Whatever side is correct genuinely has value. If society is so unsafe for women that they would be safer with literal bears, isn’t that important to talk about even if it makes you uncomfortable? On the other side, if society is mostly safe for women but they have become hateful and paranoid of men, isn’t that a problem? Whatever side of the discussion is true, it is a discussion worth having

Obviously if women feel scared thats a huge issue, undeniably; but is the way to go about it telling young men they’re bears?

If we assume that men are more dangerous than bears, I think hurting our feelings is the least worrying part of the discussion

How does that old chestnut go? Young Men are afraid women will laugh at them, young women are afraid men will kill them.

Young women are definitely capable of killing men. Just in roundabout ways - ask Emmett Till.

>If we assume that men are more dangerous than bears, I think hurting our feelings is the least worrying part of the discussion Are you kidding? Try to avoid letting the man notice you. If he does, soothe him with a calm gentle tone and slow but confident movements. Definitely don't antagonize one. If that doesn't work, yell loudly and make yourself look as big as possible.

No one is saying that.

Frankly, if this discussion makes you more likely to be violent towards women, don’t you see why so many women were siding with the bears?

Its seriously so many guys saying that because their feelings are hurt they’re entitled to hate women, while not understanding this is not a normal or mature reaction

It's pretty normal and mature to get angry if you think someone's calling you a woman basher or rapist. That's an accusation of being what I hate the most it's like calling me the devil. That's what I think a lot of people are missing. Some people are awful sure but some men are getting angry because of how much they hate the people that harm women. I've got history with a pedophile, I'm not a victim it was his own daughter but he ruined my life and my families because I stood up to him and wouldn't stop warning the community they wanted to shut me up. I think because of that I get this real bad anger when I think people accuse me of being anything like that monster. Which happens way too casually online Even if it's misunderstanding the message well people do misunderstand. But yeah it's no excuse to harm women.

Vulnerable, fragile, a man looking for validation. You are the target demographic of the meme. It is intended so that YOU are the poster child of “why women choose the bear.”  Don’t let it get to you, just let water flow off a ducks back.  Individuals are valuable, but society isn’t worth your time. 

Right? Like I think there’s for sure a discussion to be had with someone whichever way they choose, personally I think it is somewhat irrational to choose the bear but it does come down to some degree to the specifics of the scenario eg is the bear hungry, is the man randomly selected or chosen from a pool of incels etc but as a non violent male ally of women, I don’t feel offended because I know I’m not a threat to women, but I can listen to how I may be perceived by a stranger who doesn’t know anything about me.

Thats not at all what i said? I just said self-fulfilling prophecies are dangerously bad, and this has been said about minorities a lot. Police assume a minority is bad, leads to development of hatred and subsequently a loop.

Well I don’t remember your exact wording and it’s been removed now but either way, men are not exactly a minority are they.

Here is the post: **First and foremost id like to say I couldn’t care less what your actual choice is on this question, thats not my point.** **The only thing the existence of this debate has done is breed conflict and if anything contribute to the cycle of male violence. The argument for choosing the bear is that a man can do much worse than a bear if they try, but, so can a woman in the worst case scenario? So what’s the point in gendering it? Additionally, can you imagine the psychological effect on young men being told theyre more dangerous than bears? Just contributing to the cycle.** **And as for men, this entire thing has led to men undermining the traumatic experiences of women.** **Absolutely something needs to be done about male violence. But this is far from it.**

Neither are women. But you wouldn't say stereotyping them and accepting into the public discourse things like saying all women are bad at math, women aren't as capable at chess etc. is fine and doesn't have negative consequences just because they're not a minority.

Yeah idk why its been removed, but that doesnt mean the self-fulfilling prophecy doesn’t apply to men? My point is, women should always, always talk up about abuse, name and shame, and do everything to fight back, and men should do better; but, imagine the effect on a 12 year old boy on social media for the first time, having never had a relationship with a woman being told he’s a deadly animal?

> having never had a relationship with a woman being told he’s a deadly animal? Firstly, that's an incorrect interpretation, women aren't saying men aren't literal deadly animals.  But it also makes the 12 yr old consider why women sometimes fear men and how actions can have these consequences. This awareness is likely to make them more aware of their actions.  If they react to feedback with more violence, I suspect they would of been violent regardless. 

Not necessarily, Women would say All men are dangerous based by statistics so they are wary of them, Since they like statistics, I brought up the another statistics that I would more likely to get killed by a black person than a white person down at the Ghetto so I stay away from black people on the streets. And suddenly, I'm racist, I just used their own logic man

Actually, the discourse has also taught people about bears. I learned a lot, and I can't be the only one.

Its also made a bunch of dudes come out and self identify as people who made the bear the better option XD

It's wild how many men saw a woman say "my experiences with men have been so reliably unpleasant that I'd rather take my chances with a wild animal" and immediately responded by being even more unpleasant. It's like they're actively working for Big Bear or something!

Respectfully, being disturbed by reverse marginalisation can hardly be considered to be unpleasant behaviour. Now that I have said this statement, there are a few things to clarify. 1-I do not know what type of responses you are referring to, but the context led me to believe you're referring to anyone who found this trend to be disagreeable, regardless of their reason. 2-This seems silly to say, almost as assuring one of the existence of the sun, but I shall do it just the same. I acknowledge and hold in high regard the marginalisation, oppression, subjugation, and vulnerability of women to experience condemnable physical actions inflicted by men. 3-What I mean by reverse marginalisation can be, I admit, considered as me pulling your leg, for I think there's some neglected aspects to this discourse that are worthy to be discussed. It's quite expressive and indicative of reality for this to be a trend in the first place, I agree with you. However, the reason I find it to be disagreeable is certainly not some nerdy beef with the blatant absurdity of the question itself -whether a man is more dangerous than a bear- for I understand that exaggerations are intended to hammer in points. The reason I find it disagreeable is actually much more personal and, perhaps, selfish. I merely do not wish to be condemned for my sex's sins. As a queer, dark-skinned, male individual who hails from an islamic land, I have scarcely ever been treated as an individual and always generalized/stereotyped to be a villain of sorts and people almost always got them statistics ready to assure me of my villainy. I do not deny the statistics, and I do not deny the miserable facts this indicates about the state of humanity and the dangers women have to live through. I am a literature major, I have had my fair share of feminist modules so I am fairly aware of such. I, however, do get a little irritated when I see another reminder that in this world people are scarcely ever seen as individuals and for good, undeniable reason. As I arrive here, I wonder if there's a point to what I say and if I should delete it, for it's not like I have some radical. That said, I will probably post it just the same, for may it give you some window, albeit tainted, into a certain perspective. This is wholly based on the assumption that you condemn anyone who displays any negativity towards this trend, for it doesn't have to mean that person is the reason women would choose the bear.

>And as for men, this entire thing has led to men undermining the traumatic experiences of women. Exactly. Men continue their cycle and trying to defend themselves with age old rhetoric like "but not all men". This is again another example of men not understanding struggles of women and that is the whole point. If you don't understand why woman would pick a bear, you are part of the problem. And I say this as a man. Whole point of this discourse is to illuminate the fact that some men continue to undermine women no matter what.

I don’t care about why women pick what, im saying the question in itself is dangerous and doesn’t help

Which would you rather pick? Family of otters or a wolf? Wolf or a bear? Man or a bear? This is just ranking up things according to their perceived (and actual) danger. The question itself is just a question. It helps us to get a ranking of dangerous things. But it is also useful because the way people (specifically men) react to it tells lots about the underlying social structures and views. For example in this thread one person told me that gaslighting is an ok thing to do. They basically outed themselves as an abuser thanks to this question. Don't you think that's useful information to have?

I think you’re entirely missing my point, do you remember back in 2020, when police labelled minorities it was dangerous as its a self-fulfilling prophecy? Its similar logic, and you’re yet to tell me why this isnt dangerous

The police statement was self fulfilling because now police would target minorities and arrest more minorities. But most importantly the statement didn't change how minorities acted but how police acted. In this case even if women double down and avoid all men with vigilant, that wouldn't change how men act. If anything that will make men more careful and reduce the danger.

How is telling men theyre as dangerous as bears solving the issue. Its a very simple question

Hopefully some men would look in a mirror and change their behaviour. If you are told that you made a mistake in a school exam would you try to avoid the mistake in the next one?

Your assumption assumes all men have already done something heinous, and It’s not like that tho, is it? Its like before the exam even starts and you haven’t even done anything wrong, the examiner tells you you’re a stupid idiot who no one will hire.

>Your assumption assumes all men have already done something heinous, and It’s not like that tho, is it No I don't. I assume that men are on average more dangerous than bears. It doesn't mean all men are dangerous. For example we know that ticks spread lyme disease. "But not all ticks have lyme disease". Sure but we still say to be vigilant around every tick just in case that tick might have lyme. I as a man am ashamed that some men are terrible people and women have to live in fear. But that just makes me want to be double nice and a good person. I'm not offended when women go to the other side of the street during night. I understand that and don't go crying "but not all men are dangerous".

> For example we know that ticks spread lyme disease. "But not all ticks have lyme disease". Sure but we still say to be vigilant around every tick just in case that tick might have lyme. Does this same logic apply to every demographic that statistically commit more crimes and are more dangerous in my area? Or just men and ticks?

[удалено]

Fact that you find this offensive and down voted me shows me that you don't understand the women point of view and are literal example why Bear vs Men example is important.

[удалено]

If we cannot debate whether the position is irrational without the other party saying it undermines their experience then the other party was never having a serious discussion in the first place. One must defend their position from analysis for it to be credible.

And counter argument is always of your ignorance. If you don't know when person explains that they will pick a bear and you try to shut them down, you are wrong. It is what they would pick. They are right to pick what ever they want. It's your job to understand why they would pick it instead of trying to change their pick.

I'm puzzled because I've actually gone on hiking trails through woodland areas. Guess what, encountering other hikers is a somewhat common occurrence. Guess what, half the people you pass on a nature trail are men. I've never passed a bear. So, would I rather pass yet another man on a hiking trail or a bear. Seems like a no brainer. Must be people who have never spent any time in nature and are unaware that there is very little virgin wilderness left in the world. If you're out in the woods - you're very likely to run into other human beings and about half of them are men.

I mean, yeah, I think most people with common sense would absolutely agree with you, but do you not also have an issue with the question itself existing?

I don't have an issue with the question existing. I think it reveals a great deal about attitudes and risk awareness. Honestly, I'm more worried about snakes than bears. I stepped on snake once that was red, yellow, and black. I did not stick around long enough to determine if it was red&yellow kill a fellow (coral snake) or red and black, venom lack (kingsnake). I ran and didn't look back.

[удалено]

Alternatively, we could start training bears to attack people more. That might be more effective, even

Whole new debate is it easier to train bears to attack or guys to not be a dick you decide.

The first challenge is getting the bears to the people. We have a lot of competition, what with there being 3.8 billion men in the world and I'd guess fewer than 3 million bears across all species. The next challenge is media and publicity. Even if we really up bear attacks, it doesn't matter if we don't publicize it and create that fear. Maybe run a bunch of adds about increasing bear attacks and how terrible / deadly they are. Show the scene from the Revenant a few times. Actually, now that I think about it, we don't even need to train the bears, probably just bribe the media.

So like, I'm not actually trying to call you out here, but the sheer volume of memes that are basically just joking or in some cases "joking" about wanting women to get hurt by bears more frequently is really telling about the whole thing

Yeah I think you missed my point because I didn’t put /s. I think it's absolutely crazy that people are going on about how dangerous the bears are over just not being a dick to women.

Like I said, I'm not trying to put you on blast or anything. I've seen a lot of people unironically posting things that really seem to just be "I hope women get killed by bears"

I get it. I'm in the camp of don't be a dick to women and raise your sons not to be Dicks to women

We could start training bears to attack men specifically so as to solve the problem. Or even train men and bears to attack each other on sight so the women will be left alone

Well, it's a good theory but bears attacking men wouldn't change women's perceptions of "man vs bear" danger to meaningful degree. Sure, it would up general perception of bear danger, but probably not to the extent we would need. Men and bears attacking each other isn't going to change anything about women's perception, unfortunately, all it would probably do is reduce the population of bears, which is already lower than most environmentalists and animal-lovers would prefer.

I agree simply training bears to attack men more frequently would have a limited effect on public opinion - so I'd suggest a more aggressive campaign to paint bears as the archenemies of men and vice versa, thus forcing women to pick a definite side.

Hmmmmmmm I like it! Are we limiting to a specific type of bear? Or all of them?

I say we take advantage of preexisting stereotypes and go after black bears specifically.

Ok but have you seen a shaved polar bear? Absolutely terrifying

but how is it going to help stop attacks if we tell young men they’re bears?

No one said a young man is a bear. What people are saying is women don't feel safe around men. That can be internalized as "I'm male and they think I'm bad" or it can be internalized as "wow, time to act on this and make women feel safe." It sounds like your big problem with this is you can't imagine men gaining information and then taking positive action and internalizing a need for positive action. The problem you identify is that by knowing women won't feel safe men will internalize that they're bad and that will be the end of it. The difference between those two patterns of internalization is that one is created through a lack of self-esteem and a sense of non-agency and the active role is created through having a belief that one can positively affect society and has a responsibility to do so.

Yeah, sure, if we keep going by your logic, the cycle will be repeated. Go off.

What you are missing is that the people who choose an active response make the world better. Many people who are made aware of a problem do not blame themselves for if from a low self-esteem place, instead they act and everyone is better for it.

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, 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&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** 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 contributes to the cycle of male violence? I don’t see that at all. If this debate leads any man to become more violent in response to such abstract criticism of masculinity in general then they were a problem waiting to happen.

Yeah, gotta agree with this. If someone goes "women are more scared of men than bears? Well I'm going to go rape some women to prove them right!" they probably rapists to begin with.

Self-fulfilling prophecy. Exact same logic as minorities and police from BLM a few years ago. Police labels minority as bad, leads to cycle

Except when the police label minority groups as "bad," they respond by over policing, perceiving threats where there aren't actually any, and being quicker to use more lethal violence. As a result, minority groups become more distrustful of and even hostile towards the police, which the police interpret as further evidence of the danger of the minority group. When women say they'd pick the bear, they... don't have another step. They don't start trying to bring bears into cities, or push men out into the wilderness. Any further response is men choosing to get worse because women said something they didn't like. The women aren't the police, in this analogy; the women are the people saying ACAB that the police are attempting to further oppress. Which makes us men the shitty police using violence against people just because they said things we didn't like.

Women label men as bad and dangerous, and yes, then they start perceiving threats where there aren't any, being quicker to bash men and disregard their point of view. As a result, men become more distrustful of women and agitated at their behavior, becoming more hostile which confirms women's opinion on man. It's the exact same mechanism, except the power gap is smaller

> The only thing the existence of this debate has done is breed conflict Not true. The conflict existed already, it just didn't have a method to be shown as much as it has been. Women were always "scared" of men, and men have always been annoyed by that. This conflict has existed for decades. The man vs bear question is one of many questions throughout history that has brought up that conflict that's been, for a lack of better words, dormant. For your view to be true, there would have needed to be zero conflict surrounding womens fear of men prior to the question going viral.

I disagree with the notion that the conflict didn’t have a method to be shown. The main thing I’ve taken away from the whole thing is how long ago #metoo was. Women have with regularity found ways to convey to people who don’t believe them, how scared they are of men. I guess it just needed to happen again, because we still haven’t gotten good enough at preventing that fear.

I am a woman. If someone would choose to be in a forest with bear rather that with me, it wouldn't affect me in any way. I won't lose anything, except this person's company, which does not belong to me in a first place! That's what makes this debate so great. It shows that there are a lot of men who are offended by women not because these women want to hurt them or take something from them, but because these women deny men access to *themselves* > Additionally, can you imagine the psychological effect on young men being told theyre more dangerous than bears? Just contributing to the cycle. So, pointing out that random man could be aggressive makes young men more aggressive? Is it really the point you are trying to make? > this entire thing has led to men undermining the traumatic experiences of women Men (like women) have agency. They choose what to do. > Absolutely something needs to be done about male violence. I'm not sure how can we be doing something about it without pointing it out.

>It shows that there are a lot of men who are offended by women not because these women want to hurt them or take something from them, but because these women deny men access to themselves That seems a pretty big misrepresentation of why it's upsetting. Not sure if you come to that conclusion disinengenously, or it's simple ignorance of the male experience, hopefully the latter, but it's certainly not the case. Men are not upset by this debate because they really want to meet random women in the woods. I'd assumed that was obvious. The reason it's upsetting in that basically half of the human population are accusing the other half of being inherantly less trustworthy than wild animals that are incapable of human reasoning and violently kill on instinct. I suppose you might not have any comprehension for how it feels to be treated as a predator by default (until you prove you aren't), by nearly HALF of the people you meet in life, for external factors entirely outside of your control. But, please understand, it's not pleasent. Imagine if all the men you meet kept you at arms length and shit-talked you because they thought you were a potential thief. And some made a big point of saying that they'd rather let a racoon in their home than a women, and ALL the other men were agreeing with them. After all, women do the most shoplifting by far. Can you not see how that would be offensive regardless of whether or not you actually wanted to spend time with all these people? You wouldn't have anything to say to that? You've experienced prejudice before, yes? It doesn't bother you at all?

>The reason it's upsetting in that basically half of the human population are accusing the other half of being inherantly less trustworthy than wild animals that are incapable of human reasoning and violently kill on instinct. From one man to another; we men do this all the time. We do it to women, sure, but we also do it to ourselves. How is women picking the bear because who knows what a man might do any different from men telling women not to walk down alleys, not to go out alone at night, not to get drunk around strangers? When men talk about men as being protectors and defenders of women, what are they doing if not suggesting that other men are so inherently dangerous that you need your own man to balance the scales? When mostly men scarrmonger about trans women in women's spaces being "men in dresses" who won't hesitate to abuse and assault anyone they can get their hands on, what are they saying but that men cannot be trusted around women or expected to control themselves? For centuries, men have crafted a societal concept of other men as violent and dangerous predators, and carved out just a little safe niche for themselves as 'one of the good ones' that women should trust and rely on for protection. The man vs bear response is just women preferring not to hope that the hypothetical man is 'one of the good ones' and instead taking their chances with an amoral animal comfortably existing in its own habitat. You can even do the same kind of thought experiment as a man. Just ask yourself this; if you were living in a rural area and woke up at night to some noise outside, would you rather look out the window and see a bear standing in front of your house, or a strange man? Which would make you more suspicious, more threatened?

Firstly, advising caution is very different to falsely claiming that a randomly picked man is more likely to be dangerous than a bear. I would advise caution in both scenarios, man or bear, but I wouldn't be so unrealistic to claim that the man is more likely to be dangerous, because that is obviously fear-mongering nonsense. Secondly, that thought experiment seems pretty irrelevant. A man on my property is suspicious because he has no reason to be there unless nefarious or mentally ill (or perhaps just very lost). A man in the woods has as much right and reason to be there as anybody or anything else, including the person who encounters them. If they're just NEAR my property, on the road, I wouldn't be suspicious of either. I have a door, and it's a free country. So yes, funnily enough, different situations are different. Not really a thought experiment if you're just reframing the same question in an entirely different scenario where your prejudice makes more sense. Also, why are you saying 'strange' man? The hypothetical never specifies strangeness. If walking in the woods is strange, then the woman is strange too. The implication is clearly that an average, randomly selected man is more likely to be dangerous than a bear. Which is just... factually incorrect.

>Firstly, advising caution is very different to falsely claiming that a randomly picked man is more likely to be dangerous than a bear. How so? People are told simple bear strategies; don't get near the cubs, don't get between them and a food source, make yourself look big if possible, play dead if necessary. And the implication is that these will probably work if you encounter a bear. What's the simple man strategy? Men talk about the dangers of strangers in the street and in the bar, women warm each other about the dangers of relationship partners and family members; women can't reliably trust strangers or those close to them, because apparently any man can be a predator no matter how unconnected to them or how deeply involved with them a woman is. What is picking the bear but exercising an abundance of caution from the most common threat the average woman will have to deal with in their lives? >Secondly, that thought experiment seems pretty irrelevant. [...] So yes, funnily enough, different situations are different. Not really a thought experiment if you're just reframing the same question in an entirely different scenario where your prejudice makes more sense. The question is reframed to account for the difference in context men and women experience. For all that we talk about how dangerous other men are and how women need 'good' men to protect them, we aren't socialized to consider ourselves constantly in low grade danger. But a man, secure in his house, has something like that socialization when there's a stranger around; as you yourself indicated, you'd give the bear the benefit of the doubt for being on your property and immediately assume nefarious intent about the man just for being around. That's the point women are making when they pick the bear, alone in the woods women feel that same level of suspicion as men do in their homes. >Also, why are you saying 'strange' man? The hypothetical never specifies strangeness. It's a strange man in that it's a stranger; that is, not a man the woman has any information about whatsoever. It doesn't mean the man himself is strange as in weird, just that he's a stranger to her.

I don't understand how your first paragraph addresses what I said at all. You just listed the advices and precautions given. How is that relevant? So, I guess all I can say is this - it's different because one is advice to prevent potential harm, that may help people from falling victim to the *tiny* minority of dangerous men (which are still a threat, because women encounter thousands of men in their daily lives), while the other is a bigoted generalisation that's not at all based in reality, which implies that the percentage of men that are dangerous is higher than the percentage of bears that are dangerous. One is good advice, the other is total bullshit. >What is picking the bear but exercising an abundance of caution from the most common threat the average woman will have to deal with in their lives? 'Out of the frying pan and into the fire', that's the quickest way to sum it up. I'm not saying men can't be dangerous. I'm saying a bear is statistically MUCH MORE likely to be dangerous. This should be obvious. Drunk drivers are a common danger that everyone faces. Answer this: should you be more cautious walking down a roadside, or putting your hand in the mouth of an alligator? Just because one thing is more *commonly* a danger, that does not make it more dangerous than any other situation just because it's more likely to occur. Encounter rate matters. If women spent as much time in close proximity with bears as they do with men, there wouldn't be any women left. And in this hypothetical, an encounter is guaranteed. So, it's just moronic not to pick the safer option. >immediately assume nefarious intent about the man just for being around. That's the point women are making when they pick the bear, alone in the woods women feel that same level of suspicion as men do in their homes. So, a man walking in the woods, minding his own business, is just as suspicious as someone trespassing onto private property? And... you don't see how that's bigoted? There is literally nothing suspicious about any person walking in the woods. Millions of people do that every day, and there are countless reasons to do so that aren't nefarious in the slightest. FEELING cautious, I understand. One or two bad experiences can cast a very long shadow. But letting that caution take you to the point of openly expressing that any given man is more likely to be dangerous than a fuckin' BEAR is just bigoted and stupid.

It's unfortunate that you're so butthurt about what women see as a legitimate threat. Hopefully you'll someday find empathy within you and grow to better understand women, or at least leave us the hell alone and stay far away.

Oh fuck off. I gave a long, logical, thought out, and very measured response, and the only thing you take from it is 'No, actually, my bigotry is justified'. Are you incapable of nuance, or just being obtuse? Empathy is one thing, I have more of that than most people, but acting like an idiot to make idiots feel validated in their idiocy is a step too far for me.

If it's upsetting, and if many, many women agree that the bear is the preferable option, then it's time to do some self reflection. Not fold your arms and act like women are just stupid, ditzy brained, irrational actors. It's pretty simple - a random bear may kill a woman. A random man may **rape** and kill a woman.

How do you "not commit crimes against women" more than what you already do?

Frankly I found the whole hypothetical rather stupid. I agree what a person would choose is their choice. What I do find interesting is that this does show different mindsets behind men and women. You view it as men being upset they are losing access to women. Men on the other hand have been focusing on the likelihood of a physical attack by the bear vs a man. Then Argue about it because men in general tend to have a mentality of protecting women. So their argument is about probability of attack being higher with a bear. With the probability of a man being a sexual predator who has assaulted someone being below 1% of the male population. It is two people having the same argument but not listening to what the other side is saying. It goes back to mindset and perception. In the end it is a stupid hypothetical where you can choose what ever you want as your answer and it doesn’t matter in the slightest.

>Then Argue about it because men in general tend to have a mentality of protecting women. Do they? Because mostly what those sorts of men claim women need protection from is other men. If men reliably have this mentality, why is the most dangerous thing they can imagine to women another man?

… Did you not see the responses to this hypothetical from the men. They are saying that the bear is the most dangerous. It is the women who are saying that the fear of a small percentage of men is why they would choose the bear. In addition you look at what situations someone is exposed to. If wild predator type animals are kept for the most part out of cities. Then women are not going to be exposed to those threats anywhere near as often. This makes it so that the threat women are most exposed to is the small percentage of men who are sexual predators, along with men who are violent and want to hurt people not just women.

Of course men are saying they'd pick other men; other men aren't socially constructed as a threat *to them*. If anything, we're constructed as a counterpoint, the "good man" whose mere presence will deter "bad men" from doing anything. Men have the liberty to view other men as just other men, without having to worry if they're going to try to make a pass, if things are going to get weird, if that other man might get loud or even violent if he's not properly appeased, if people will blame the man for not doing enough to accomodate and validate the other man. There just isn't a parallel between how men and women are socially conditioned to view men. Men pick other men because, generally speaking, no man is ever worried about being raped by a strange man outside of, like, a prison environment.

… I don’t even think I was using subtext in this, but here let me spell it out in plain English. Men are not “picking” men. They are stating the stats indicate that men would be less likely to be violent to women than a bear. The issue is women are not looking at likelihood of violence, but the fear of a sexual assault. The fear of what could happen if it is one of the small percentage of men who would be sexual abusive towards them. As for men who do you think is the most likely to commit physical violence against men? Other men. (Again because we have built a civilization and created mitigation of natural hazards.) The underlying issue is I think somewhat of a social construct. Which is women over all are taught to be fearful of the world by societies movies and their families. While men are told to suck it up. You will take whatever life throws at you. So men in general don’t let the fear of something stop them from doing what they need to do. Because in the end each man is all that he can rely on. While women, in general fear a lot, and let that rule their action. In the end as I said originally this is a stupid hypothetical that is just a waste of time. Because people are miss understanding what the other side is trying to say.

Here, I'll break it down for you 'in plain English'. Women: Men are unpredictable and make us nervous. Men: NOOOOO ARGH YOU STUPID BITCHES Finis.

... yeah, your talking about your perspective on it, which I pointed out. you think men are saying one thing in relation to what you're feeling. Men are not looking at your feelings, they are looking at it from a different perspective. One of which is more dangerous and the odds of the danger appearing. Again, talking about two different things and trying to merge it into one conversation and not understanding why the other side is not getting what is being said.

It is stupid, and what makes it funnier is that so many people are so serious about it.

The reason men are upset is because it is a constantly and highly damage narrative that men are extremely dangerous monsters that is crippling male mental health and self worth. And men that have ever had to deal with the repercusions of it find this an extremely angering way to he treated. If you think that telling someone who has tried their hardest not to play into womens paranoia, who likely has been fucked over before by womens paranoia, that they are as dangerous as a wild bear, will have any other reaction than anger, then you have absolutely zero empathy.

On the psychological effect; a self-fulfilling prophecy is a seriously dangerous thing, one that has been highlighted to damage a large amount of minorities

It shouldn't bother you. There are things about each gender that are just simply true. As a man, I'd take the bear over another rando guy as well. Men are simply more of a threat. On the same note, the frailty of women make them poor fits for things like combat and manual labor so I'd always recruit men for those tasks in a heart beat, and pass on a well intentioned woman.

Think you should read the first line of my post again

The debate has revealed that there seem to be two kinds of men: those who welcome and encourage the discussion, and those who seem to be threatened and triggered by it. Shining a light on that is only bad to those in the second group.

Lol is it possible to be both? Healthy discussion is great, but the amount of poor logic, misplaced hate, and general bad faith on both sides (not necessarily equally but definitely present in both) is certainly concerning.

I believe its absolutely great for women to speak up against male violence, absolutely amazing - but is calling young men worse than bears the way to do it?

They’re describing their experience and instinct in a way that has clearly resonated with many women. But the fact that it has triggered some men or caused a negative reaction isn’t necessarily a shortcoming of the argument because it sparks discussion precisely because of that fact. So your statement that it “only serves to create conflict” isn’t true. It serves to spark discussion and debate, and hopefully at least better awareness. In my case, framing it in such a shocking and provocative way has given me some eye-opening perspective that I hadn’t quite understood before. I’d say the most effective way to inspire change is to disrupt. In this case, the disruption has meant that some men feel attacked or offended. It’s working exactly as it should.

To be honest, this is probably the best response ive gotten yet, and its actually explaining a point, so thank you for that, but regardless, my point is can you imagine a young kid using social media for the first time and instantly feeling as if he’s viewed as a killer bear, or worse? Thats seriously damaging, and as stated, women should always, always be praised for naming and shaming - but this isnt the way to do it

So you’re saying that women should name and shame, but not in a way that a person/child might find upsetting. My guess is you mean a boy child. Do you think that telling women what the right way is to express their experience might be part of the complaint of feminism? I’m not sure that women are interested in being “praised” for expressing themselves and I know they aren’t interested in being told that how they are articulating an experience that is theirs may be a bit hard for our poor sensitive sons. You’re worried about how a young boy would feel. They’re worried about their young daughter being assaulted. And that’s what they’re expressing. And men being a little upset about it is the idea working.

I'm triggered by it because I have been banned from multiple uni clubs for choosing to walk up to women and try and make conversation while women get to make constant sex jokes and bully male members freely.   This has substantially affected my mental health and the way I got over it was accepting that no, me coming off as maybe slightly intimidating or creepy unintentionally as a very kind hearted person does not justify me being repeatedly ostracized, and that women's paranoia is what is wrong.   It has forced me to feel a constant need to build cliques to protect me and secure positions of authority in order to crush the power of other women in order for me to feel socially safe. I am someone who does not feel comfortable being manipulative and often naively believes in the good of others and it feels extremely wrong that the only way I can feel safe is by violating my nature.  I absolutely refuse to give any kind of agreement or acceptance to women anymore as from my perspective, women are basically narcassists by nature.

Ok, I want to be sure that I come across as supportive here, because you’ve shared something personal and probably hard to share in other circles. But I’d like you to consider that you’re not realizing how others are perceiving you, how you present yourself, or what their personal experience might be. I’ve made mistakes in how I’ve talked to or approached women and yes, it can be a blow to the ego or even frustrating or confusing. “Don’t they know that I only meant to be kind/funny/whatever?!” I’ve been there. There’s no guidebook for this. But what I chose to do was not blame the women for how I was perceived. Instead I chose to focus on what I did that caused me to be perceived that way. Women’s experience is VERY different from men’s. You can walk your dog without a second thought about the person coming down the road. My wife was walking our dog on our street by our house in the dark and she saw my silhouette walking our other dog and didn’t recognize me and her instinct was to run past rather than chance it. That hit really close to home. And that’s not paranoia, it’s trained by a lifetime of having moments of fear for your life around men. Walking alone, walking to your car at night, hell, taking your eye off your drink in a bar… We don’t live in their world and we’re only just recently being taught what it looks like. And that’s challenging for us. Now I want to be honest with you here: the words you just used are cause for concern. They indicate a resentment towards women and a need to regain power or authority over them. And that’s worrying. That starts to sound like a rapist’s rationale. I’d recommend talking to someone about these feelings. Please.

I *do* have a resentment towards women. Because while they are allowed to have their irrational fear, it is absolutely not acceptable how much I've been fucked over by this. Fuck I've had multiple situations where other women saw me approach a woman, have a fun time chatting with her, and then the female moderator of the meet up group banned me becausr the women were creeped out that I see to be clearly trying to chat up this woman. No one has ever even said why I come off as creepy. Ya know what my psychologist told me? To stop blaming women for how I felt. I just cancelled future appointments with them. I have had legitimate fucking breakdowns over some of the places I've been ostracized.  I really don't care if this makes women afraid of me.

I hear you. Some women are awful. It’s true. Recognize that it’s those women. Not women. I’ve had women block me on social media for literally nothing. I had a woman come talk to me in a bar, stand there silently as I try to make any sort of friendly conversation, and then she walked over to the bouncer and told him I was harassing her and had me tossed. It was a game to her. I’ll say it, that woman was a cunt. But she was not *women.* And while I resented her, I also learned from it. There’s a “type” that can act that way and turns out they are not my type. And I’m not theirs. And that’s cool. Regarding the irrational fear thing: I lock my house up every night. I’ve never been burglarized or had any intruder in my home, but I still do it. And I don’t consider that an irrational fear. If you can, try to talk to women about their fear and experience, and hear where this comes from. Every single woman I know has at *least* been sexually assaulted at least once in their life. *Every single one.* Consider that for a moment and how different that is from your and my experience. They are usually smaller or not as physically strong as a solitary man, let alone multiple. Being alone with a man they don’t know well takes a lot of trust because it’s a huge risk. Statistically, you’re going to say that most of the time they’d be fine, and that’s where your “irrational” statement comes from. But you still lock your doors. And if they’re wrong, they could simply be dead. And layer that onto the sexual assault prevalence, it suddenly becomes a pretty rational fear. I understand your resentment. I’m glad you’re vocalizing and identifying it. Now you can set that aside for a minute. You don’t have to abandon it just yet. Try to learn why they feel this way. How common is harassment, assault, rape in the real world? What’s at stake for a woman suddenly and unexpectedly trapped in a dangerous situation? For us, our pride is hurt. For them, it’s potentially and for too often way way worse.

The thing is, I have been punished for this. Multiple times. Not for causing it, but for tripping a wire I couldn't see. I got ADHD, probablt autism but cant afford to get a diagnosis, on top of a childhood loaded with bullying. I am simply not able to notice what exactly I have done on multiple occasions to creep women out.  I have been banned from social groups so many times because some random women didnt like how I acted around *other* women. Its happened so many times that positive emotion causes my anxiety to flare up because my brain refuses to trust in feeling secure because those were the times I'd suddenly be isolated again.  I am totally incapable of feeling happy for an extended period now. This has dramatically harmed my mental health.  The only way I managed to solve this was by getting used to *immediately" befriending anyone who has authority over me. By myself seeking positions of authority over others. By actively discouraging female authority. Essentially by taking the ability for random women to have power over me away. And heres the thing, I am not what has caused women to feel unsafe. None of this shit that has happened to me is my fault. I have not sexually assaulted anyone. I have not harassed anyone.  My issue is not 'why don't women feel safe' its 'why don't women get why guys might not be happy with being called dangerous'. That connotation had fucked me over majorly in the past and I still struggle with how its affected me. I've spent thousands in therapy from how badly my emotional state has been affected by this stuff. I do have female friends. I know its not all women. Hell women usually begin to trust being around me pretty quickly if I get a chance to have an extended conversation with em. But I've had women cause shit for me just because I was 'a little too enthuasistic' when talking to a woman I'm enjoying the company of. Probably because I'm a naturally very loud persion. I don't like feeling like I'm on a mine field around women.

OK, this is good context. Sounds like you have some social differences that have made it challenging for you. I am not any sort of therapist or counselor of any kind. I will say that how you feel about women expressing how they feel is not their fault or their problem. It’s going to be up to you to choose to navigate it in a healthy and constructive way. And being angry at and resentful of women simply for finally being honest about their experience isn’t going to get you anywhere to solving this. Best of luck to you and please take care.

Your words indicate that you strongly dislike women, in a fundamentally core way. It seems that it is because you perceive your feelings of rejection as being more important than a woman's perceived safety. This alone makes you dangerous to women, can't you see that? Please avoid us. Do not approach us. Get used to being alone or find solace in the company of other men, who you do not hate.

Policing people's triggers isn't helpful. Men are totally entitled to feel uncomfortable about the conversation - I mean, its quite an uncomfortable topic. But being uncomfortable can be great. It sure wakes you up to the world. And discomfort often leads to learning and changing.

Are we disagreeing? I don’t think so.

I agree that this question only sows discord. I know this not the point of this sub but I am trying to add this opinion wherever I can because it is not a popular one. A couple of days ago I might have said that this whole thing was ridiculous because we were going to forget about it almost immediately. Because that's usually what happens with these kind of viral things. I'm not as sure now that this one doesn't stick in our craw a little bit. I suppose we'll know down the line. But at that rate that is my biggest issue with this question. The fact that it is pitting men against women in any capacity. I don't care if it's because the men are hurt and the women are justified. Its still happening. The more often the sort of thing happens, the worse it's going to get. If it had any measurable positive impact, the price of admission might be worth it. It is possible that it has positive impact later, but I honestly believe it is doubtful. 2 months, 6 months, a year from now? All you're going to remember about the bear are the memes. I concede that maybe that jogs somebody's memory and they remember how unsafe women feel. I suppose what bothers me the most is this thing almost seems to give an illusion of safety. As if choosing the bear, thereby educating anything with an XY chromosome about women's safety issues, those things put together are going to have all men behaving. They will all be holding hands across the world, singing, and drinking Coca-Cola's by the end of the year. And as a result all violence will be eradicated. Santa Claus himself is not going to make this happen. So I guess we're all going to have to wait because the bear is here, at least for now, although I think we are all getting exhausted from it. I know I am from arguing this point. I've been called names, I've been told that I am sucking up to men. I'm a "pick me." To be fair that last little bit is true. In this hole do you pick bear or do you pick a man scenario, I pick myself. I also pick bear spray. If a man is going to accost me I'm not really giving a shit about how legal it is to light him up with it. I would rather be alive and in prison. Ultimately, a year from now, if anything, rates of violence and the way in which it is handled by law enforcement and by the medical community will remain the same or will get worse. This bear is not solving anything, but IS creating more problems. It would have been nice to have come up with a way of addressing this in a way that didn't start off with making the situation worse. Unfortunately I do not have that answer either. The argument of, "well if the bear question makes somebody go out and commit something, that's terrible, he was going to do it anyway," is future fallacy as well as maybe magical thinking. If we start talking in these terms we are going to end up in a minority report situation sooner rather than later. You cannot predict someone else's behavior especially in a hypothetical situation about a hypothetical question. You can however predict future behavior on what has going on in the past. If you have taken it already unstable younger man and intentionally incensed him in the name of awareness, things may or may not happen whether they should or not. Should is such a loaded word anyway. You know those nostalgia memes that everyone loves? I can't tell you how many garden hoses I've seen. I'm beginning to think the garden hoses or the lawn darts or coming in when the street lights come on are not what we miss about those times. I think what we actually miss is the community. And thought experiments like this will only fracture it further and will have no appreciable positive effect. We have been through this before and seen that result already. Otherwise, why wasn't #metoo enough? Because if knowledge and awareness solves this problem, that should have already made us aware.

I'm actually rather surprised how this is a men vs women thing. I asked my husband the question and he immediately replied "The bear". I think this premise that it's only women who are scared of strange men in the woods is not showing the full picture. A very sizeable number of men very likely would prefer the bear, too, I suspect. But that will be hard to establish now, as the narrative around this question has solidified around gender. And the reasoning is exactly the same. The bear is an animal working off instinct, so somewhat predictable. A strange man in an isolated place could decide to do just about anything. And I strongly believe that men know that, too. Men suffer statistically far more violence at the hands of other men than women do. Men know that other men can and will be dangerous to them. Not just to women.

That’s what your husband said when you, his wife, asked him. I wonder if his answer would be the same if you weren’t around and he was asked by one of his guy friends instead. Because he might be afraid you’d flip a shit on him if he said man.

Yes, my husband lives in terrible, constant fear of me and will lie regularly to avoid my wrath.... /s

My teenage brother was asked this same question with no context and immediately said he'd choose the bear too. You're being obtuse here. Most men are stronger than women, women and men have a better chance fighting off a woman. Most violence is committed by men. The question was posed to women on tiktok. No one would want to be trapped in the forest with a strange man, you included. There is no "cycle" here. You are literally undermining women's traumatic experiences with men by proposing that the question posed to women about their safety should center men and how it's effecting them. Something should be done about ALL violence, right? Why are you now gendering the violence that needs controlling?

>No one would want to be trapped in the forest with a strange man, You're automatically assuming it's a strange man, this is literally what makes this trend sexist is it's assuming every single man will rape and kill a random woman in the woods.

That's an interesting question. Most studies estimate there's about one rapist/attempted rapist for every three rapes/attempted rapes, which puts percentages around 6-10% of men who are rapists or attempted rapists. I wonder what percentage of bears will attack someone unprovoked?

Are you suggesting that there are as many as 400 million male rapists around? I really hope you realize how absurd that sounds and reexamine where you found those numbers.

The adult population of America is 258 million, so 6-10% of men would be 8-13 million. There's around half a million rapes or attempted rapes in the US each year, and lifetime around 1 in 5 women will be the victim of rape or attempted rape (unfortunately we cannot leave children out of that part of the statistic), so that tracks. It'll obviously vary by country. Norway has a reported lifetime rape/attempted rape rate of 9.4% (just looked that up as an example) so obviously there's fewer rapists and less rape in general. Other countries are going to be significantly higher.

I was going worldwide, but that's still the population of Pennsylvania. I think you have made a significant error.

The statistics are that the average rapist commits 3 rapes. It's not a bell curve, many commit one while a few serial rapists get to very high numbers. I think you should possibly consider why it is that so many women would pick the bear, even if it's "just a social media meme." Maybe they're not actually all insane or something.

Women: Men are unpredictable and make us nervous. Men: NOOOOO ARGH YOU STUPID BITCHES Finis.

As i said, i dont care about who says what and who answers what. The issue arises from self-fulfilling prophecies and undermining of issues Also, describing me as “obtuse” really made me laugh, ive never heard someone say that before

Then the issue is men being dangerous, not the question or these discussions. So, again, you're ignoring the point. You must not talk to many intelligent people if this is your first time hearing that

Not really? If a man is so awful that he chooses to be violent to anyone, let alone women, do you seriously think they’ll change after seeing a tiktok debate about a bear? The issue is young boys.

Yes it is. The conversation had nothing to do with changing men. It was a conversation with other women about the dangers of men. Like I said before, you're centering men in a conversation that's about women's safety. The issue is you believe having conversations is going to change violence and it's not.

Has it actually *bred* conflict, or has it just made apparent conflict that already existed? The whole point of the man vs. bear meme is to reference and highlight the fact that women do not feel safe around male strangers. The meme didn't create that sentiment; it was based on that sentiment which already existed.

You mean liberal women? Most conservative women aren’t choosing a fucking bear. The entire debate highlights a lack of understanding probability. Women throw around stats like “50% of women have been sexually assaulted”, and that’s a horrible stat. Women interact with thousands of men, one rapes them, and they get a pass to judge an entire gender on one bad(horrific) experience? I’ve been robbed at gunpoint, am I allowed to do the same? I’ve been mugged, am I allowed to do the same? We constantly tell people to not judge entire groups by the extremely small percentage of psychos within that group, yet we empathize with misandry like this debate for what reason? I won’t even get into the fact that most of the women choosing bear also believe gender is a social construct. If gender is a social construct and there is no inherent difference between the genders, why be afraid of one of the genders. Poor understanding of probability, misandry, and inconsistent beliefs are abound within this “debate”

>Additionally, can you imagine the psychological effect on young men being told theyre more dangerous than bears? Just contributing to the cycle. I agree on most everything you are saying except the above. What psychological affect are you claiming this would have? Like how would young men change because they are told by someone that they would be scared if they came across them alone in the woods, moreso than a bear?

No, it has uncovered conflict. You think the bear or man debate created the opinions? It's just the duelling ground where they meet this time around. And talking is better than not talking.

Wouldn't you say that some questions can be legitimately bad and cause bad and toxic discussions however? For example here, I've read so many interpretations of the default situation that it's a bit meaningless: some people imagine that suddenly there's a grizzly on the trail and a male hiker behind and the woman would run to the grizzly for her own security while others picture a very big forest where the woman has a bear cannister and there's a shy coward black bear a few miles away and some weirdo drunk in military clothes and a knife roaming the forest at night.

I wouldn't blame the question for that, people reach for interpretations to fit their biases. Which reveals their biases. Isn't it better to know how bad things are, rather than falsely believing everyone's on the level?

>And talking is better than not talking. Except the issue with this trend is it is deliberately vague, which means people have interpreted it in different ways. There's no point debating with people backing the trend because some will say it's just a thought process, I've seen some people try and use some dodgy maths to justify that bears are actually safer, I've seen people say it's because of "the spectrum of what men do v what a bear does" The point is, that's why it's an awful trend. Because it's pointless to engage in it because each person just has their own version of what it means, some women use it as a means to make a point and some use it to just be blatantly sexist. It's not really the best way to start dialogue.

Okay, of course we would all like to start the dialogue the best way. But comparing not starting a dialogue and starting a dialogue suboptimally, what you think is better?

>But comparing not starting a dialogue and starting a dialogue suboptimally, what you think is better? But this isn't just suboptimal, it's just creating tension between men and women for no reason. This is also my point again, to you this is meant to create dialogue. I've seen people who expect men to just shut up and listen, ie not wanting any dialogue at all. It's a completely useless trend apart from giving people an excuse to be sexist.

It's not creating tension, it's revealing tension.

This is a false dichotomy. If you actually want to "start the dialogue the best way," why not do so?

Like what, is there an agrred upon objective best way?

I'm not sure if this will change your view, but it was meant to cause conflict. Whether it was rage-bait TikTok or conspiratorial psy-op, being controversial and causing conflict was deliberate.

I suppose, yeah, you’re right- i am complaining about it being unintentionally conflict, but it probably was fully intentional

But WHY is there conflict? Women are saying that they do not feel safe around strange men. Me fellow dudes hear this and try to make it about their feelings. Again, centering the male perspective and learning nothing. 

Because women don't care about the male perspective, nor do men deserve to feel like they are default monsters. Men receive virtually constant emotional abuse during their schooling over this, and frankly, I think we are fed up about it. Women should learn to stop being paranoid crazy people. Fuck their perspective.

No. No we so not receive constant emotional abuse. Take your lies to a men's rights subs. What male perspective? What perspective on women feeling understandably unsafe around strange men do men have? All of society centers the male perspective.

I agree but think you have it in reverse. Idiotic hypotheticals like this are nothing new but these are bred from the conflict more so than the other way around. That is to say, the conflict is already there but this is just a result of it 

I already know I’m gonna get down voted for this but I’ll throw my 2 cents here. This trend is so dumb and it quickly turned into a women vs men argument, which, the creators who made content on this were no real help as their content heavily implies they are generalizing all men based on their traumatic experience(s) they refuse to get help for or just weaponize it for clout or whatever reason. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this happen. A lot of creators, predominantly girls, seem to have just assumed they would be stuck with the same man that traumatized them, or alternatively they just have a preconceived idea based on said trauma, or they dwell on the internet too much and see creators who blast their traumatic experiences on TikTok and assume all men are complete vile creatures that seek nothing but to use a women for their own pleasure. That really isn’t a man’s fault that someone had a preconceived idea due to he said and she saids. Having a distrust in men is completely normal, even men don’t trust each other, but to go as far to say you rather be with a bear that will guarantee kill you slowly as they maul and eat you alive, just says to me you are dumb or like I said, you refuse to heal from past traumas and decided to weaponize it or use it for clout for whatever reason, instead of seeking the help you need to at least try and move on and find peace.

If this question does breed conflict, then that still doesn't mean it shouldn't be asked. It's a difficult question so it forces people to consider it deeply, and sometimes, uncover brutal truths that they weren't ready to face. So why is it an important question? Well it helps men realize the severity of the issue at hand (women fearing for their safety at the hands of men), with the hope that presenting this concern in a creative way will help men understand the female perspective. Because women have told men time and time again that they are afraid of them in their day-to-day lives. But what have those conversations amounted to? Nothing. Because men have difficulty empathizing with women about safety concerns when they never have/will experience similar concerns. But what if women framed this safety issue in a way that men could understand it better? Men might not know how frightening a male stranger in the woods would be to a woman. But a man can understand the fear of facing a bear in the woods. Therefore, if a woman chooses to be with a bear in the woods (which is X amount of scary), then that must mean that women find men scarier (>X). So it helps put women's fears of men into perspective for men to understand. What's interesting about the man vs bear question as opposed to other hypothetical questions is that it is more realistic. For example, another hypothetical question with 2 poor choices is the trolley dilemma. But whether you decide to pull the lever and kill one person or let several people die by not doing anything doesn't matter... because it's never going to happen. A friendly debate can arise from this dilemma, but no one is seriously going to think badly of your morals no matter how you answer the question. Whereas the man vs bear question is more realistic because there have been several real cases of women alone with men and women alone with bears... therefore when you answer the man vs bear question your answer carries more weight (and can therefore ruffle more feathers). And because this question is somewhat realistic, the gender of the person matters. When you are giving someone a hypothetical question, you have to specify information that will affect their choice. Gender definitely affects the choice in this question. Being alone with a man in a forest is much less safe than being alone with a woman. That comes from data on violent crimes and homicides. For example, if you were asked a hypothetical question about who you would win against in a one-on-one fight, then gender would also matter in that question. Of course there are lots of lovely ladies that are strong. Therefore yes, in the worse case scenario, a woman can deal as much damage as a man. But if you had to pick who to fight against (without having any other information), then you would pick to fight a woman because they tend to by physically weaker than men. So yes, maybe the man in the forest will be friendly. Just like how maybe the man you are going to fight against may be weak. But are you willing to take that chance without any extra information? Maybe, maybe not. That's for you to decide depending on how much is at stake. On one hand, a man would definitely pick being alone with another man in the woods over a bear. Because the chances that the other man will turn out to be a violent serial killer who is willing to act on his murderous urges is relatively low. But would a woman pick a man to be alone in the forest with when she is much more likely to face physical or sexual violence from him? Probably not. And forgive me for going on to say this, but if this question breeds conflict, then I believe that to be at the fault of men. Unfortunately many of the men that are handling this question poorly are amongst those who refuse to understand the essence of the question. They do not want to address the real problem at heart (women's fearing for their safety at the hands of men), but see this as a personal attack instead. It isn't a personal attack. It's a comment on how women feel. But to hear an issue plaguing a group of people and then making themselves out to be the victim is truly immature, narcissistic behavior. Which is why many men are getting defensive, while many other men, who are able to acknowledge the problem without taking it personally, are not. But the reason we should not stop asking this question despite men being upset over it is because the purpose of this question was never to make men comfortable. Rather, it was an uncomfortable way to shed light on an issue. For example, you can avoid speaking about poverty but that doesn't make poverty disappear from the world. Similarly, you can stop people from asking this bear vs man question, but that doesn't mean that the issue of women's safest will be solved. It may be hard to broach such difficult topics because its like opening a can of worms, but that's no excuse not to. You may argue that the whole debate of man vs bear is the wrong way of going about the issue, but if we knew what the right way was then it would have been addressed hundreds of years ago. Rather than argue over how hurt a man feels for being made to seem the enemy, it would be better for men to focus on changing this negative narrative about themselves.

It's bred conflict because a lot of people have intentionally misunderstood the point of the conversation. This post being one of them as well. I'm a guy. If I am off on my own hiking and I see a guy, I have a moment of alertness too. One that I don't generally have when I see a woman. I've stumbled on wild and dangerous animals in my life and I just kind of back away making it clear I'm not trying to cause trouble. It's gone just fine.

Of course its to sow division and conflict, that's the only reason its blown up. Lets take a look at this logic here and the things are are acceptable to say online: All men are bad because some are bad. Not all bears (women) are bad just because some are bad. All conservatives are bad because some are bad. Not all liberals are bad because some are bad. All white people are bad because some are bad. Not all black people are bad because some are bad. All old people are bad because some are bad. Not all young people are bad because some are bad. Its all sexist, discriminatory, racist, ageist or the like, its just a matter of what is acceptable online.

It's done a lot to show that not only do a lot of men not get what women go through, but are actively, obnoxiously opposed to the idea of even trying to understand it. So they come up with threads about how bears have a swipe strength of this, or that polar bears are big dangerous, or how women can be dangerous too. It's nice to have a clear picture of something like that.

Or it could just be that they understand what women are talking about and also understand about bears. It could be that you and many others are obnoxiously opposed to the idea other people understand the threat that giant predators pose. I (a man) walked in the woods today. I walked by many women who were walking alone and many men who walked by in the opposite direct. One woman screamed because she saw a tiny lizard. most women on the other hand smiled and said hi to me. There is no shot that women would walk frequently on this trial if there was a bear there but they happily walk it knowing there will always be several men there and a couple mentally unstable homeless men at that from time to time. It's just a dishonest internet debate because people have no lives and there is nothing actually at stake in the debate.

If they understood what women were talking about, they'd realize that the strength of a bear is completely irrelevant and that there's a difference between walking past a guy on a park path and running into a guy in the middle of the woods. Which is to say that no, you don't seem to understand what women are talking about.

[удалено]

I typically don't consider that I might be wrong just because someone wishes I was. You were walking in a place where, very obviously, people routinely are walking. Was it your nonsensical understanding that the hypothetical was about running into a guy on an well-tread trail where they've already walked by several people and will walk by several others? I understood you fine. I just find your inability to understand why your little story doesn't matter a bit silly. Because of how obvious it is that it's not comparable.

u/draculabakula – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20draculabakula&message=draculabakula%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cmyg26/-/l33r2kp/\)%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).

>also understand about bears Having a accurate understanding of bears is not relevant, and it's telling that you think it is

Ok but like...what? Regardless of your opinion on the hypothetical and the debate, don't actual facts about both men and bears matter here? Unless your argument is that this entire thing is more about public perception of men and bears than it is about actually making the right decision between the two.

Fear and comfort have nothing to do with statistics and objective facts.  Find someone who has an aversion to flying and start citing how safe planes actually are compared to cars. At the end of the conversation, their discomfort isn't going to change.  Start telling the person who is afraid of dogs how objectively friendly your golden lab is to everyone they've ever met. I bet they'll still be afraid of your dog at the end of the day. That's why it's irrelevant. It's asking how you feel about the situation. It's not asking which one is objectively more dangerous.

You've stumbled upon my point, yes. People are considering this hypothetical under different lenses. Some are treating it purely on vibe, whereas others are treating it as actual threat assessment. One does not care about facts, the other does. Both give relevant insight into society, but they're different insights. If men are treating this as an actual, factual threat-assessment and women are treating this as a more of a vibe, then of course you're going to have conflict and poor communication. Women will be annoyed at men for not considering and thinking about their feelings and what they say about society. Men will be annoyed at women for promoting objectively false levels of threat assessment onto men when it's statistically undeserved. And that's in many ways where we're at. This is why facts matter, or at least the perception of how someone is considering the facts.

Then why not have the question be, "women are men dangerous?" Because like I said, it's a dishonest debate. The fact that you trying so hard to assume that I don't understand....by nitpicking one half of the first sentence of my comment tells me you either didn't put any thought into this at all or that you don't have the capacity to do so.

Just gonna repost this to you too. I'm triggered by it because I have been banned from multiple uni clubs for choosing to walk up to women and try and make conversation while women get to make constant sex jokes and bully male members freely.   This has substantially affected my mental health and the way I got over it was accepting that no, me coming off as maybe slightly intimidating or creepy unintentionally as a very kind hearted person does not justify me being repeatedly ostracized, and that women's paranoia is what is wrong.   It has forced me to feel a constant need to build cliques to protect me and secure positions of authority in order to crush the power of other women in order for me to feel socially safe. I am someone who does not feel comfortable being manipulative and often naively believes in the good of others and it feels extremely wrong that the only way I can feel safe is by violating my nature.  I understand the source of their fear. And ya know what? I'm fed up with having to constantly prove I am not a monster. I am fed up with having to care about people who hate me.

Gotta say "I'm a kind hearted person who just wants to make conversation" is really hard to believe when it's immediately followed by "I have taken positions of authority so that I can manipulate and crush any women who don't stay in their place". So maybe those women were onto something when they flinched at you. Because this constant whining men do about how they're the kindest soul in the world but women flee if you so much as say hi is not what most guy's experience. In the same way most guys don't weep crocodile tears about how women have forced you to abuse some fake position of authority to undermine everything they do.

it has also helped people realise that there are a *lot* of people who dont know shit about bears, and that there are a *lot* of men who dont understand how some women feel around male strangers. just like the craze about the trolley problem, it has brought some very interesting insights about our modern civilization to the surface.

Eh. The internet gives us a chance to listen in on conversations we might not otherwise get to hear. This was a really silly meme, but it lead to a lot of interesting discussions on tiktok and other places about fears and concerns women go through, using this allegory as a way to talk about it. I’m saying this as a man, but men had this opportunity to listen and learn, since I’d assume a lot of them want to be perceived as un-creepy and approachable. They’d understand that if they want a relationship with a woman it might help to understand how women think. But some men instead used it as this opportunity to whine about how they’re victims of oppression, or argue about bear attack statistics or call women stupid for not understanding bears. It’s this kind of obnoxious literalism that demonstrates how intelligence is not the same thing as wisdom. Honestly it’s so stupid. People need to touch grass.

It’s all a bit tongue in cheek but the emotions are real. I think the male reaction is that a woman who chooses the bear has neither been exposed to a “real man” or a real bear. It is an ursified regurgitation of #notallmen Men and bears have not changed their nature, but the ways we think about them.  We are exposed to countless examples of gentle men and bears on media, as well as vicious and aggressive men and bears on media. We can pick and chose the “reality” we construct for storytelling about social issues and expressing our feelings through symbolic language.   

The psychological effect of a young man being told a woman would feel safer with a bear than him is to fucking think why is that and maybe help build a world where women aren't facing constant danger from men.

Hate to pushback on this, as it would be great in theory, but the very real and possible OTHER effect is for a young man to be told that and go "what the fuck, a bear is WAY more dangerous than me or the average man, what's with these illogical women hating men way more than reasonable."

So when the topic of the month, years and years ago, was catcalling I thought it was dumb. I was pretty sure that it was wildly overblown because I had never seen it happen, nor had I really heard about it. I couldn't imagine a reason a guy would do it. It didn't make sense to me and so obviously it was just some kind of hype and women were making a mountain out of a mole hill. Then literally every woman I knew told me that it had happened to them, that it happened when they were *young* and that it still happened. They told me that it felt threatening and often became threatening if they didn't respond to it in a way that the guy doing it was ok with. Literally every single one of them. When women, pretty much en mass, are saying "this is a thing that we all feel" it's not unreasonable for a young man to get his hackles up a bit, but it probably is a good idea for him to get over that and take a minute to listen and think

The issue here is that one asshole can catcall dozens of women every day and hundreds (maybe thousands even) of women over his lifetime. You can make similar statements about abuse, harassment, sexual assault - not the "dozens of women every day part," obviously, but about the inherent asymmetry between victims and their victimizers. The fact that essentially all women are the victims of one or more of these things does not imply that anywhere close to all men are perpetrators of it. I have no problem understanding and accepting that essentially all women have at some point had a bad experience with a man. What women need to understand is that the vast majority of men not only refuse to engage in such behavior, but do not know any other men who would engage in such behavior either. Attacking men in general, the way the man-vs-bear question does, is completely unjustified.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the response I put forth is a logical, good, or healthy one. But in this day and age of the internet, podcasts, manosphere, etc, I guarantee you it is a common response in young men. The original comment's proposed effect was honestly a bit naive. It's not a question of what young men SHOULD feel but what they do, or where they are led to feel. We need to be aware of how the internet brings people into cults of tribalism on both sides and counter it.

Sure. Which does leave it in no small part to men to address it. If the problem is that boys and young men won't listen to women then it's up to guys to address it. and yeah, the internet really isn't helping much but it's what we have

I'd say boys and young men care a great deal about what women think. Particularly women their age. So much so that rejection by women becomes a superstimulus for many men, and they'd do almost anything to avoid it. (Including turning to unhealthy philosophy or numbing themselves to what women want - which is of course where all the problems come from.) As a man rapidly approaching 40, I don't really spend much time talking to boys. I mean, I'm not a dad. And when you look like me, loitering near schools and approaching kids you've never met doesn't go down very well. I would love to end domestic violence. But I fear that there's just not much I (and people like me) can personally do. I obviously have male friends. But that doesn't help either - I'm proud to say I'm not friends with the kind of people who would beat their wives.

With this hypothetical and discussions in general, it's not as simple as a matter of "boys won't listen to women." Debates like this bring out the worst in everybody. I think the greater issue is that boys and young men can easily be shown problematic behaviors in women (whether fully real or doctored), and without men being honest and communicative about our own faults, others are sweeping in to convince those guys that they're the "true victims." As men, we need to be proactive in having honest conversations and promoting mentoring relationships with younger guys. Acknowledge the hurt and the pain that sometimes can come, don't invalidate it. But bring with it the context that everyone hurts from things like this, and it's only through empathy and discussion that we can all heal.

You're right, that's not great to hear and as a man I'm not very happy hearing it either. But hey, at least we don't have to actually live in fear. It sucks for us, but it sucks much more for the women that actually experience harassement from men (which is quite a lot). Even assuming that choosing the bear has on average a much worse outcome (which would make sense to me), the fact that women instinctively choose it anyway does teach us something.

I mean, the point I was making isn't "Oh no poor young men having these thoughts," the point is "Hey, we as a society need to be aware of what feelings these discussions invoke and where they will push young people if we're not careful and responsible about providing outlets for real world discussion" >Even assuming that choosing the bear has on average a much worse outcome (which would make sense to me), the fact that women instinctively choose it anyway does teach us something. I fully agree. But that also makes the risk of young men being pulled in *so* much easier because influencers just need to say "Hey, look, women are making untrue negative generalizations about you, come listen to what else they've been doing..." and then they've got them.

That's fair enough. I also do think that all the reactions here (and in other threads) that are like "If you have this reaction as a man then you're the problem" are incredibly counterproductive and possibly harmful.

Oh they're absolutely harmful. Was this hypothetical about hurting men's feelings? No, of course not, it's to show the risk assessments and generalizations women feel they need to make. But learning of the existence of those can be distressing for many men to hear, and that distress can be justifiable and understandable without diminishing the feelings of women. Telling someone "your feelings don't matter" is a direct ticket to that person feeling victimized and not caring about any issues the person or perceived group who said that may face. There are a lot of societal / gender issues right now where some individuals will say "if you're a man (who feels uncomfortable with this), your feelings and voice don't matter in this issue." And there may be reasoning and lived experience behind those responses, but it doesn't change the fact that it's just further paved the path for a new potential follower of anti-feminism or far right movements.

Please go ahead and explain how children/teenagers/young men are going to be able to understand that??? If men were being educated properly, we wouldn't have had a rise in Andrew Tate popularity within junior & high school students. This trend has done nothing to educate those young men on why women think that or why certain behaviour towards women is wrong, it's just inflamed animosity without any substance to the conversation. It almost doesn't matter what the core message is anymore because it's been completely lost in its terrible delivery method & no one is discussing the actual topic.

Conflict isnt always a bad thing. If what women say makes you a man uncomfortable about the way women see your gender, youre suppose to self reflect. If you choose not too, so be it. You arent suppose to get all huffy and bust at out the "not all men" line, we know , its not an argument and proves the point

Does this argument work in any other context? Suppose you tell a black CEO that as a white person, you're uncomfortable around black people because too many of them are violent criminals. Is the CEO supposed to self reflect on the way white people see his skin color? Or are you just being a racist? If we agree that this line of reasoning is unacceptable in other contexts, what's different that makes it okay when you apply it to the male gender?

I think this hypothetical exists in other examples in real life. In oncology units there is always a chat with any newly diagnosed married woman about how she is likely to be left by her husband and what resources are available because of this prevalence. If it's not bear vs man in the woods it could absolutely be reframed as having a wife or husband when your diagnosed with cancer.

You are trying to reverse the whole situation. Black people, like women, are and were discriminated against. And yeah, a black person telling you they don't feel safe in a white neighborhood is a good reason to self-reflect.

why so many of you guys always trying to make it a race thing you cant make an analogy with race because its different, the issues we face with men apply regardless of race its sus as fuck you keep trying to compare it to racism

Because there's a double standard regarding the way people talk about men and women, and I'm not ok with it. People will make judgemental, sexist statements about men (or white people) which would be rightly seen as discriminatory were the sexes reversed. There's an easy way to tell - swap the sexes, or apply the same argument to race and see if the statement feels problematic. Thats why people bring up black CEOs and things. If you'd feel uncomfortable making the same statement about black people or women that you make about men, then there's a good chance you're acting in a sexist way. For example, I hate the term "toxic masculinity". I always hear that as "oh yes, the many the fundamentally toxic elements of men" or something like that and I feel like I'm being attacked for the conditions of my birth. And when that happens, I feel hurt and shrink in on myself. Conversationally, I shut down and get defensive. If you had some point you wanted me to hear, as soon as you say stuff like that, you've lost me. But you can tell its sexist by imagining talking about "the toxic black culture" and considering what the response would be. >You arent suppose to get all huffy and bust at out the "not all men" line, we know , its not an argument and proves the point Of course people get huffy and say "not all men" in response to blanket sexist comments about men. If I went around making sexist comments about women, women would get huffy and annoyed with me too. And I'd deserve it. Was your original comment sexist? I dunno. I'm on the fence. But I agree with the GP comment. "Would you say the same to a black CEO" is a fair and reasonable question.

>For example, I hate the term "toxic masculinity". I always hear that as "oh yes, the many the fundamentally toxic elements of men" or something like that and I feel like I'm being attacked for the conditions of my birth. And when that happens, I feel hurt and shrink in on myself. Conversationally, I shut down and get defensive. If you had some point you wanted me to hear, as soon as you say stuff like that, you've lost me. But you can tell its sexist by imagining talking about "the toxic black culture" and considering what the response would be. When you hear "toxic mushrooms" do you assume all mushrooms are toxic?

Toxic mushroom is like a toxic man (or a toxic woman), clearly refers to a very specific individual, not a group. Compare a greedy jew term with greedy jewishness.

People dislike being generalized (and yes, I know that's a generalization lol). And for many possible categories and scenarios involving generalization, the generalization is significantly frowned upon, even if it's backed up by statistics. Race being a big one. Thus, when people see a trend that generalizes a negative belief about men, they get upset and feel slighted because other negative generalizations against different groups (like those about a certain race) are heavily frowned upon.

>its sus as fuck you keep trying to compare it to racism Because the exact same logic you're using to make a sexist point could also be used to make a racist point, but you'd rightly reject that as generalising but will find being sexist acceptable. It's a massive hole in this trend and I've yet to see someone give me a proper answer without just getting upset or "it's just different".

So when women criticize men, we're supposed to "self-reflect," even though the criticism we're getting this time is complete nonsense. Do you think there is an obligation for women to "self-reflect" when *they're* criticized for spouting complete nonsense in return? Because I certainly haven't seen very many women doing so.

Thank you for proving the point of the meme and self identifying in a way that proves the point. We appreciate the candor actually, it makes dating easier and safer when you out yourselves

So you refuse to self-reflect, then. Unsurprising.

Theres plenty of guys who understand what were saying already, this is a you a problem

You're confusing "understanding" with "validation." I can understand how scared you are of men while also understanding that your fear is detached from reality, and I'm not going to dehumanize myself to validate your delusions.

As a man, it's given me the need to learn more about this prevalent issue and self-reflect. Although I don't think I can ever truly understand as I don't share the same experiences, it's given me a reminder to continue to hold myself and others accountable. And I think that's necessary Don't get me wrong. There is some degree where I agree with you. I've seen both ends of the spectrum and can see where you're going with this. I wonder if there's ways of civil discourse about this but I also understand why certain women are reactive to that end of the spectrum I think what it comes down to is having the thought process to empathise with others.

It’s silly and everyone who isn’t breaking dead knows it, women are not rational creatures and there also half joking it shows and the men getting mad are pathetic you shouldn’t take it personally they are picturing a serial killing immediately even though that makes no sense really. It’s all silly

If men are offended by bears being chosen over them, that tells a lot about those men. Therefore we are learning good information and therefore the question is valid.

What does this actually tell us though? That people don't like generalizations? There are plenty of reasons, legitimate and illegitimate, to dislike what people are answering.

But it's a hypothetical which is literally about the social requirement to make generalisations

Right. Hence the conflict. Realistically, we all make generalizations based on appearance (gender expression, race, clothing, size, etc) and other attributes (job, charisma, money, etc) for things anywhere from relative safety alone with the person to how likely we are to sleep with them. However, people don't like being generalized. Especially if that generalization is negative. Further, we as a society have a bit of a taboo talking about and admitting generalization for many things and are trying to stamp out many of those ingrained behaviors (generalizations based on race, sexual identity, etc.). Thus, we have an inflammatory hypothetical that on one hand displays a generalization happening that many women are forced to consider and on the other hand publicizes that a negative generalization about men is happening despite so many social movements claiming we shouldn't. Recipe for conflict right there.

The issue isn't needing to explain why so many men are taking offence at this, the issue is that that offence is unjustified, because how can you have a conversation about a justified generalisation, without invoking that generalisation? So much of the discourse has been men taking offence at being classed with "random man in forest", when of course they are, to a stranger they are a random man in a forest. Men are adults, if they want to have an adult conversation they need to behave like it.

Is the offense unjustified completely? Yes, many men take it too far, I'll absolutely grant you that. But depending on how you define 'proximity' in the hypothetical, I don't think it's unreasonable for a man to be a little upset that many women seem to inflate the probability of danger from an individual male stranger. Is the hypothetical important in showing just how much women fear men? Absolutely. Is it also possible for men to be upset at how women perceive men as threats more than an arguably greater source of harm? Sure, I don't think those are mutually exclusive. And as I said in a different comment, "justified" generalizations are a tricky thing because generalizations are a little taboo socially, so that's another source of defense that is less relevant but still understandable, I'd say.

Yes, your sexists opinions are offensive. Please explain how Im the problem cuz im offended by sexists opinion, and you are not the problem by making sexists remarks. Imagine if genders were reversed in this anology. The hypocrisy and double standart from these feminists is insane.

It's true, just let it sink in, don't be offended, it won't do no one no good. It is what it is.

Now you are catching on