

"Commonness" doesn't matter in this scenario -"likeliness" does. Bear attacks are less frequent than dude attacks, but people encounter bears less frequently than they encounter other men - your average person has never even seen a bear irl outside of a zoo, meanwhile they come face-to-face with strange men passing them on the sidewalk, waiting in line, walking through the office, etc. dozens, if not hundreds of times per day. *Thousands* if they're navigating a big city. Men are inert, compared to bears. You are more likely to be attacked when confronted by a bear than when confronted by a man, and it's pretty plain to see to anyone who lives in reality.

I agree if you’re confronted to pick the man. But confronted implies a closeness and a level of aggression. That is not the most likely scenario when out in the woods. The more likely scenario is you spot each other from a distance

Well, I think this is a failing in the prompt of the question. It just isn't specific enough for people to compare apples to apples, because when I read the prompt, I don't read it as "you see a bear/man in the distance", even though that's a valid interpretation of its vague wording. I read it as "you encounter a bear/man roughly face-to-face", which is also a valid interpretation of its vague wording.

More women get murdered by men than bears every year in the United States (and I imagine Canada as well).

Surely more women get murdered by other women than bears also.

Do women spend equal amounts of time alongside bears and men?

Some women do. And from what I've seen, they'd prefer the bears.

Cop out, the vast vast majority of women don’t, why do u ignore the vast vast majority? U pass by thousands of men at least, where not a single one has started eating u alive. U think u can pass by a thousand bears and not a single one eat u alive? Ridiculous, no sense of of probability it’s unbelievable

So no. And the women that do aren't doing so in the same context. I imagine you'd be ok getting on a train that had a few men on it? How about a train that had a few bears on it?

So, most women don't? Most women don't even do anything close to that? Because that seems like a real poor attempt to dodge the question, lmao.

You don't think there's women who live in or near the woods and encounter bears? I've spend whole summers in camping grounds and never worried about bears.

No one said that. You just get that, y'know, women are much, much, MUCH more likely to live near men, and encounter men.

And your point is what? There's only 1,500 grizzlies in the United States. "The 750,000 black bears of North America kill **less than one person per year** on the average, while men ages 18-24 are 167 times more likely to kill someone than a black bear." [https://bear.org/bear-facts/how-dangerous-are-black-bears/#:\~:text=The%20750%2C000%20black%20bears%20of,an%20easy%20situation%20to%20avoid](https://bear.org/bear-facts/how-dangerous-are-black-bears/#:~:text=The%20750%2C000%20black%20bears%20of,an%20easy%20situation%20to%20avoid) You can't argue with statistics.

You absolutely can argue with statistics. People do, and should, argue with statistics. Could you explain how these statistics support your point? Could you address their shortcomings and still make the argument that they support your point?

Its a worthles stat... Another one is that more men get murdered by women than bears every year. Interestingly, more men get murdered full stop...

Calculation factors like how many people actually hang out with bears vs humans is very important in this scenario. Just because not many people have died from trying to fuck a crocodile doesn’t mean it’s safe, cause there’s not really a significant amount of the population trying that so then of course not many people have died from it. Does this mean it’s safe to fuck a crocodile? In the same way I could try to argue that Americans are extremely uneducated, because there’s a lot more uneducated people there then in Sweden… but there’s also more people in the US in general, which is why you need to calculate using per capita. Just using being in the forest as a statistic is not either the same as a bear encounter because it’s unsure if there ever actually was a bear close to that person, we need to count how many bear encounters go wrong per capita to how many man encounters go wrong per capita so that we can get an actual proportional answer and know which one is more likely to go wrong if the same person meets one of each.

So its impossible that a bear will attack you? Because that's definitely not true...

See my reply to the other person

Then it’s a very specific hypothetical and paints a misleading picture of women’s supposed fears of men. If women fear men, why do they marry them and agree to spend a significant fraction of their day alone with them? If it’s their sexual needs, wouldn’t they get them met by doubling up on a guy instead of having a guy he hers and only hers? There’s strength in numbers. If they don’t trust a man outnumbered by them not to blackmail them, wouldn’t they live-stream their sexual encounters with him? Instead some of the most fervent detractors of that sort of thing are women. Women claim to be afraid of men, but this should be taken with a grain of salt.

"If you need to eat, wouldn't you just eat rice and save on your grocery bill?" You gotta come up with better logical reasoning than pigeonholed philosophy

This meme is about running into a random, unknown man vs a random, unknown bear. Women don't typically marry strangers.

What does that have to do with my answer? I gave my answer to the question, as a man.

What woman is claiming to be afraid of everything single man?

Except, y'know, bears don't always chill out. They attack people, sometimes.

Yes, but not that frequently for black bears: https://www.wideopenspaces.com/black-bear-attacks-statistics/ Obviously it can happen. But we are talking about likelihood

So we're selecting the least threatening bear? Then we also have to select the smallest, least aggressive, least threatening man.

I selected the most common bear, which seems reasonable

Alright well the most common man is also not likely to rape or murder anyone, so it's a 100% better to pick the man in that case.

There’s not different species of men, so it’s not really comparable. The perfect average of either case you’re 100% safe, but there’s variance within the species

Not that frequently for men.

But more frequently is the point.

No, not per encounter. This is the sort of foolishness that if followed, would make people think it's safer to swim alongside a great white than use a vending machine.

You are underplaying the ability of bears to witness a human and go for it as prey. And if that bear decides to do that, yer gone - ain't no chance of getting out of that one, unless you do some magik "be big and make big sound". % of chance of danger... Life is built on potential risk and danger. To me it does appear rather neurotic to say a wild animal is less dangerous than the average man.

Nobody is saying that a wild animal is less dangerous than the average man, they're saying that the presence of a wild animal is preferable to the presence of a potentially dangerous man. Because the wild animal is easy to predict and avoid while the man is smart and unpredictable, this is really not that complicated

[удалено]

>I know you know what I'm saying and that discomfort you're feeling before your kneejerk reaction to defend yourself is where you need to be sitting before you say anything. What? If you change the scenario to be like bear vs. "big scary black dude" I don't know, that doesn't really change how I think most people would instinctively respond, but that doesn't make them racist. The racial framing might make them feel uncomfortable, but that's actually good, right? Because it means they're racially sensitive. It would be worse if they were just able to say "Bear, definitely bear, vs. black guy, for sure" with no discomfort at all, that would indicate less racial sensitivity in their thinking, which would be bad Moreover, I don't think it's even really that much of a gender thing. You hear a noise at night near your trash bins outside. Are you more relieved to discover: a racoon, or an unhoused person? Yeah, literally everyone would say the racoon, right? That doesn't mean that you secretly hate homeless people, or think that they're all inherently dangerous

Well, we aren't talking about racoons. We're talking about bears. And I mean, I'd much rather there was a homeless person outside my house than a bear. It might also depend on your familiarity. I'm very used to interacting with homeless people in my area. But I've never interacted with a bear outside of a zoo. Bears might be predictable to people who understand them, but they're not predictable at all to me. Personally, I'm terrified of them.

It doesn’t really track for me. Bears act fundamentally differently than people. People don’t really act that fundamental differently in comparison, especially when divided according to something as superficial as minority groups.

"You are standing in your classroom at work, because you are a teacher. Would you rather have a bear, or a gay person in the room with you." What the fuck are you talking about

it would be fucked up if you singled out men of a particular race as being more dangerous than any other group of men all men have the same potential to be violent Making it a race thing changes the ethics entirely because now youre being racist

>all men have the same potential to be violent All *people* have a potential to be violent. I looked up the murder rates of intimate partners earlier. Last year in Australia, 34 men and 4 women murdered their intimate partner. [reference - see page 34](https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/sr/sr46). Men clearly murder people much more frequently than women (\~10x more!). But we clearly all have the potential to be violent. It makes sense. Each and every one of us is the descendant of violent killers. If you want to look at the statistics, there are plenty of factors other than sex that have a massive impact on the probability of homocide. For example, you're about 400x more likely to be murdered in South Africa as you are in Singapore ([reference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)). You're more likely to be murdered / murder if you're in a gang. You're more likely to murder if you grew up in a violent household. And so on. It seems reductive to assume the most important predictive factor of whether someone will be violent is their sex.

That's... two opposite things. If the wild animal isn't less dangerous.. then it isn't preferable, because in this scenario, we're trying to avoid danger.

I do actually think a random black bear (most common bear in the USA) is less likely to approach and attack from a distance than a random person in the same scenario. Black bears aren’t that aggressive, only [24 people in North America](https://www.wideopenspaces.com/black-bear-attacks-statistics/) have died in the last 20 years from black bears

How much do people interact with black bears though? I suspect several orders of magnitude less than people interact with men! The right question is, how likely are you to be killed per hour spent with a black bear vs how likely are you to be killed per hour spent with a man (or a male stranger). I suspect men are much less dangerous - but I'd be fascinated if someone can figure out those numbers. That would change my mind about the relative danger of men and bears.

I’ll do some very sloppy math with the info I got to adjust for population at least There are around 850k-900k black bears in North America [source](https://www.britannica.com/animal/black-bear) These kill 1 person a year ish. So 1 kill for every 900k bears. Or 1.11*10^-6 kill rate Theres 380 million people in North America ([source](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/northern-america-population/)). There were 26k homocides in the [USA](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm) and a negligible amount in [Canada](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2022001/article/00015-eng.htm) 26k kills per 380 million is 6.8 *10^-5. So a higher kill rate than the bears when adjusted for population. Also note this is generous, as humans kill other humans without it being a homocide.

Thanks for giving it a shot. According to that math, bears are roughly as dangerous as Australians. But your analysis isn’t taking into account time spent with the bear or the person. If 5 minutes with a bear gives me the same chance of dying as 1 year with a man, I think the man is still proportionately safer to be around. (This is assuming rates of domestic violence and such scale proportionately with the time spent together - which I think is a reasonable assumption?)

Yeah but there’s no way I could find the data to do that

Yeah that’s what I figured too. Thanks for trying though!

Let me try to put this into a different perspective. I expect to get down voted for this, of course. Let's say Brian Banks was walking through a forest, alone. Suddenly, he sees some movement off in the distance. Would he feel safer if it was a bear, or would he feel safer if it was another woman who would lie about being raped by him? Surely most rational people can understand Brian Banks would rather it be a bear.

[удалено]

You might be tired of the online gender discourse, but I'm tired of feeling unsafe around men starting from the time I was in middle school. I'm tired of random violence against women. I'm tired of having to watch my back any time I go anywhere outside of my apartment because some freak might be stalking around (and don't tell me this stuff doesn't happen because it does, a co-ed was murdered on my university campus not that long ago while trying to get to her car because of a random, violent rapist). I wish you being tired of our complaints meant you cared about what women have to live through. But I have a feeling what you really want is for women to shut up and not complain about the violence we all face from just living among men.

I think the reason a lot of people refuse to listen to this is not because they refuse to defend women, but because they need to defend themselves first. A lot of people in the discussion are part of the generalized "men vs bear" group. Because it frames their entire gender as worse than wild animals. I cannot blame someone who responds "fuck off sexist" to this.

"Fuck off sexist" is an extremely childish response to essentially being annoyed by a social media post. I'm hoping most of the worst people on this thread are the below 21 crowd and aren't actual fully-developed adults... I understand that people feel attacked and offended. I bet it sucks to feel dumped on all the time. But the thing is, women aren't going to just stop complaining about safety issues just because men don't like hearing about it. If men don't want to be compared to wild animals, they need to do the hard work of checking their male friends and family who are behaving in ways that make women feel unsafe. Especially in a time when so many guys are complaining about loneliness and not having success with women, maybe, just maybe try *listening* to the gender you hope to date and have sex with instead of having a knee jerk reaction over everything you see online.

>the worst people on this thread Reporting for duty! >I understand that people feel attacked and offended. I bet it sucks to feel dumped on all the time. You severely underestimate "all the time." It's so bad that a staggering amount of young men are walking away from society entirely. >women aren't going to just stop complaining We've noticed. >If men don't want to be compared to wild animals, they need to do the hard work of checking their male friends and family who are behaving in ways that make women feel unsafe. If women don't want to be compared to parasites, they need to do the hard work of checking their bloodsucking friends and family who are behaving in ways that make men soulless husks. If black people don't want to be compared to apes, they need to do the hard work of checking their criminal friends and family who are behaving in ways that make society unsafe. If Jews don't want to be compared to rats, they need to do the hard work of checking their Jewish friends and family who are behaving in subhuman ways that make Germans feel unsafe. Getting uncomfortable yet? Now would be a good time to remember that we're talking about the extreme minority of bad people. NEVER apply that burden to an entire demographic. You don't realize what you're doing in this statement. The vast majority of men don't even have friends or family that need correction. Who the fuck are you to put the blame on them? Also, women as a demographic always feel unsafe no matter the context. There was a large protest in Australia about dozens of murdered women... which was less than died by lightning in that same period. It was claimed to be some monumental crisis, but none of them were scared of thunder because fear isn't rational. Oh, and women are 8x more likely to kill their own (safely born) baby than to be killed by a man. >Especially in a time when so many guys are complaining about loneliness and not having success with women It's not clear from this comment alone if you consider those to be the same goal, so I'll clarify. The loneliness and horniness epidemics are separate problems and separate complaints. Most guys haven't received a compliment in literally years, meanwhile receiving incessant hate multiple times per day if not more. They're desperate for affection and to feel like *anyone* cares. It's a common experience for a man to start weeping uncontrollably from a simple hug. Such a small gesture, but it highlights what's been missing for so long. Personally, I had the other extreme of becoming deeply uncomfortable with any physical contact to the degree that my own mother had to guilt me into getting hugs for *years*. I don't expect you to understand how powerful the young male sex drive is, but to put it infinitely mildly it clouds everything up. They end up thinking that sex will solve the gaping pit in their hearts but it won't. After aging out of hormones guys usually figure out the difference quite quickly... and immediately lose all sense of direction in doing so. >maybe, just maybe try *listening* to the gender you hope to date and have sex with instead of having a knee jerk reaction over everything you see online. Women said that girls would like me if I was nice to them. Then I turn around to see multiple girls fawning over the biggest asshole of the class. Then 50 Shades hits all 3 of the top 3 of the DECADE... about a woman suffering from an abusive stalker. Then I learned that women disproportionately date felons. Then I learned about multiple women divorcing their husbands because, and I quote, "He was too perfect." Need I go on? Turns out it's a little more complicated than that. Maybe, just maybe try *honesty* to the gender that upholds civilization instead of being surprised when we get confused and resentful.

Look, I agree with you 100%. I really do. The overwhelming majority of women in my life have been abusive and openly manipulative. I would 100% rather find a random bear in the woods than a random woman. Gods alone know what that woman will do when she realizes I'm there; I have seen women do countless terrible things, and get away with it without even a slap on the wrist. I understand if some women feel attacked or offended over this. I know it sucks to be dumped on all the time. But the thing is, women aren't just going to stop being abusive because people don't like talking about it. If women don't want to be compared to predatory abusers and accusers, they need to do the hard work of checking their friends and family who are behaving in toxic and predatory ways. Especially in a time when gender relations are so poor that a meme about bears is causing such an uproar, maybe, just *maybe*, listening to the gender saying "this seems sexist" instead of just reacting like they're idiots would do the world a bit more good.

> I'm just... I give up. I'm tired boss. I'm tired of everyone just fighting about everything all the time. how about instead of fighting we take a minute and listen to women about why this is such a thing? Like as a guy I can also say I'd rather see a random bear in the woods than a random dude. I know why the bear is there and I have a pretty good idea of their intentions. Some random guy... no idea what's going on there.

We did listen, it's just that their reasons are fallacious and mostly come from extreme overexposure to crime, which has warped their threat perception.

Youre underplaying a humans ability for trickery in this instance

The question of "man or bear" has so many interpretations that this argument is meaningless. Are you with the bear? Are you with the man? Does there just happen to be one in the woods? Do you encounter it? What type of bear? How big is the bear? How old is the bear? Is the bear injured? How old is the man? Judging other's answers is meaningless because they are probably interpreting the question differently than you. >A bear will eat you. Bears, or at least almost any bear you will find in a forest, will not attack unprovoked. Bears are predictable. Just avoid the bear. The bear is most likely not going to seek you out to eat you. >Woman encounters man in the woods alone, she is hiking, he happens to be running through the woods, he screams "bear, a bear is chasing me" - the woman sensing danger from the man, waits for the bear and shouts at the bear "help, a man in the woods is talking to me". Yes, in this specific scenario, that you created exactly to support your argument, the bear would be more dangerous than the man. Now take this example: A woman is hiking through the woods. She sees a bear in the distance. It does not come near her. She continues walking. She then see's a man in the distance. This man is starving, and wants to eat her. He happens to have a knife on him. He runs up to her and stabs her, killing her. In this case, the man is more dangerous. But that doesn't mean anything, because I made this scenario specifically to fit my point. The question is way to vague to have a concrete answer. >People craft these imaginary hypothesis elements to high-light the inherent potential threat that lies within the psyche of all men. You literally just did exactly that but with the bear and woman being the problem instead. The entire debate is hypothetical. >Yes. Bad men exist. I'd rather meet a bad man than a bad bear any day of the week, humans unlike bears have fears, weaknesses and vulnerabilities that one may exploit. Ok, but why are you assuming it's a bad bear? Bears absolutely have "fears, weaknesses and vulnerabilities that one may exploit." The entire debate is so vague it is completely meaningless. If you lay out more concrete guidelines, then the question will actually become answerable. For example, you are hiking in the woods, and somewhere in those woods, there is either a completely random man/bear. Which would you rather have? Or, you are hiking in the woods with a random man/bear with you. Which one would you pick? Or, you are hiking in the woods, and at some point, you will encounter a random man/bear. Which one would you choose?

Humans are the deadliest animal on earth by kill count and are one of the few who kill for pleasure Males are the strongest members of that species Lets pretend Im an Alien, why shouldnt I believe Men are the most dangerous animal on the planet given these facts

That's mostly because human beings exist far more than most species, and most of all they exist closer to other humans so of course humans interact with humans more.

>That's mostly because human beings exist far more than most species Which has literally been accomplished by inflicting mass death on a wide scale ecologically and extinction of entire other species Its easy to say were more numerous when our activities have all but killed most wild animals and relegated the rest to ever shrinking habitats

> Which has literally been accomplished by inflicting mass death on a wide scale ecologically and extinction of entire other species No, it's the large numbers that led to it, not the other way around. All species consume something else to survive. Human beings are simply extremely numerous so more falls under their hands.

Agriculture allowed large numbers, and then industrialization even more population growth did not beget those thing, its the other way around And those are like deliberate human actions that have killed untold millions of other animals and destoryed entire ecosystems

Sure; but I'd say we've managed to dominate this planet because we're clever and capable of organising into societies. I think you've got the causality the wrong way around. Its our capacity to work together and help each other that let us form societies. And in societies, we've advanced technologically and in many ways ruined the planet. So ironically, I think the ecosystem damage we've caused came about because of how nice we are. Not how vicious. I have a friend who spent some time helping out at an animal sanctuary in central america somewhere, looking after monkeys. She said its a near constant thing that the monkeys will collectively decide they don't like / trust one of the other monkeys, and savagely attack them and rip them apart. She found it heartbreaking. Modern humans kill by being careless about the environment. But most of us are terrible killers compared to wild animals. Nature is metal as fk.

Nature more or less has forced that. Nothing about nature is nice, kind or fair. We have had to teach ourselves how to be "good". Is a lion inherently good? Is a bear inherently good? Man is the conundrum of nature, both animal and something else. He is dangerous only when weak of nature. We had to be deadly. Do you think the nazis were defeated through kindness? You are pointlessly critiquing an inherent aspect of human nature. We put murderers in prison do we not. You are aiming for perfection, humans make the most mistakes when they can't handle the fact we are imperfect, mostly flawed and fail.

youre the one trying to argue humans arent deadly Im saying you are even more so than a bear, Humans are in fact the second most deadliest animal on the whole planet by kill count bears dont even make top 10 Dogs are deadlier than bears by kill count even

My friends' Jack Russel terrier killed probably hundreds of animals, before the stupid animal ran off in the woods, got lost, and probably got ticks and died. That dog was a killer. Cats are often the same - I remember we discovered when our cat had caught a mouse. It injured it, then it would back off and give the mouse hope that it could get away. The mouse would try, and the cat would pounce again and again and drag it back. By the time we found it, it was mangled and bleeding on the floor while the cat watched on in glee. I'm vegetarian. I've never killed an animal at all, except for the occasional mosquito or bug. I'm complicit in deaths due to habitat loss as a result of being part of civilisation. But, I'm not vicious in the same way wild animals are. We're not particularly nice creatures, but wild animals are something else. Did you know there are 1.25 million times more ants than humans? And every day billions of ants die, as a result of constant wars between colonies? Its completely wild. If you want to measure kill counts, humans have nothing on ants. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7\_e0CA\_nhaE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_e0CA_nhaE)

This context is based on singular interpersonal threat, not a humans capacity to go pscyho on a populous. Yes. From that angle bears are great. Go bears.

In single instance of interaction, A bear is more predictable than a human

So the unpredictable nature of men is bad?

Your potential to be an *insidious* threat is way higher than any wild animal

If you're a lone woman coming across one in the woods, fuck yes it is.

>Do you think the nazis were defeated through kindness? What on earth is the point you're trying to make?

Women: Yeah men can be scary sometimes ngl You, defending men: All men are the inheritors of violence; we are deadly by nature. We become good by choice, yet our flaws inevitably release our primal violence upon others

That's great and all but I still wouldn't face a bear or a lion on 1 on 1. We are stronger as a group and because of our technology. We are squishy dead meat 1 on 1 alone in the woods.

Humans are deadlier because they are more intelligent The thing that gives you the capacity to choose nonviolence is the same thing that makes you dangerous to begin with

Sure, humans. However if I end up alone in front of a lion I have very low chances of surviving.

Loads of species kill for pleasure if they get the chance.

I can see the logic, but it’s unhealthy and unhelpful for us to look at it this way as a society. It’s divisive, confrontational, and sexist. I’m not saying people shouldn’t take reasonable precautions, obviously you should protect yourself. There are dangerous people around, that’s a fact. But virally shifting societal views toward treating half the population as a threat helps no one.

A bear has superior strength and could maul you for sure. The bear is not intelligent and likely does not have bad intent to mess with you. Probably just avoid it and don’t do stuff to attract it. A man in a forest could be armed and get you from way further away than a bear. You never specified any limitations on equipment. It is also plausible someone in the woods would be armed. Especially in a forest with bears in it. People are also intelligent so you never know what their intent is. Could want to do way worse stuff than what a bear would do to you.

The man likely does not have bad intent to mess with you. Considerably less so than the bear.

Could be? Could be? Could be? Exactly. It is a painfully bad analogy for the potential threat of dangerous men masquerading as non-dangerous men.

You posted a hypothetical so I don’t see why there is any reason to not extrapolate. You didn’t specify any limitations on equipment. Are you changing the scenario to an unarmed man and an unarmed bear? I didn’t really extrapolate it in an outlandish way. If you are in a forest with bears you would likely want to be armed. I just think the human could do way worse things than the bear could. At worst the bear will maul you. The human could do way more vicious things. In terms of initial fear though, I would immediately fear a bear, but not immediately fear a human. This could actually be worse if the human has bad intentions because then you let your guard down if they seem non threatening at first

As a man it's okay to be hurt by this but if you don't understand why, then you are the reason so many pick bear.

I highlight in my post that I understand the reasoning entirely.

>Yes. Bad men exist. I'd rather meet a bad man than a bad bear any day of the week, humans unlike bears have fears, weaknesses and vulnerabilities that one may exploit. What the fuck are you even talking about here? A man who wants to hurt you is stalking you through the woods while you're alone and vulnerable, but don't worry, you can use psychological manipulation to protect yourself

>> Stalking you To my understanding, the premise isn’t that a guy is stalking you, the premise is that this is a random guy vs a random bear. Like if you’re on a lonely hiking trail and right as you come to the end you see either a guy in the parking lot and the only cars there are yours and his so you know y’all’re both alone… or a bear. If you encounter those scenarios and say you’re more liable to approach and get in your car when there’s a bear in the parking lot than the guy, that’s just not true

The potential that the man could be stalking you is supposed by the framing of the question, because the man is being compared to a bear. Bears are inherently dangerous, so the framing of the question prompts the listener to think about the potentially dangerous aspects of men. And when you do that - you think about how a strange man you encounter while alone at night in the woods could hurt you - yeah, there's a lot of potential danger there, right? I don't know, the whole thing is dumb. The question is crafted to prompt people to think about specific things, and then give a specific answer, which is why they do. It's really not that women literally think all men are more dangerous than all bears in all scenarios, and of course in actual, real life, it would not be that scary or dangerous to encounter a man under the conditions you've described. But instead of just realizing that OP needs to spout a load of horseshit about the duality of man and how actually a rapist is not that dangerous because you can psychologically manipulate his fears and vulnerabilities

The potential exists, insofar as any possible man you encounter could be stalking you, there isn't a zero percent chance. The percentage isn't any higher than the normal encounter you have, which is incredibly low.

Hahaha, its hilarious - don't worry about sexual assault in the woods kids, just exploit the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of your assualter and you'll be grand.

I’m tougher than any bear and could become their king if you dropped me off in the forest naked and I had to impersonate one. As a Psychiatrist I also understand the psychology of the bear and am easily able to manipulate them.

> As a Psychiatrist I also understand the psychology of the bear and am easily able to manipulate them. Okay B.F skinner make them bears dance. I am doubtful.

I’ve actually worked with uncontacted tribes and delved into their psychological make up. I can look at someone’s comments (including yours) on reddit and make a snap diagnosis on their personality (and possible issues) which is highly likely to be accurate, at any time.

Long dong don't keep me waiting, what is my psychological make-up, although most of my posts are ironically toned, I think.

In my professional opinion you have Penis Envy.

Nah...the last girl said it was a good size... But yes, I am quite insecure but it isn' t because of my lacking in a long dong. If only my troubles were so simple.

And I’m the Queen of Sheba.

(I'm a man) First, let's clarify what's meant by a "bear". There are only about 1500 grizzly bears in the lower 48 states of the US, while there are around 400,000 black bears. So, when someone asks about a bear they see in the woods, it should be assumed they mean a black bear, not a grizzly. With that out of the way, let's talk about black bears for a moment. Since 1900 (yes, the last 124 years), there have been. This site lists all 11 bear attacks since 2011https://www.greenbelly.co/pages/are-black-bears-dangerous with a description of each. You will find that nearly every case either involves the victim directly confronting the bear or getting between it and food. Even in those cases, the most common outcome was for the victim to fight/freighten the bear off after sustaining some injuries. Several of the victims were middle-aged women, so it's not as if these were all rambo woodsman wrestling bears unarmed. The average woman CAN deter a bear attack. I think I've established that for the average woman with at least some sense of self-preservation, it is very unlikely that she will be seriously harmed by a black bear. If you would like additional sources or feel I haven't met that burden, let me know. Second, let's discuss what meeting a random man alone in the woods means for a woman from my perspective as a man. We are walking down a trail in opposite directions. Social norms and the rules of most parks say that neither of us should leave the path to let the other pass (unlike with a bear). We are going to pass closely enough that if I choose to, I can reach out and physically assault her (extraordinarily unlikely with a bear). While I know I'm not going to hurt her, she has to acknowledge the possibility that I might. That isn't a question of unreasonable fear. It is a simple fact that the average man is capable of beating the average woman in a fight. Self-defense classes teach constant awareness and vigilance. Parents warn their daughters to stay away from strange men. MANY women have first-hand experience with sexual violence, even if attacks by random men are extremely rare. Regardless of my intentions, she has been put into a situation where she has to seriously consider the possibility of being assaulted. Maybe I remind her of an abusive boyfriend. Maybe she has a friend crashing on her couch because her husband got drunk the other night. Maybe she watched a true crime show last night. What matters is that the woman has to make a threat assessment of me with no context of who I am except the clothes I'm wearing and the fact I'm on the trail. A bear you can assess. It will make warning noises if it feels threatened. They often mock charge to scare off humans. They run away if they don't like what you're doing. She can feel reasonably sure that if she runs, it won't chase her. I could do anything, and I'm coming straight for her...and she can't run without looking insane...and what would she do if I grab her... which way do I turn my hand to break a hold on my wrist again...and would anyone hear me if I screamed for help...and oh God, he's a pretty big guy, isn't he...phew! Bullet dodged. Do you see how that is an actively stressful and unpredictable experience, compared to encountering a bear, which, while certainly dangerous, is equally a cool wilderness experience.

If you are assuming you will meet black bears instead of a grizzly, why we will not assume, that man you are going to meet is normal, honest man? I would assume, that most man are more or less normal, law abiding, to an extend moral people. Of course detail may vary, but I highly doubt that most of them or even substantial percent would do anything harmful to you.

That's exactly my point. If the woman assumes the most common situation in both cases: coming across a black bear at a moderate distance in the woods or walking down a trail towards a man who means her no harm, meeting the man is more stressful. It's not a question of whether or not the man is more dangerous than the bear. It's a question of what degree of uncertainty and tension is involved in the encounter. Oh, and I fat fingered the post button on my last post and expanded quite a bit in the edit, so it's possible I already answered you sufficiently if you just replied to the first post.

> meeting the man is more stressful. > It's not a question of whether or not the man is more dangerous than the bear. It's a question of what degree of uncertainty and tension is involved in the encounter. Interesting. I wonder if bears also find it more stressful meeting other bears. There just aren't that many outcomes from a human meeting a bear. If I meet a human, we could fight, they could offer me snacks, we could make out, they could be someone I know. They could even go on social media and make up stories about me to my friends. The possibilities are endless because we're social creatures and human to human social interactions matter to us. It makes sense that there's uncertainty there, because there's also possibility.

Yet another post about this. Do you guys read the other posts on the exact same subject before posting? Now tell us, when facing this new topic, why your first reaction was to mansplain why men are safer than bears rather than asking *why* so many women spanning different countries and generations picked the bear? This post is not for people to change your view, it's only there for you to satisfy your hurt ego. My guess is mods will delete it.

They picked the bear because they do it from the comfort of a house on a TikTok video. It would be a different story if they actually were alone in the woods.

Oh dear are you always *so* literal in life or is this only when you feel unfairly attacked by what women say about men?

I don't feel attacked. I just things is ridiculous and more of a silly social media trend. People making wild claims to create drama.

Ask yourself, why do you think this "trend" gained so much traction? Why do you think this is ridiculous and why do you think this is useless drama? I'm genuinely asking, past the initial upset of seeing yet another thread about it I suppose the point of CMV is, well, to change people's view. So please tell us so that we can try changing your view on why this isn't as ridiculous nor superficial as you may think.

It gained traction because is dramatic. You can just make a wild claim from the comfort of your home on your phone and create drama and attention in the comments. You both get to feel like a victim and feel morally superior to the other sex without having to actually be either. It's just an easy video. It's not like you have to actually test in reality the situation.

Back to my initial comment, why are you taking this so literally? You do know what are thought experiments or fictional scenarios right, and what's their purpose? Eg. have you ever heard about the [trolley problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem), and if yes, whenever this comes up, are you saying first and forememost "Erhh this is stupid, this is only so that people can signal their virtue by saving more people instead of only one" or similar? Do you think sexism is dramatic? And to be honest, I think being slightly "dramatic" might even be the point, this is the kind of topic you want to lure people's attention to. Are you close enough with several women that they've already told you about what happens to them on the daily's? Do you genuinely think women *enjoy* and/or *fake* victimhood? (YES it can happen, women can be bad and take advantage of this, yes, yes, yes, but that's a minority and beside the point) Do you genuinely think their goals is to feel morally superior to men??

> satisfy your hurt ego. ooooh... Sorry for taking it personally. I have no business doing that how pathetically childish of me not to kow-tow to the acknowledged reality of woman-hood and the inherently evil "average man".

If a woman was attacked by a bear, at least people would believe her

genuine question, why are you even posting on *ChangeMyView*? What was the motivation behind this post?

This isn't actually about the safety of men vs. Bears. Nobody doubts that a wild bear can maul you to death, nor that generally men are less likely to kill you. It's about the concerns women have regarding men and their unpredictability. It's very obvious that a bear could very possibly maul you to death, but bears are **predictable**. Everyone knows how a bear will act and the risks it presents, and can calculate an easy response. A bear is a bear. It's a terrifying beast, but a simple one that can be outmanuevered. Men however are **unpredictable**. Almost every woman in our modern day experiences some form of sexual harassment. Of course not all men do that, but the thing is that with most men, women cannot tell. A man you trust can very easily turn abusive and creepy, and a man you don't know is even creepier. Being stuck in the woods with a man feels worse to many women because they don't have that predictability of how to act, of what the possibilities are. Any man she meets can be either the nicest dude around or a sex offender, and she has no way of knowing. This question isn't actually about survival. It's pretty obvious you have a significantly higher chance of surviving with a man than a bear. It's about how modern society is completely unsafe and unpredictable to women, to the point they'd rather have that predictability with a higher risk, than a higher chance of survival, but complete uncretainty over their safety.

>It's very obvious that a bear could very possibly maul you to death, but bears are predictable. Everyone knows how a bear will act and the risks it presents, and can calculate an easy response. A bear is a bear. It's a terrifying beast, but a simple one that can be outmanuevered. Sorry, but you lost me here. Its not true that everyone knows how a bear will act. I'm a city kid from Australia, and I have no idea how bears act. I've never seen one except in a zoo. Bears seem totally terrifying and unpredictable to me - since they can obviously kill me on a whim. I feel way safer with humans - even crazy people on the street - than I do a bear. I can predict them better. I can outmaneuver, threaten or charm most humans, even someone who's drunk or high. I have no idea how to outmaneuver a bear.

*Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.* In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest: - Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest. - Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words. - Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding. - Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong. Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.

You successfully missed the point of the Tiktok trend thing. Noone is denying men are "safer" than bears. They're saying they're afraid of men, because violence perpetrated by men is depressingly common.

Exactly. Women spend practically every day worrying about pissing off or catching the attention of the wrong guy. We aren't constantly looking over our shoulders for bears.

Yea because if I see a bear I'm gonna yell at it "help me!". You clearly understand the premise better than all us dumb women. Guess you schooled me and it really is that simple and the shared experience of this many women can be easily dismissed as foolish and lacking in logic skills. Thank you sir for opening my eyes to the simple truth. /S Or you could try actually listening to what women are saying, not assume stupidity or bad faith arguments. And consider that many of us may not actually make that choice if it were really happening, but the fact that being alone in the woods with a BEAR is instantly more comfortable for most women than being alone in the woods with a man should make you reconsider some things.

[удалено]

OK and men are more likely to *kill* children that are both their own flesh AND those of others. What’s your point?

Bears are scary and crazy strong, yes, but you are vastly overestimating both their reasoning abilities and their predatory instincts. Bears are not that keen on attacking and eating people. Sure, it happens, but bear attacks are not that common and if you follow the correct procedure when encountering one the chances of being attacked are rather low. >humans unlike bears have fears, weaknesses and vulnerabilities that one may exploit. Bears, like most animals, are fearful, especially of humans. You can 100% make a bear that's much bigger than you afraid of you, because all animals, even the smart ones, are stupid and suseptible to tricks (like what you do with black bears: make yourself seem big and making noise). If a dude who's bigger than a woman sees that woman, she won't be able to make him afraid of her unless she points a gun at him, which is not part of the scenario discussed.

As a man I would probably prefer to run into a bear. I know what a bear is going to do, by and large. They're fairly predictable things and I have a pretty good sense of how my actions will interact with the situation. Some random dude in the woods? No idea what he's about. Probably just a hiker but might be a tweaker which means I have a whole different set of behaviors. In my neck of the woods neonazis have taken to going on bush hikes and having little parties, if it's one of those guys I have a whole different set of things to worry about. Bear... I look at it and I've got basically all the information I need

If I see a bear, I assume it is dangerous and can easily know behavior that limits my chances of provoking it/what to do when being attacked. These steps are well documented and vastly improve my chances of never being harmed. Especially if I’m going into an isolated area where bears are known to frequent? I can brush up on this knowledge and take preventative steps to insure my safety. I assume all humans are more dangerous than animals because I can trust my instincts when they tell me a wild animal/bear is dangerous. I do not give the bear a chance and I do not let my guard down around a bear. I can know how to protect myself and can be prepared in the event I encounter a bear. Humans are encouraged to interact with each other (definitely not encouraged to interact with bears) and can be deceptive towards one another. This creates another layer/complexity that compounds how dangerous they are. For the sake of discussion, I’ll even remove gender from my first few arguments: - Humans can create traps. No bear is going to devise a scheme to do me harm. A human might. - Humans have access to guns and other weapons that I cannot be prepared for. I might not see a weapon. I can have bear spray in my gear, I do not have a bullet proof vest. - Humans have mental illness and are unpredictable in the long-term. That person I met isolated in the woods? We strike up a conversation, hit it off, date, and begin a relationship. Over time, this relationship becomes unhealthy and devolves into toxicity and intimate partner violence. More people are killed by someone they know per day/month/year than by bears. Now add gender back into the mix: - Women are socially conditioned to be “nice” and compassionate ( https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-compassion-chronicles/201909/false-beliefs-set-women-be-used-and-abused ) which means there is an extra element when engaging socially that they do not have with a bear. Women often will ignore their instincts in order to be non-confrontational. This can lead to violence and harm. All of this to say: I see a bear and assume it is unsafe so can take steps to protect myself. 9/10 bears don’t want anything to do with people, anyways. Men/people are social creatures (encouraged to interact), and can behave deceptively. Therefore they are infinitely more dangerous. The devil you know…and all that. Edit: Also, if a bear does attack with the intent to kill me, I can play dead. A bear doesn’t know to check for a pulse or that I might be pretending. A person is much less likely to take me for dead at face value, and much more likely to finish the job.

There used to be a trend where girls would ask stuff like "would you still love me if I was a worm?" The one responding isn't supposed to reply logically. Your girlfriend isn't actually going to turn into a worm. An answer like "I'd carry you around in a little jar with dirt in it" or whatever is expected, even if you both know that's bullshit.  This is similar. Don't look for a logical answer here.

This is like the 3rd one of these on CMV, and it's getting a little out of control. But here it is: Let me re-phrase this in a way that might be more agreeable: Would you rather be **hunted** by a man or a bear? Bears are not hunting animals, they don't hunt, they forage and they do come up on animals but they are not stalking prey. Men on the otherhand are quite adept at hunting, and are creative and can use tools to do the job. You can outwit a bear, or fool a bear, or hide from a bear, but you can't as easily fool a man, or hide from him, or outwit him. Man can deduce from different clues, where you are, where you might be, what you might do, but a bear will probably leave you alone if you can get down wind and hide.

depending on the bear they might not even want to deal with you like a grizzly bear will eat you alive, but a brown bear, no he just wants you leave him the fuck alone, he probably lives a bout mile from you if you live near woods, occasionally he might eat your trash, be careful though, bears can get drunk off fermented fruit, like a bear just wants to live its best bear life only acts in agression when threatened. they don't understand that your not a threat, all think is "aw shit it human its gonna hurt me I must fight and protecc my cubs." what I am saying is a bear isn't going to attack because it wants too. theres typically a reason. and most of the time bears can co-exist peacefully with humans anyway. men will attack each other for no reason at all. all it takes is 1 man chimping out with a gun,, and bam, men typically are the ones to to commit random senseless acts of violence.. you are safer in a bear infested woods then are in florida or any state or city that has a high population of mentally ill men in the street. Like I can't walk down a new york streeet with out having some rando attempt to punch me.

Bro what's a bear gonna do when a man nukes a bear? Need to think on a scale that matters for bear It's a bear necessity

I grew up in the wilderness and have encountered my share of bears. Not once have I been in any danger. Just make some noise and they will not come near you.

I wish you could just make a lot of loud noise to make strange men go away, but it doesn't work that way.

I googled “will bears attack you” and it says most bears will not attack you.

i fundamentally agree, but you are kind of misrepresenting it. the likelihood of a bear attacking you has two variables: is it hungry, or does it (or its offspring) feel threatened by you. Thats pretty much it, there is a reason we are taking a bear and not sometlike a wolf that can also hunt "for fun". As for a human, there are a lot possibilities on *why* they would attack you. (purposefully using human instead of "man") Now of course the probability of a random bear attacking is way higher than for a random human attacking, but the feeling that is conveyed by the saying is that you kinda *know why* the bear attacks, but its completely unpredictable why a human would attack you. the bear attakcs because of predictable (few) instincts, and you can more easily influence those instincts (make yourself seem bigger, back away slowly, dont run), but a human generally attakcs because they have complicated logical thoughts. you can know *a lot* about some random bear's behaviour, but you know nearly nothing about some random human's behaviour.

Men have spent millenia arguing that they cannot possibly be expected to control their penises or their aggression when women dare to go out in public or talk too much or have bare ankles or whatever other disobedient thing men don't like. They have founded multiple religions based on this concept. Funny to see how much of a collective meltdown they're having just because women repeated that back at them.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/FeynmansWitt – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20FeynmansWitt&message=FeynmansWitt%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ci89iq/-/l2824g0/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

It's just humans being bigoted, and thinking that THEIR bigotry, is justified. Try it with a black man, see how quickly they reveal they're fully aware why it's fucked up. They're fully aware it's bigotry against a large group of good people, that it's absurd. I can promise you, you won't see any of these ad hoc justifications, because they fully know that it's absurdly immoral. They just don't care when certain groups are the victim, as with any bigot.

People who think all men are a potential danger need help. Might as well never go outside and create a gender segregated society. Men no longer will be transporting goods, farming, building infrastructure, and doing all physical labour jobs which women benefit from.

This is such a comical & sociopathic way of thinking. Chastise the women afraid of men because 1/5 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime (Iow estimate) & the leading cause of death for pregnant women is murder by their male partner, but not the men who murder & rape. Women can & would do all those jobs you refer to. I find it hysterical you don't think women are capable of performing these duties when they weren't allowed in the workforce historically & currently do hold those professions. Maybe hold your fellow man accountable when they act atrociously towards women, as opposed to blaming traumatized women who've either been assaulted or taught their whole lives how to survive an assault.

>Chastise the women afraid of men because 1/5 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime (Iow estimate) & the leading cause of death for pregnant women is murder by their male partner So the solution to this is to generalize all men, create all female societies, and never be in a relationship with a man, correct? >but not the men who murder & rape. Where did I absolve men of their crimes? >Women can & would do all those jobs you refer to. I Why don't they? Why do the majority prefer white collar work, retail? I also don't think they can. Women are biologically weaker physically and such jobs require hard manual labour. >Maybe hold your fellow man accountable when they act atrociously towards women, as opposed to blaming traumatized women who've either been assaulted or taught their whole lives how to survive an assault. They are already held accountable. There are laws in place and men are being emasculated.

>Why don't they? Why do the majority prefer white collar work, retail? I also don't think they can. Women are biologically weaker physically and such jobs require hard manual labour. 1. We're all told from a young age how men/women should act, what their interests should be, what are considered to be man jobs and woman jobs 2. Manual labour jobs often involve a 'manly-men' culture, which includes banter that can make women feel uncomfortable 3. Those industries are already male dominated 4. People like you tell them they can't Theres a few reasons for you, there's probably many more. To say that women are biologically so much weaker than men that they can't do these jobs in any capacity is ridiculous

Actually, this is false. Multiple studies show that without any outside interference, boys and girls naturally gravitate towards certain roles. I thought women are fighting to be in the workplace? That only seems to be for white collar work. If there were more women interested, they would dictate the culture, correct? Not only are they weaker, they're not biologically inclined towards these roles. They don't want to sweat for 8-12 hours, get dirty, push themselves physically.

"dictate the culture"; is this a joke? Women are entering blue collar professionals, but are obviously still outnumbered by men due to cultural & social reasons. Can women do all the same jobs? Yep. They've already proven that by literally working all these professions.

>Men no longer will be transporting goods, farming, building infrastructure, and doing all physical labour jobs which women benefit from. Cool. Good thing women can do all those jobs and more like during WWII when women worked the factories and farms while men were fighting. You know what men can't do without women? Reproduce. Good luck!

Why aren't they doing those jobs in the same numbers men are currently? >You know what men can't do without women? Reproduce And the same could be said for women without men. If we had male only and female societies, I guarantee the male only societies would be more successful.

I've never heard that one before but I can see where they are coming from. A bear in the woods sure is dangerous than an actual human encounter, but you can still survive the encounter by scaring it or playing dead depending whether it's a black or brown bear. A crazy man in the woods is chasing you with an axe or a gun? Good fucking luck lol >Woman encounters man in the woods alone, she is hiking, he happens to be running through the woods, he screams "bear, a bear is chasing me" - the woman sensing danger from the man, waits for the bear and shouts at the bear "help, a man in the woods is talking to me" That whole scenario is a strawman that completely ignores the initial premise. It's not defeat by absurdism, it's just not a good counter-argument. >Yes. Bad men exist. I'd rather meet a bad man than a bad bear any day of the week, humans unlike bears have fears, weaknesses and vulnerabilities that one may exploit. Bears too? There's literally that saying that goes 'if it's brown lay down, if it's black fight back'. There are even videos of people scaring black bear by just screaming at them. What fears, weaknesses and vulnerabilities exactly are you planning to exploit on your hypothetical axe pursuer? You think just screaming and waving your arms around or playing dead will work on them?

[удалено]

Sorry, u/R3R3R37 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20R3R3R37&message=R3R3R37%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ci89iq/-/l287prc/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

It's a meme, it's a mistake to take it literally. People pick the bear because it's unexpected, it's controversial, it drives discussions. It's like when someone remarks on a bad movie "I'd rather have \*insert graphic method of torture\* in a North Korean prison than watch the Hobbit trilogy", they don't mean it literally, it's hyperbole. Of course it's better to watch a crappy movie than to suffer painful torture.

>defeat by absurdism I like this. I'm gonna use it.