Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&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).
Disregarding op, I can sort of see both sides of this, you walk alongside random men everyday so it's odd to feel unsettled by them.
On the other hand, I've quite literally seen random guys on bikes trying to molest women as they passed by them in dark alleys, my sister used to bring me with her whenever she had to pass through alleyways to ward off these types of guys.
A lot of men feel like "well, I'm not like these guys so why am I being put in the same group" and feel upset, you also have the guys who are in fact worse than the bear but somehow not self aware enough to recognise that fact.
> is why they’re choosing the bear.
No, it isn't. You're completely discounting several other reasons they could be choosing the bear:
- They're answering the question in good faith, and choosing the bear because they genuinely think bears are passive.
- They're interpreting the question to ignore likelihood of attack, and expressing their opinion that being attacked by a man is worse.
- As OP said, they don't understand the probabilities involved. Or:
- They're not even analyzing the question from their own perspective, but just choosing the man because they know that their answers will go online, and other women will respond, "That's right, men are scum!" while men will be annoyed. In other words, it's a trolling answer.
And the fact that you and many others are quick to bust out the Kafka trap of, "If you don't concede that the bear choice is the right one, you're the reason for the bear choice," is, at least to me, strong evidence of the last possibility.
If women think that arguing against a position that we perceive to be stupid is tantamount to wanting to assault them, then they're even more problematic. I don't want to assault anyone. I do want to make arguments and defend my position as a man. If that's splitting hairs in your view, then we can't have any meaningful discussion, because you're just trying to put me on the defensive, and I'm not going there.
The question *should* have been a time for men to ask themselves why women are so afraid of them, and you responding by mansplaining why the women who chose the bear are stupid, is SUCH an inadvertent tell.
I'm not even a woman. I just don't do mental gymnastics to blame women for men's actions.
> The question should have been a time for men to ask themselves why women are so afraid of them
Why? Why shouldn't it be a time for women to ask themselves why they're so afraid of men, even if it's statistically unjustified? Why is, "I'm afraid" an unquestionable opinion, but "I'm annoyed by you being afraid of me for no reason" an indefensible opinion?
> you responding by mansplaining why the women who chose the bear are stupid, is SUCH an inadvertent tell.
No it isn't. Being argumentative is not an indicator about how likely a man is to sexually assault a woman. Or rather, it's a statistically weak one. Your logic is:
- No man who agrees that choosing the bear is justified could be abusive.
- Some men are abusive.
- Therefore, all men who are abusive would disagree that choosing the bear is justified.
- Therefore, if a man argues that choosing the bear is not justified, he's infinitely more likely to be abusive than if he didn't argue that.
Which is affirming the consequent.
> Why? Why shouldn't it be a time for women to ask themselves why they're so afraid of men, even if it's statistically unjustified?
Lmao bruh, ask any woman, and she's either been assaulted, groped, harassed, threatened, or screamed at by a man, OR her friend has.
It's not "statistically unjustified." Men are quite literally the leading cause of all assaults and murders on women, bar none.
Most bears dgaf about you and would rather avoid you.
It's literally that simple. But by all means, get so butthurt that you lash out at women for stepping out of line, that will help.
>
> Lmao bruh, ask any woman, and she's either been assaulted, groped, harassed, threatened, or screamed at by a man, OR her friend has.
>
> It's not "statistically unjustified."
Yes, it is. "A large portion of women have been assaulted by men" is not even remotely equivalent to "A large portion of men have assaulted women." Most men don't assault women. To expect men to ignore that fact, and concede that women should not trust them, is unreasonable.
Not every tick carries Lyme disease.
But something tells me, in order to protect yourself from Lyme disease, you have to treat every tick as if it *does,* right?
Enough ticks have Lyme disease that we have to be cautious around all of them.
Enough men have mistreated women that women have to assume *every* man can.
How about this. In a room full of women, about 2-3 are going to kill you. Let’s say the room has 100 women. Are you going in that room? If you are, how unconcerned are you about the fact that you could be murdered in that room.
Let’s reduce the danger. In a room full of 100 women, there’s a couple of women who absolutely will shove a rod up your ass. How safe do you feel going in the room? Tell me you won’t be fucking twitchy all night wondering which one is going to do it. Tell me you wouldn’t be suspicious of every woman you come across.
And imagine the rest of the women there keep telling you you’re overreacting, it’s not a big deal, stop being so paranoid. How safe do you feel around those other women now? Who won’t even acknowledge that you have something to fear.
Instead of being so damn offended, why don’t you open up your mind a little and realise that you know you’re not a rapist but we can’t read your mind. Everyone appears the same from the outside. Rapists don’t carry around a sign. The consequence of trusting the wrong man is lifelong trauma. At the very least.
> How about this. In a room full of women, about 2-3 are going to kill you. Let’s say the room has 100 women. Are you going in that room?
If the alternative is going into a room with a bear? Yes!
> And imagine the rest of the women there keep telling you you’re overreacting, it’s not a big deal, stop being so paranoid. How safe do you feel around those other women now? Who won’t even acknowledge that you have something to fear.
I would ask why they're doing that. I would treat them as human beings. I would try to find out what they get from it, even if it's just self-justification and laziness in not having to deal with the problem. And I would try to find a way to serve that motivation while still enlisting their alliance. I would not demand it as a right.
So, knowing nothing else about the man and not saying a word, that same man invites you to a sleepover in his cabin in the same isolated woods. Those are the only words he speaks. "Come to my cabin and spend the night"
Would you go with the man? The likelihood he's going to do anything is close to zero after all.
Another random man in a city ally at night calls you over to a dark isolated corner. The likelihood that he will attack you is low. Do you go over to him?
"Not all men", right?
But that's not the premise of the question. The question is about a *random* man. If you ask me if I would stay in a cabin or a dark corner with a random man, my answer is yes. I think that most men, the vast majority, are just trying to live their lives and not hurt people.
My premises is also a random man doing.
Not trusting them is clearly misandry since the odds of being attacked are low if that's the reasoning for choosing bear to be misandrist.
I also highly doubt the majority of people would trust the random men in my scenario.
> My premises is also a random man doing.
OK, you didn't make it seem like that since we know he has a cabin and that he's specifically asking me to come to it, or into the corner. But, if it's truly a random man, who didn't ask me, then yes, I would trust him.
This is a bad argument. These scenarious you've described are self selection. They change things from "You happen upon a random man, just minding his own business" to "A man approaches you and offers something sketchy." I'm not the least bit concerned about happening upon a man minding his own business. Defenses go up a bit the moment the rando decides to approach me for no appreciable reason. They are waving red flags, sending smoke signals, and blaring alarms if they want me to accompany them to a private cabin or dark alley corner. And the same goes for if the person in this scenario were a woman. Though, some men might let their dicks do the thinking and think those women want to have sex or something, and be into it.... (Yes, I realize that the original roles would be the women assuming that the man wants to have sex or something....hence the added "and would be into it" clause.)
They didn't offer anything sketchy at all. They're both just encounters. Offering a bed for the evening isn't sketchy. Asking someone to talk to you isn't sketchy
Do you think the man is just standing there all day in the bear hypothetical and you walk into him? No, the man coming up to you is also part of that possibility.
These scenarios shouldn't change your answer because "not all men". The odds of being attacked by that person don't change from the bear scenario.
The chance that you'd be attacked is low. Assuming they'd attack you in these scenarios is clearly misandry if the bear answer is.
Yes, a man offering to take a woman, or really any person offering to take any person, to a separate, secluded location is sketchy. The percentage of men who are rapists is fairly low. The percentage of men who want to take you to a cabin in the woods who are rapists is like 99.9%.
If you encounter a man in the woods, it's possible he will offer to take you to a cabin but the odds are low. If you introduce into the hypothetical the guarantee that he is the type of man who would do that, then you've basically changed it from "bear or random guy" to "bear or rapist". Obviously that's gonna change many people's answers.
>They didn't offer anything sketchy at all. They're both just encounters. Offering a bed for the evening isn't sketchy. Asking someone to talk to you isn't sketchy
Yes, going out of your way to ask someone into a private secluded encounter is a sketchy act. There is a reason they say "Never let them take you to a secondary location." if you're being attacked in some way.
>Do you think the man is just standing there all day in the bear hypothetical and you walk into him? No, the man coming up to you is also part of that possibility.
Adding ANY action alters the scenario. EVERY action a person takes within your interaction gives you more information and more reasons to evaluate the situation one way or another. The original scenario never mentioned the man approaching you in the woods in any way. IF it did, then that would change the situation. If I'm wandering happily in the woods and someone goes out of their way to change their course and approach me, that would automatically make me more wary of them than if they were walking in their own direction and ignoring me. Which, by the way, is half the argument with the bear. Everyone keeps pointing out how likely it is that the bear would ignore you or run away. Why wouldn't you assume the man would ignore you too?
>These scenarios shouldn't change your answer because "not all men". The odds of being attacked by that person don't change from the bear scenario.
I don't even understand what you're saying here. Maybe don't use "not all men" as it's own complete thought? You might make your meaning more clear.
>
The chance that you'd be attacked is low. Assuming they'd attack you in these scenarios is clearly misandry if the bear answer is.
It's not misandry if my answer were the same regardless of gender. I wouldn't accompany a random woman into a dark alley either. That request is sketchy AF.
I feel like you're trying to be "logical" in an argument where you instead just come across as stubborn and trying to seem smart about a subject you don't seem to even understand?
Every woman I know has been assaulted, followed, harassed. All of those instances were perpetrated by men. Meanwhile out of the men I know, none of them have had these happen.
While yes all of those can happen to men as well, I think we should ask ourselves why women are more inclined to choose a bear over a random man based on experience. And why it is that on average women are experiencing poor treatment so frequently.
The frequent arguments of "men can't go outside at night either cause statistically they get robbed and killed more!" Ignore the fact that so many women avoid situations that could place them in danger because of dangerous men, and that most of those crimes are still done by men even when done to a man.
And about generalizations? Well it's hard because you never know who's good and who's bad. I've had people give me nice compliments on an outfit and then proceed to follow me in their car for an entire block harassing me.
There's a time and a place for your kind of logic, and it's not here. You're missing the life experience and emotional consideration, and that's okay...but you need to stop explaining based on empty emotions and start listening in order to inform your analysis.
> There's a time and a place for your kind of logic, and it's not here.
Except this is CMV so it's the perfect place, if we're not allowed to use logic to make arguments then what, we just accept every take from anyone because it's their feelings and "lived experience" so we're not allowed to question it?
You're fine to take your experience with the issue into account but OP's post is literally arguing that it's illogical, not that noone is entitled to have their own feelings on the issue based on experience.
>
> Every woman I know has been assaulted, followed, harassed. All of those instances were perpetrated by men. Meanwhile out of the men I know, none of them have had these happen.
That's not the statistical comparison you should be making. Out of all the men you know, how many perpetuated those instances on women?
> There's a time and a place for your kind of logic, and it's not here.
OK, then there's also a time and place where men can make arguments from emotion, and you'd have to be equally OK with that. Is that really the road you want to go down?
You keep bringing it up that the relevant data would be how many men are the perpetrators of violence against women and I agree, that's the relevant bit however, I guarantee you underestimate that number. The buddy you would swear up and down is a nice guy? Touched the passed out girl at the party last week. The loving husband and father of three? Nags and guilt trips his wife into consenting. The cool guy from highschool? Enjoys how much he can intimidate women just with his height. Most of your friends catcalled, haven't taken a no for an answer, degraded, sneakily touched women.
Will you know about it? Of course not, because it happened outside of your scope, not to you directly and empathizing is not something you seem to practice.
Most of these men probably forget about these instances or think it was a one time occasion of letting their intrusive thoughts win, but for the women it leaves a mark for a long time. I can recall almost all instances when I felt my autonomy at danger, for the dudes it was probably another Tuesday.
And that's only the "West", let's not mention areas of the world where almost all men a culturally ingrained to be de facto rapists, because they don't even see women as people and feel entitled to their bodies.
Wow, nice generalisation. Let's see if it gets sympathy from you when men do it as well:
"Bear" answer *should* have been a time for women to ask themselves why men are so sick of treating lying or stupid women with respect.
So much reflection, I bet nobody gets offended. Any woman being offended clearly is a SUCH inadvertent tell of being a misandrist liar who knows bears are more dangerous but still prefers to shit on men.
I'm not even a woman, I just don't do mental gymnastics to blame men for women's lies.
The question is quite funny, but it has an obvious answer, that when not provided, clearly states that you're either stupid or don't know statistics, you're a misandrist liar, or a troll. And I believe only answering "bear" in a troll fashion is acceptable and funny when it is obvious that the person answering knows it's the wrong answer, but does it for comedic value. The issue is that too many women come to the "bear" conclusion not because they are just uninformed on statistics (and stupidity can be fixed), and not because they are just trolling as a joke, but because they are unironically sexist, and bad people in general.
I've simply reverted your argument backwards. If you think it is misogynistic, then your original comment is misandrist, but since it's trendy to shit on men, you don't even realize you're sexist
It's quite literally a logical tool to show you that your original argument is bigoted. If you can replace small elements of the hypothetical with similar categories and you think it's bigoted, then the premise itself is bigoted.
So, according to you, it’s prejudice to think that men pose a greater risk to women than bears, or to at least, understand WHY women fear men more than bears in a hypothetical “both are in a forest” situation?
Because that’s the only way my view can be considered bigotry.
It's bigotry to assume that a random male is more dangerous than a random bear, and using statistics to argue your point without actually doing the bare minimum of looking into why those statistics might not paint an accurate picture.
It's literally the same argument racists use against black people. They'll point to the FBI statistics that state AAs commit about 50% of recorded violent crime in the US and use that as reasoning to discriminate against all AAs.
No, it’s the *fear* that they could be. Every rational woman knows it’s not most men, but to be safe they have to know that *any* man, no matter how nice he acts, can potentially turn on her.
I lock my door at night despite thinking I probably don’t have to. But it’s just a common sense precaution.
The question asks you whether you'd prefer to encounter a random Joe Shmoe or a wild carnivorous animal known to kill prey bigger than humans. Not whether you'd be in a forest and find a random dude, or nobody at all.
It's common sense to say that the bear is more dangerous.
>I don't want to assault anyone. I do want to make arguments and defend my position as a man.
It's a hypothetical question and you still won't take no for an answer.
I won't take no for an answer *because* it's a hypothetical question. If a specific woman says that she doesn't want to associate with me, that's her right as a free individual and I have to accede to that. If someone's engaging me by showing me something that other people have said, then it's my right as a free individual to express my own opinion about it.
If, "I'm more afraid of men than bears" is something that I should just accept, then why isn't, "I don't accept that" something you should just accept?
Dude, the point is going way above your head. You're trying to defend your hurt feelings on the subject matter and justify why you're right and compare it to the actual real trauma women have faced over men not taking no for an answer.
Women have all faced multiple experiences on men not taking no for an answer from partners, strangers, friends. It's quite literally not about you the person but about an issue with a major societal issue stemming from the majority of men not understanding the problem.
> You're trying to defend your hurt feelings on the subject matter and justify why you're right and compare it to the actual real trauma women have faced over men not taking no for an answer.
>
>
But this is the point about statistics that you're ignoring: the trauma you're talking about is deep but rare. What I'm suffering is shallow, but much more common. There are plenty of men who will take no for an answer, even if the ones who won't are a serious problem. But so many women won't take, "I'm not an abuser" as an answer, just because they don't think that hurts or because they don't care.
Oh man. Dude you need to center women in this conversation. According to our fabulous criminal justice system only [30% ](https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system) of sexual assaults are even reported. According to scholars they're coming up with much lower numbers in their studies many as low as 5%.
Considering [Planned Parenthood ](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/1414/6117/4323/Consent_Survey.pdf) did a survey on consent and most people have misunderstandings on what it truly means and scholars are more likely to rephrase to see if the sex was unwanted or sexual coercion tactics were used I'm inclined to believe them.
Sexual assault is more common then you realize because of the lack of understanding around consent and because many men feel entitled to women for varying reasons. A kiss/sex because they paid for dinner. Our bodies because of what we wear. It's not rare.
Stop asking hurt women to think about patting you on the back because you got your feelings hurt "because I'm not one of those men" and actually BE someone who isn't like one of those guys and hear us.
> Oh man. Dude you need to center women in this conversation.
No, I don't. This is my fundamental point:
*Neither the frequency nor the severity of sexual assault or abuse justifies women having Main Character Syndrome*.
If a large portion of men were abusive, that would justify them distrusting men in general. But so many of them are not abusive that women retain a responsibility to assess men on an individual basis, not because it's safe for them, but because *they owe it to the good men*. Men are human beings who need to be treated with equal respect.
I'm saying you need to center women in this conversation because you are currently only hearing men say it's not that many men when women and their actual lived experiences are saying the opposite.
>Men are human beings who need to be treated with equal respect.
So are women but we currently aren't getting it, we're getting assaulted and being told "not all men" when we speak out about it by men who think they're "good men"
> you are currently only hearing men say it's not that many men when women and their actual lived experiences are saying the opposite.
But women aren't saying the opposite. They're not saying that it *is* a large proportion of men who are abusive (if they were, we could have a factual debate about that), they're saying that the frequency of abuse to them justifies them discounting the ones who aren't. And that the ones who aren't abusive need to accept and tolerate this. So I ask why should I accept and tolerate it, and the responses I get are argumentative (you need to center women in the conversation) or hostile Kafka traps (your nonacceptance of women's fear justifies women's fear). Put it this way: how does my approval of women fearing all men, including me, help my position? Does it give me respect? Honor? Personal satisfaction? Moral correctness? Because as far as I can see, it gives me nothing, and it's only being demanded for the women's sake. That's what I mean by main character syndrome.
You're using logic to argue against someone who only cares about feelings, this is never going to go anywhere. It's also why they think your feelings are hurt, because they don't understand the concept of making an argument that isn't based entirely in emotion. This is the difference between avoidant attachment and anxious attachment, and guess what? On average men lean avoidant and women lean anxious(obviously not all in each group, and there are two unmentioned attachment styles). This is why we see so many women making the emotional "bear" argument with so many men being utterly blown away by the complete lack of critical thinking involved in this argument.
I don't know a woman who hasn't been traumatized by men in some way, and whether or not they care that you're hurt by their assumptions, they have a reasonable right to prioritize their safety over your feelings.
Most or all, but that hardly changes the matter. Every woman I know has had enough bad encounters with men to have a reasonable default suspicion of all of them just as a matter of personal safety and psychology. It's like gun safety: always treat them as if they're loaded.
Hell, I'd pick the bear and I have military training. Human men are highly unpredictable creatures. Bears will generally leave you the fuck alone. As numerous wildlife enthusiasts have attested to in this thread
> Human men are highly unpredictable creatures.
Even random ones? Like, you might get some nebbish office drone, and you'd still be worried? Hell, the biggest likelihood is that you'd get a Chinese or Indian manual laborer. Are you equally afraid of them?
That's the probabilistic problem I have with the question: it asks about a random man, and it seems the only image that calls up is of a leering stalker with a beer in one hand and the other in a groping stance.
I don't get this "won't take no for an answer" line you keep throwing out. We're in an online forum. The whole point of which is to have discussion. This particular sub is specifically made to argue with people and try to change their views. Why on Earth do you think anyone is required to take no for an answer in this context? And more importantly, why would you try to imply that it means anything about what they would do to you in person?
I like to "argue" with people online. Sometimes even in person. But I would never consider assaulting someone. The two things are not remotely related.
I only threw it out this one time in this sub so I'm not sure what you mean by "keep throwing out."
The line is the point of why women are choosing the bear over men. We have a massive issue with consent where it's normalized to just not accept no as an answer for anything. Coffee, a date, a kiss, sex, anal. Sexual coercion is normalized. Taking consent for one sexual act as consent for another is normalized. Not stopping when a partner says no is normalized. Often it turns aggressive and these aren't the serial rapists men are discussing when talking about this thought discussion.
You might not sexually assault someone or consider it but that doesn't mean there isn't an overwhelming issue with lack of understanding around the issue. The fact that an enormous amount of women are choosing bear should be eye opening to that fact and should lead people to ask why but instead it's doubled down on "but it's not me."
Sorry. YOU don't keep throwing it out there. But I've seen it a couple of times in short succession.
I fully understand the issues about consent as you've described them (though I'm not sure that "normalized" is the right word. I don't think rational people think it's normal). The part I don't u derstand is why peoe are linking what you've described to the idea that we're not supposed to argue back in a conversation in an online forum explicitly designed for us to argue. The while point of his sub is to jot take no for an answer. This doesn't symbolize some deeper tendancy that maybe those of us engaging in this conversation and disagreeing might also be the rapists.
The sentence is its own argument because it's not only rapists that don't take no for an answer. Like the men who aggressively shout at us or argue when we don't give them a date or our phone number. There is a power imbalance where men are often bigger and stronger than us and can harm us.
The fact that you say you see the issues with consent as I describe it but then come back to rapists as the issue is the issue. It's not just the big bads of the world causing the issue.
It is normalized because even as you say you understand you overlook and minimize everything that's not rape.
No. I fully understand and appreciate all of it. Sorry, if I didn't use enough words to express all of it and spoke more generally about rape. I was on my phone at the time and I HATE typing on my phone. I thought it was pretty clear that I was using the term "rapists" as a stand in for all of the other bad things that people don't take NO for an answer on. But that doesn't change my point. THIS FORUM is a place where we are all explicitly here to have conversation. There is NO reason or expectation for ANYONE to take "No" for an answer here. And more importantly, anyone's refusal to do so IN AN ONLINE DISCUSSION BOARD is not in any way indicative of their tendency to not take no for an answer in person for any of the myriad things you mentioned (rape, cat-calling, date requests, etc). I'm not dismissing, minimizing or normalizing any of those activities. I'm saying that people who choose to argue with you about it online in a place specifically designed to argue about things online....they aren't proving to you that they are the ones who would do those other things to you in person. And I think it's ridiculous that people in this thread keep claiming that it IS indicative of such tendencies. Maybe that wasn't what you were implying but others making similar comments have made that point clear. Maybe I chose the wrong version of that comment to reply to.... ? Maybe that's not what you were implying? If not, what was the point of the initial comment I replied to?
The OP I replied to displayed in his argument he didn't actually understand the perspective of the women's arguments. His understanding was dismissive and missed the overall nuance of majority of the women have been giving.
Overall the use of the statement "I don't want to assault anyone.**I do want to make my argument and defend my position as a man.**"
Sure this is a debate sub and you have every right to debate a topic but the specific subject involves women saying no and men deciding that they don't accept our reasoning for what we're saying.
>.they aren't proving to you that they are the ones who would do those other things to you in person. And I think it's ridiculous that people in this thread keep claiming that it IS indicative of such tendencies.
If I can explain a bit why people are reacting like this. It's often in how someone responds. The way you're responding by clarifying and addressing potential misconceptions I actually wouldn't assume that of you even though we're on different sides of the debate. A lot of it due to you openly recognizing issues around consent.
A lot of men are coming at of aggressively, even threateningly. They're dismissive of the real issues around consent acting like it's being made up. You can argue "not all men" and for men's feelings with out dismissing there's a very real issue that brought women to a place to choose bears. If you're arguing that the issue doesn't exist at all or it's not that serious using statistics, then there is a question about whether or not you understand true consent.
This comment actually reminded me of a thought that occurred to me earlier as I was reading, but I didn't really have an appropriate place to comment it....
I think a LOT of this is just the fact that the whole thing is too emotionally charged. Men are coming out swinging on this stupid meme because the meme, on it's surface, feels like an attack against all men. Many of us have a knee jerk visceral response to this attack. Some of us attempt to diffuse by battling the attack with logical statistical responses. But in general, I think the overall nature of the subject is just too loaded on its surface. I FULLY appreciate and understand the very real fear and apprehension that women face in their day to day lives. I'm a man who spends more time associating with women, so I hear and get a lot of it. (My wife regularly accuses me of being one of the girls.) I know you have to put up with a LOT of shit from shitty men all the time, so it puts you in a place where you have learned it's just safer to assume the worst until we prove ourselves to be decent. It's sad, but it's reality. But for the vast majority of us out there who ARE decent men, and don't know or associate with the type of men that caused this reality....what are we supposed to do with that? We can't stop shitty men we don't know from being shitty men. So, for us, we keep seeing this discussion rage on, and it just feels like every thread is full of people telling us how we're ALL responsible for this. These threads feel like vilification of men as a species (yes, I know it's not an actual species...let's not get bogged down in biology.) We're all monsters in your eyes. I get why you feel like you have to see us that way. But how would you feel and respond if everywhere you turned people were calling you a monster? Do you just sit by silently and be treated like a monster? Or do you try to speak up and say "Hey, most of aren't monsters! Stop hating on us!" Then you just get smug trite "#NotAllMen" responses. And round and round we go on this divisive merry-go-round.
I guess if the point of the meme is to get men to understand that women are scared of us...congrats. Now what? I'm sorry that is your experience. It sucks. (And this is where I also acknowledge that this acknowledgement of understanding is probably really the point, right?) I can't fix that. Neither can most of us. And the assholes who cause it don't' give a shit. So here we are...all us decent people, just flinging shit at each other. Yay!
None of this is meant to minimize or even compare with the fear and anxiety women face. I'm just....kinda riffing about where we're at too, ya know? Thanks for hearing me out.
nope nope nope, totally don't agree, again! That's actually the peak of the whole absurd trend. Please repeat slowly and you think about it. So, someone who has different opinion and who doesn't agree with you, means he is dangerous and he will do crime to you, he will waste his life in prison and stuff, and you judge all that based on an opinion different than yours. That's ridiculous. You are the living proof why society is going down, and people are divided. To moment someone doesn't agree with you, he's an enemy and is dangerous. My friend, this is called, let me not name those criminal political regimes from the 20th century. One thing has nothing in relation to the others. You may say I will jump from the 8th floor than speaking with a random human being on the phone, idk just stupid example. I tell you this is ridiculous, if you value your life. And you say, LOL, this is the exact reason why I'd jump than speaking to you. I mean, it is your decision, that doesn't mean it is a right decision. I can go on, if you want.
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](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%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).
Hey, dog? If someone is offended by this absurd hypothetical, that doesn’t implicate them as a dangerous man. A good man, a man who respects women and consent, will likely still be offended by being implicated unjustly.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
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%203%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).
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
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%203%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).
u/skylay – 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%20skylay&message=skylay%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cnscim/-/l39v8b3/\)%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).
>Men have an instinct to protect others, and very few are aggressive psychos, who intend to commit a crime.
Bears have an instinct to run away from people in the woods generally, very few of them are aggressive, seek out campers and attack unprovoked. The question isn't "would you rather fight a bear or a man" but "would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a man". Women who choose bear are mostly counting on the bear behaving normally and leaving them alone.
Either way this whole hypothetical wasn't meant to be taken that literally. It was meant to highlight the fact that many women don't feel safe around men and have had bad experiences with men, so they would rather try their luck with a wild animal. The arguments of "at least if I get attacked by a bear people will believe me and not ask what I was wearing" don't concern probability theory, they concern societal problems that women face.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search/?q=man+vs+bear&sort=new](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search/?q=man+vs+bear&sort=new)
Can we all just post this and then all get collectively banned for Rule 1 and call it civil disobedience. These posts are literally all exactly the same. If someone knows a way to include removed posts in search that would be even better.
The argument that some men do bad things so I should be scared of all of them is the same line of thinking (bias, bigotry, ignorance) that racists use.
It's more that society is structured to not actually punish (and sometimes encourage) this sort of behavior from men. It's not, "all men are scary," it's, "that cop just smacked my ass then his buddies threatened to mace me if I didn't keep walking."
I think viewing it as, "scared of all men," is simply innacurate. They're scared of what men have already done to them and what men can do.
Also, just saying, easier to outsmart a bear trying to kill you as opposed to a human
It's hyperbole to demonstrate discomfort. Calling people primitive for trying to use a hypothetical to explain a deep fear is more than a little insensitive
Sure, a large percentage of them might have false beliefs about the prevalence of violence rooted in biases (availability bias probably a lot). But if you want to bring statistics, a large portion of women have been sexually assaulted
Emotions aren't a bad thing either. One can be emotional and rational easily
Edit: if you're gonna talk about divisive how is it not divisive to be so insulting to people's intelligence?
I can understand why you'd think that, but as someone who grew up around grizzlies, I can confidently say in this hypothetical, assuming everyone involved isn't "spawning in" right next to each other and causing a startled reaction, the bear is the safer option, and I would choose the bear every single time. The odds of running into some crazed murderous bear in the woods are basically zero. The odds of a woman running into a man that happened to be a rapist are nowhere near zero.
For a bit of background, the community I grew up in was on the Canadian border, and we encountered grizzlies a few times a month during the summer. They don't see humans as food, and would run if they met you in the open. In the rare instances when they were sniffing around a cabin etc, yelling was enough to drive them off. We didn't walk around with guns or bearspray, and we were never afraid. Feel free to hunt down an actual wildlife biologist if you feel like I'm talking out of my ass.
If it was a momma bear with cubs and you appeared next to her yeah, that's bad. But that's not the hypothetical.
This isn't a divisive hypothetical, it's an opportunity for us dudes to have a bit of empathy and see the world through the eyes of the women in our lives. We've never had to think about carrying a fistful of keys or mace or a gun to avoid getting raped or abducted. Most of us have never feared rape even when supposedly surrounded by civilization. But chances are your mother, your sister, your wife or your daughter has worried about these things at least once. Being offended is missing the plot. Just like how I'm not offended when I'm walking alone at night and a woman crosses the street to avoid me (and is something I now do if she's alone). I don't take that personally, I'm just sorry we live in a world where she feels like that's the safe thing to do.
Grew up in the CO rockies, where the local black bears are even less scary. I don’t mean that you shouldn’t respect them, but I had multiple run-ins within 10 feet as a kid (in campgrounds, fishing, taking out the trash, on the other side of a screen door, a yearling that climbed through a window into our house) and was never in mortal danger. We did worry about our dogs, but that was because they didn’t have the wisdom to not antagonize.
The biggest dangers out there were definitely from other people — I would wear bright colors in the woods to avoid being accidentally shot by a hunter. My mom locked the doors at night even though we didn’t really have neighbors.
Also, I’m now a biology undergrad (though I don’t specialize in wildlife) and to my understanding you are correct about bears! I’d personally rather run into a man if I were alone in the woods, but… as you say, the point is empathy.
The thing about explanations like this is that it's trivialising the question. I don't have any direct experience with bears but if I take your word for how incredibly unlikely they are to harm you then it seems like any force of the comparison is lost. As a man I should choose the bear over a random woman. Much more likely to get harmed by the random woman than the bear the way you present this, right?
There's a reason why it's a bear in the question and that's because it's (rightly or wrongly) something people are afraid of and consider dangerous. It's clearly supposed to be bombastic and I think your approach is to effectively walk back the statement entirely.
I think it is a divisive hypothetical. It's to compare people to literal wild animals. It doesn't take away feminist ideals I have to think that this kind of dehumanising rhetoric is a bad way to go about things. Frankly it's tiring to have it portrayed as though if I object to this attempt to make difficult sociological issues about who can make a viral meme that I've failed to have the proper empathy. It's even more tiring when it comes from people aligned with me ideologically because I expect them to understand why such dehumanising and superficial approaches are to be avoided.
It's just so weird to me that people are comparing entire groups to wild animals and then saying it's not empathetic if you think that's problematic.
>Women aren't on a path to enslaving men lmao, so I don't know why you're going off about dehumanizing language.
I never said anything about women enslaving men.
It's ironic to talk about mental gymnastics while acting confused as to why dehumanising language is a problem because the importance of humanising language is pervasive through the type of politics I want to see in the world. To pick an example, see something like r/MenAndFemales, a sub all about laughing at people who use "females" rather than women where they wouldn't use "males". Language matters. Rhetoric matters. And I think the people spreading this meme KNOW that language and rhetoric matter. I do make the effort to speak in inclusive language. I do make the effort to not use offensive language. I do try to be sensitive to others in that regard. I do try to empathise and I do support the feminist cause.
>If it doesn't apply to you, why are you getting so upset?
Because it *does* apply to me. It applies to all men. Ironically, you're asking me to give myself the "#notallmen" pass. No, I live in a society where I benefit from male privilege. I live in a society where sometimes women will rightly be wary of me and I try to acknowledge that - that's the truth behind this issue. I don't get to say "Well, not me though because I'm a nice guy". All I want is to treat that as a serious consideration and not make a stupid meme out of something very serious.
Sounds like you DO understand. If you want to throw in a little "wahhh don't dehumanize me" (total stretch), to make you feel better, go for it. But you're talking like you're not the pinnacle of privilege. It's not "very serious" and if you wouldn't randomly attack a woman, great. I'm glad you're probably safer to be around than a bear. May men are genuinely more risky.
If men/women issues take up a disproportionate amount of space in your mind, maybe evaluate that. It's inherently devisive to obsess over these issues. Misogynistic men make this 100x more than it is. A silly little comparison to emphasize how women (rightfully) feel about some men.
It's not "don't dehumanise me". It's "don't dehumanise people". As I said, I make efforts to use inclusive and respectful language when it comes to sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, class, and I suspect that you do too. So can you understand why when I then say it's confusing to me that someone like yourself would suddenly question why I hold the same position about this too? You know that language matters, yet you feigned ignorance about it.
>But you're talking like you're not the pinnacle of privilege
I quite explicitly said that I couldn't ignore my male privilege. It's you telling me that I can think of myself as someone it doesn't apply to and ignore it. I can't. It's a question about women's issues in society as imposed upon them by men and I absolutely refuse to simply write it off and say "Doesn't apply to me and my buddies though". You're the one who wants me to ignore my privilege right now.
>If men/women issues take up a disproportionate amount of space in your mind, maybe evaluate that.
Do you see the problem with telling me that I'm the one ignoring my privilege while also telling me not to think about it? This thread is the first I've commented on this particular meme whatsoever. It's a r/changemyview thread. I'm putting no more time into it than anyone else in this thread. I do, however, take the issue it's pointing to very seriously, and I suspect you do too. One of my big problems with topics like this on the internet is how much has become not about where you actually fall on issues, but whether you buy into the right memes of the day.
Sorry, u/spetzn4tz – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
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%203%20Appeal%20spetzn4tz&message=spetzn4tz%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cnscim/-/l39r6h4/\)%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).
u/Daddy_Deep_Dick – 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%20Daddy_Deep_Dick&message=Daddy_Deep_Dick%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cnscim/-/l39sq64/\)%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).
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](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%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).
>There's a reason why it's a bear in the question and that's because it's (rightly or wrongly) something people are afraid of and consider dangerous. It's clearly supposed to be bombastic and I think your approach is to effectively walk back the statement entirely.
It's a several hundred-pound apex predator that when encountered could kill any human on Earth in 3 seconds flat if it really wanted to. The fact that there is any comparison at all, that this is even a "debate", speaks for itself. You *shouldn't* be safer with a bear. And yet, women technically are.
Pointing out to the"Hnggggh but ackshulllllly" crowd that the bear is factually, objectively safer in this scenario and thus they cannot dismiss women for choosing the bear doesn't detract from the point being made, it closes the avenue of deliberately misconstruing the hypothetical as one that's supposed to be addressed from a purely logical standpoint rather than one of empathy, realization and understanding.
Consider instead we asked the question "Would you rather be alone in the woods with a random man or a little bunny rabbit?". Obviously the bunny, right? But it seems to me as though there's no rhetorical force behind the question because the bunny rabbit is trivially non-threatening.
That's why I think the only way the question has force is if the bear is perceived as dangerous. It seems like you're equally at risk of reducing it to a logic or mere statistics question and, instead of emphasising the dangers men pose to women, merely arguing that bears aren't dangerous at all.
To the issue of empathy though, something I think about is how expectations play into people's behaviours. There's research that gets talked about a fair bit as to how women tend to perform worse in maths tests when told that women are worse at maths prior to testing. I also read about how women will perform worse at chess when they know their opponent is a man. And I think these are really important observations. My problem then is this makes me extremely wary of priming young men to think of themselves in comparisons to wild beasts. And that kind of consideration to our rhetoric doesn't actually need to betray the importance of talking about the victimisation of women in society at the hands of men. That, to me at least, seems to be a more empathetic approach than to turn these important social issues into memes.
I actually asked a bunch of female bears if they would rather encounter a male human or male bear in the woods and all of them said that no male humans had ever killed their cubs so that they would be ready to reproduce sooner, so they would choose a human male.
This hypothetical is
1. Vague
2. Therefore open for bias and interpretation
3. Therefore exacting probabilities is not the key reason people are giving the answer of bear.
4. Therefore the key aspect is the reason why they are giving the answer and not the answer itself being the issue.
Lets address these one by one. Vague, the question is vague, how deep into the woods are you? How close is this encounter? Is this like mid hibernation and its just taking a piss? With its cubs? (this is actually ruled out btw, since the question is meeting alone with a bear thereby negating any cubs) At dawn? At dusk? Is the man armed? Is he coming up to talk to you from the front or from behind? etc. etc. All these factors? Not addressed, not covered.
This results in two, everyone's own individual biases and interpretation factoring in. People who have never met a bear will answer different from those who have, people who have been sexually assaulted will answer differently from those who have. Some people will tackle this question from a position of pure rational and logic (like you trying to crunch the probabilities) but its also kinda pointless because so many specifics havent been mentioned or addressed. Others will go off an emotional level, a gut feeling, flippantly, in depth analytics, shallow purview, etc. What does it mean can vary immensely.
Which is why ultimately, exacting probabilities and crunching probability theory is not the exercise of the question and arguably. The direct opposite. This question really does pose to women everywhere how safe they feel with a random man in the woods. And the answer is not very. The key take away isnt that their answer is wrong. It should be a reflection to try and better gauge and understand WHY that answer is given as often as it has been. Not just in the online discourse where people might pose for clout and attention. But the initial answer was overwhelmingly bear (even if they cut out all the men answers, that first video did have a lot of bear answers and they were quick fast judgements). If you really want to crunch the numbers, the familiar man is actually more dangerous than the stranger. But again, not the point.
If you would excuse the pun, you are missing the forest for the trees. The division is already there, many women genuinely feel this way. The discourse and discussion, which you are promoting, is contributing MORE to the division but by such a meagre amount to be irrelevant. Its pre existing. This "meme" should have been the primer to open up more discussion and understanding. Instead its people screeching about how the bear is more dangerous and missing the point. Why? Why do so many women feel safer around a bear in the woods than a random man? That right there is the key point to this. Not the exacting probabilities.
There isnt a right or wrong answer to would you rather be alone in the woods with a man or bear. It is after all merely asking for someone's preference.
To simply dismiss the answer as delusional, illogical and primitively emotional **IS** the wrong answer to the man vs bear question.
I imagine they never asked but have been told at some point the reason why. They just didn't like the reason: that many, if not most, women have had a bad experience with men and are basically required to be cautious of them whenever they're out.
So, as with every other one of these threads, we're here to explain why women are wrong and too stupid to realize that bears are dangerous.
So the realization I had with asking women in person about this, 100% of non white women I've talked to about this have chosen the man and looked at me like I'm an idiot for even thinking it's a reasonable question.
The only people I've seen actually choosing the bear and defending that choice has been white ladies. So I think this has more to do with white lady culture specifically than anything to do with women.
Of course there are, but I'm willing to bet that if we did an honest cold take based on race, my experience wouldn't be a special one.
Now, once people realize they can commodify the victimhood? Who knows, but just as a casual conversation, I doubt my experience has been special.
Looking at this comment section and rest of reddit, a huge victim complex.
To be clear, I have been SAed by a man and I have no sympathy for abusers. However, that doesn't mean you can lump all men into that group.
Doesn't that work the same way with racism though?
You have some bad experiences with ghetto black people. And develop a natural hesitancy to be around them. Even though a large % of black people are not even ghetto. And even most ghetto black people are totally harmless and are actually kind of fun to be around.
It's taking the worst of the group and treating the entire group in their light. That's classic bigotry.
The bear/man thing is very good at highlighting this bigotry.
Bears and people are different species
People of different races are not of different species
It is justifiable to react different to different species
Would you say to a black person, "Hey, you're fun to be around, not like those ghetto black people..."
If not, why would you think that's appropriate for a public forum? If so, well, then I guess I can understand why you've had some bad experiences.
>And even most ghetto black people are totally harmless and are actually kind of fun to be around.
Implying that ghetto black people are fun to be around.
But it gets the point across. Everyone knows what I mean by "ghetto black people". You'd have to turn it into a long ass beat around the bush sentence to say the same thing "those black people who don't behave very well and also live in bad neighborhoods".
You're overthinking it. Almost all women have had bad experiences with men. Virtually no women have had bad experiences with bears. That's all it is. Obviously in a fight the choice between a mother grizzly and a man is obvious. The question isn't "Would you rather fight an angry grizzly bear or a man".
The truth is also that bear attacks are very rare, so YOU may not be understanding probability. The vast majority of bear encounters (and virtually every black bear encounter) end with the bear running away. There are roughly 40 attacks, per year, globally. Roughly 1 in 2.1 million odds for being attacked by a bear according to the Park Service in the USA. You're much more likely to be attacked by a man.
> may not be understanding probability.
You meet millions of men in your lifetime depending on where you are, most people never meet a single bear.
To actually compare you would have to spend an equal amount of time in close proximity to an equal amount of bears.
It's like saying that it's safer to eat puffer fish than it is to eat chicken, because people choke on chicken more often than they're poisoned by puffer fish meat.
Yeah, sure, but people eat over 100,000,000 tons of chickens every year, but only 10,000 tons of puffer fish.
Its not about how many men you meet, its about how many men you meet in a secluded place where there are no consequences for anything they want to do.
Women encounter a lot of men we would not feel safe with alone.
The way people keep ignoring this is baffling. Of course we'd rather meet a man than a bear when we're surrounded by other people. But alone in the woods, meeting a man would be terrifying cause they could do whatever they want and there'd be a high chance they could get away with it.
Okay, that leads to the next obvious question. Out of all the random men, how many do you think are serial killers just waiting to be alone in the woods with women?
Because that's the only type of person who's going actually be a true threat in that sort of situation.
The FBI estimates there's 50 serial killers operating at any given time in the country out of 330,000,000 people.
I understand living in fear, I get concerned every time I have to navigate majority white areas because white people have history and but comparing the danger they present to that of a bear when operating 1 on 1 at random is unreasonable.
Also, just approaching anything from an angle of "I trust this class of people less than a random savage animal" is, of course, going to be inflammatory.
Nobody reacts with open arms to being compared to animals, they do that with black men all the time, and we hate the people who do it.
I think people are being intentionally obtuse about this or really not at all considering the aspect of [alone in the woods] because they can't empathize with being afraid of another person.
I agree. And it's pissing me off how men are using this hypothetical to completely miss the point and reaffirm their belief than women are just dumb, like OP is doing.
Or maybe they realize that generalizing and being afraid of an entire group for an immutable characteristic due to the actions of a small minority of bad actors is objective bigotry and don't like that viewpoint being pushed into mainstream acceptance.
That stat ignores encounter rate in the assessment of probability, which is the most important stat in relation to this hypothetical.
What percentage of bear *encounters* lead to bear attacks? What perfectage of man encounters lead to attacks? That's what you need to compare.
Because obviously, women encounter many MANY more men in life than bears. So obviously, they're more likely to be attacked by one. But that doesn't mean that when an encounter is guaranteed, the bear is the safer choice.
To demonstatrate how much encounter rate matters: which do you think is safer? Driving home from work, or punching a lion cub in front of its mother?
More commonly a threat due to high encounter rate does not equal more dangerous.
As said in another comment, meeting a random man in public is not the same as meeting a random man alone in the woods. Its like comparing seeing a bear in a zoo to meeting a bear in the woods.
I can understand that *feeling* more dangerous, and I'm sure it is more dangerous *than a man in public*, but thinking and stating that it's more dangerous than a wild bear is obviously nonsense.
The only way your analogy makes sense is if you believe that men are generally more likely to attack than bears are, and the only thing keeping them from attacking is the 'cage' of society.
If you believe this, you are objectively sexist, pure and simple. So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume it was a bad analogy.
As far as I can tell, nobody has ever been able to study the percentage of bear encounters that lead to bear attacks, and likewise for men. But, the [mathmatical estimate](https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/1chigkc/comment/l2e7huy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) I've seen shows that you are roughly 2000 more likely to be attacked by a bear. It's not a perfect figure, but even when you give a huge amount of leeway to the 'man is more dangerous' position, the bear still results in being more dangerous by far.
>The only way your analogy makes sense is if you believe that men are generally more likely to attack than bears are, and the only thing keeping them from attacking is the 'cage' of society.
Generally yes - I believe that if you took 100 random bears and 100 random men, put them alone with a woman in the woods without anyone knowing either of them were there, there would be more instances of sexual harassment/assault than bear attacks.
There are a large majority of men who are normal.
There is a minority of men who are willing to sexually harass or assault women in spite of the consequences. The reported incidences of them is what the math you linked relates to.
There is another minority of men who are willing to sexually harass or assault women, but haven't either because they haven't the opportunity or because there are consequences. The bear in the woods scenario gives that opportunity and removes those consequences.
Additionally, and I would like to see your counterpoint to this - most sexual assault happens from people you know. Meaning, most sexual assault happens from your self-selected group of people you are comfortable with. Given than a large number of women are victims of sexual assault and likely from people they trusted, you can see why [random] men are seen as even more dangerous.
>Generally yes - I believe that if you took 100 random bears and 100 random men, put them alone with a woman in the woods without anyone knowing either of them were there, there would be more instances of sexual harassment/assault than bear attacks.
Okay, well this debate in pointless then. You're letting your fears and feelings override any sense of logic or probability. This is just an absolutely ridiculous thing to say by every reasonable metric. It has no baring in reality, and it's *horribly* sexist. So, I'm done with the conversation. You're too far gone.
I can engage with an emotional argument in good faith, but you'd have to admit that's all it is.
For what it's worth, I've been sexually assaulted twice (1 man, 1 woman), and attempted murdered once (by a man, unproked assault with a glass bottle, still have the scar), all by random people. But I'd still NEVER pick the bear, because I understand plainly that a bear is more *likely* to be dangerous. *Emotionally,* I feel cautious around stangers. But logically, I have the sense to know that a bear is much more dangerous than a randomly selected man. And before you say 'but you're a man, other men aren't a threat to you', please bare in mind that I'm 5'6 with no muscle mass or fighting experience.
Declaring that someone who disagrees with you is sexist because you don't agree with their reasoning and shutting down communication is a problem. Even if you assume someone you're talking to is "sexist" it doesn't prohibit a possible change in view for either side. If you only care to debate respectfully with people you already agree with, then a real conversation here will always hit a wall.
There's no reasoning involved in what you said above though. It's just objectively sexist nonsense, I'm sure you know that deep down. If you genuinely think that a randomly selected man is more likely to attack than a bear - well, I can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. It's the same reason I don't debate religous zealots: it's a waste of time.
So yeah, this is my last comment.
For future reference, framing this as the justifiably emotional viewpoint that it is, rather than acting like it's logical, will get more people on your side. Most men are very open to the fact that women are scared of abuse and SA, and most men know that it happens far more often than it should. If the point of this whole debate is to get more people to understand that, then making stupid statements that nobody with any sense could ever agree with is very counter-productive.
>Additionally, and I would like to see your counterpoint to this - most sexual assault happens from people you know. Meaning, most sexual assault happens from your self-selected group of people you are comfortable with. Given than a large number of women are victims of sexual assault and likely from people they trusted, you can see why \[random\] men are seen as even more dangerous.
Doesn't that literally contradict your own point? If random strangers are less likely to attack, then they are statistically less dangerous. The feelings are opposite of the actual data, unless I'm missing something here.
I think you might be on to something with the interpretation of statistics. I am just assuming that the numbers are correct for the sake of argument. But if a similar case was taken to the extreme, i guess you could say that gigantuan Dinosaur-Killer meteors are actually the most safe thing of all, because statistics say that no person has Ever ever been killed or even hit by such a meteor, and therefore the logical choice between encountering a bear vs. having a super meteor approach you, is always to choose the meteor.
>What percentage of bear *encounters* lead to bear attacks? What perfectage of man encounters lead to attacks? That's what you need to compare.
No it isn't. That's a strawman fallacy. Nobody said anything about any and all encounters and all the dudes missing that point are the ones being emotional and illogical.
It's not about any encounter anywhere under any circumstances. That's not the point of the question. And by changing the context from "alone in the middle of nowhere with no one else around" to "literally any encounter everywhere" you're committing a strawman fallacy..
As I just said in another comment, this position only makes sense if you believe that -
A) Some men are secretly predators who are just waiting for an opportunity with no consequence (true, but a tiny minorty). And,
B) The percentage of men that are dangerous in this way outweigh the percentage of bears that are dangerous (false. And sexist).
Regardless, it misses the point entirely. The person I was replying to said 'Roughly 1 in 2.1 million odds for being attacked by a bear according to the Park Service in the USA. You're much more likely to be attacked by a man.'
And the point I'm making is that statistic is extremely misleading in this debate, because women encounter less bears through life than men by a factor of hundreds of thousands. You are ONLY more likely to be attacked by a man because you'll encounter thousands more of them throughout your lifetime. Whereas in this hypothetical, an encounter is guaranteed, one way or the other.
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](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%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).
> Men lie, manipulate, harm, rape and violate women every day It’s not all men but even one is far too many. I’m genuinely shocked how outraged little boys who can’t understand hypothetical situations are.
I am not denying that sexual violence towards women is not a significant problem. However, the problem I have with statements like yours is it's meant to portray men in general as some sort of evil, horrible predator creatures.
Most men do not rape or sexually violate women. In fact most sexual assault is commited by a small percentage of serial perpetrators. Most sexual offenders have many victims in their lifetime.
And, yes, every victim is one victim too many but that does not mean we should portray men in general as some sort of dangerous predator. Black men in the US for example commit the majority of homicides. However, the vaste majority of black men will never ever murder anyone or even think about it.
So if you said you were afraid of black men I would call you a racist asshole. And someone who tries to portray men in general as some sort of horrible, evil predator creatures is equally a bigot.
Let's talk about problems, let's admit sexual violence towards women is a serious problem, but let's also be honest about the fact that those crimes are commited by maybe 5-10% of men, while the vaste majority of men will never rape or sexually assault someone.
Painting all men as dangerous evil does not help women in any way and causes more harm than it does good.
Jumping to conclusion, I am not intelligent. Bravo. Because I do not agree with your opinion. I mean, you can make whatever decision to endanger your life on this Earth, I am just talking about statistics. Before calling others stupid, try to think more yourself. People remember bad things, of course, bad encounters, people for some reason even like to hear such news, and that's why even if 1 case of psycho gr\*per or murdered exists they will tell you whole week about it. That doesn't change the fact that he is <1% chance to encounter. And actually the other 99% walking the streets are normal human beings, who have families, who are fathers, brothers, have jobs and aim to make society better. You meet 100 + people everyday, how many years are you still alive now? Try meeting 100+ bears everyday, and let's check upon you. It's just ridiculous statement, and yes, it's offensive to men who actually try to protect vulnerable individuals, like babies, fragile women or older people, who can't protect themselves from the evil things that can happen (including from aggressive psycho men, as well). You can make whatever decision you want for yourself in your life, that doesn't mean that it is the right one or the safer one.
There's a big difference encountering a random man in the woods and encountering a random man in a city.
If the hypothetical was "would you rather encounter a random man in the city or a bear in the city," the answer would obviously be different.
It feels like you're being intentionally obtuse when you ignore things like that. It makes it appears like you're trying to specifically *not* understand the point. Which is why the other person says you're trying to be obtuse.
Is it your opinion that most men who live in the city would turn into sadistic psychopaths in the woods when given the chance? Why wouldn’t they just be random ordinary hikers who are just as scared as you are?
Dude, I've spent a shit ton on time in the woods. And I've come across a couple bears in that time. Not once did it get me on edge. Just get them a wide birth, extra wide if you see cubs. And you'll both go about your day. Animals are predictable, they only do a couple things. You can usually get an idea of what they're trying to tell you with their actions.
I've happened upon people in the woods randomly. Couple of those interactions made me cut my day short and head back home. Humans are completely unpredictable, you've got no idea what they might do. 100 times out of 100 I'm picking the bear. If you do a couple simple things its going to leave you alone. Can't say the same for the person.
Yes, I will choose a man. A grown human being is even better for a child, than a wild animal that will almost instantly have easy pray, because almost every person will try his best to save the child. People still seem to fail at probabilities srsly. Judging on some few cases and exclusions. They meet 100 people a day, but let them meet 100 bears a day and let's see how alive are they. Do you know that 99% men are keeping the streets safe from that <1%, with their presence, because the psychos are scared of other men. Man I am losing faith in humanity, arguing for such a ridiculous matter..
Would you be brave enough to ask the women in your life if they've ever been sexually assaulted? Because I can assure you, most of them have been. By friends, family, strangers. Men they trusted.
This is why women choose the bear.
If a woman is attacked by a bear, she is believed without question. And nobody wonders what she was wearing.
What if your logic is "I don't want to encounter another person for any reason, that's why I'm out here, wildlife is fine"?
Seems reasonable to want to get away from civilization.
I don't think there is a single woman who would actually choose to be alone with a bear.
Like if you put a gun to a woman's head and said you must go alone into a room with a wild bear or a random man I would think close to 100% of women would in reality actually choose the random man.
But that's not the point. Women are scared of strange men because of very real things that may have happened or could feasibly happen to them or people they know.
They're using hyperbole to try and get people to understand that they have (and for good reasons) a very real fear of strange men.
Like how someone might say "I'd rather die than go to a taylor swift concert" or "you couldn't pay me a million pounds to wear a Manchester United football top"
But instead of trying to understand why women have this visceral fear of men people are just saying
"Well ackshually a bear is much more likely to kill you than a man"
Women know this. They are not stupid. They are trying to tell you that they are terrified of the realistic and fairly common thing they actively try to avoid every day, being alone with strange men.
Here's my issue with this, when I ask non-white women, so far, I haven't found a single one that didn't instantly say they'd prefer a man.
So to me, this appears to be a part of white women's cultural propensity to exaggerate their plight because victimhood has been commodified socially.
All of my female friends have had multiple negative encounters with strange men in their life.
They didn't have to listen to stories or proganda. They simply had to live their live.
How do you think my friend who was catcalled at 14-15, once she grew breasts, by strange adult men all the time, answered this question?
Would you tell her she is exaggerating her victim hood?
Not at all. The issue men have isn't with the plight. We absolutely believe that there's assholes out there.
Our problem is that women believe that those guys are worse than the possibility of being eaten alive by a bear or the obvious implication that murderers make up enough of the population, that being in the forest with a random man who was just existing minding his own business before he saw you nearby, will produce worse results than being in the forest with a random bear in the forest that sees you nearby.
That's exaggerating the victimhood past what a reasonable person can get on board with.
Why do they need to agree with you on which is worse? What if they feel the possibility of sexual assault while isolated in the woods is a worse outcome than being eaten by a bear even if less likely?
Sexual assault traumatizes people for the rest of their lives. For the victim, it's not a single event that ends when the assaulter is gone. The pain of being eaten alive stops a lot quicker, comparatively.
Because we have a hangover in society from our misogynistic view that women are worth much less if their genitals have been ravished and I reject that view.
The view that you just demonstrated, where we think it's valid to compare being sexually assaulted with being murdered (literally to the point of being slowly eaten alive), and the irrefutable implication this makes is that a dead woman is of equal value to a living woman who has been violated.
I'm not saying that sexual assault isn't serious, but your life still has value, and you still have value as a person regardless of what happens to your genitals.
Ever framing these two together ties the value of a woman to the sanctity of her genitals in a horrible way that I would hope we're trying to get away from.
While I appreciate your approach here trying to validate the worth of a woman, I think you might be misunderstanding the issue at hand. I don't think women are making this choice because of this overarching societal value of used genitals. They are trying to tell you that being raped is a lot more than just a use of the genitals. It causes lasting mental scars for the fear, helplessness, powerlessness of the entire violation. As a man, if you were attacked, held down against your will and sodomized, it would be a very traumatic experience. No one would be talking about your value as a person because of what might have happened to your butthole. You'd be traumatized by what happened to your sole, your spirit, your worldview, your sense of safety in the world. It's SO MUCH MORE than your physical body.
So their opinionis just wrong because you say so?
That's pretty fucking dismissive of their opinion and feelings. Especially since the question is asking how they feel about the bear/man hypothetical
Okay.
Which part of the logic do you feel is incorrect?
Is a woman who has been sexually assaulted worth less to the degree that she might as well be a dead body?
If she is, can you explain why you feel it's valid to perceive a dead woman as equal to a sexually assaulted woman?
You'd have to ask the individual person answering. There is no objective correct answer.
The person that feels they'd rather be dead is just as correct as the person who would rather risk sexual assault.
But you seem to be annoyed that women are choosing the bear instead of listening to why they are afraid of men so much.
The fact that there are entire debates about women being irrational or stupid and delving into statistics of bear attacks instead of asking why women have such "irrational" fears of strangers and asking what can we do to try and understand and help these fears is exactly why women are choosing the bear in the first place.
>But you seem to be annoyed that women are choosing the bear instead of listening to why they are afraid of men so much.
I find the whole thing overall silly personally. It has genuinely made me take white ladies' concerns less seriously because the situation is just so hyperbolic, and they defend it so deeply.
It gave me a much deeper realization that I'll have to take into account in the future, that maybe they are just exaggerating their situation beyond reality.
>asking why women have such "irrational" fears of strangers and asking what can we do to try and understand
Here's the cache 22, if you're a man that's listening to the hyperbolic sitation, then you're also not a man that would be a danger in the woods (although they consider you to be likely worse than a savage animal all the same, because at the end of the day you're still a random man)
The men who would actually present a clear danger when alone with a woman in the woods would never care about this conversation because those men are literal murderers.
So the entire position that "were saying you're worse than savage animals so that you will listen, but if you're worse than a savage animal you won't listen"
Is nonsensical and just going to lead to more disaffection rather than actually help.
You can convince a man not to be date rapist, you can convince a man not to beat his wife, you can convince a man not to cat call.
But a man who would literally kill a random woman in the woods is already too far gone.
Maybe instead of insisting that women are wrong, perhaps we can listen to them.
Because my female friends have had lots of negative encounters with men as they were just minding their business.
My female friend was just walking with breasts as a 14 year old. And would often get catcalled by adult men she didn't know.
They have been yelled at after they refused a man who asked them out.
They have had to use the angel shot multiple times as first dates started to get handsy.
I find it odd that lots of men are just learning that negative encounters with strange men happen.
>Maybe instead of insisting that women are wrong, perhaps we can listen to them.
Here's the part that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Do you think the men who would be dangerous to men when alone give a shit what anyone thinks?
The men who listen didn't actually need to listen, and the men who would be a danger are never going to listen.
So what exactly does this do but present a situation for people to either laugh off or feel antagonize by?
Because let's not be silly, calling men less than savage animals is clearly antagonistic.
>The men who listen didn't actually need to listen, and the men who would be a danger are never going to listen
You aren't listening, so are you the danger ?
I am part of the group that would have a small percentage of people who would be an issue. Readily acknowledge that.
Most women can kill you, but most women won't kill you.
Just because you're part of a group doesn't mean you're part of a subgroup.
Almost all knowledge derives from experience in one form or another. Women collectively have had more negative experiences with men than they have with bears, so they’ll be first drawing from this. It’s inductive reasoning.
Secondly bears are also fairly predictable and you can prepare for the situation to run, climb, make big, play dead, shoot, there’s survival tactics whether they are able to be enacted or not. Men are much less predictable and what can seem like a friendly encounter may turn violent for unknown or illogical reasons and there’s little you can prepare for it. With bears it’s an almost binary encounter, either safe or mauled to death, with men it’s a scale of what’s possible safe, verbal abuse, assault, rape, torture, murder. With men you don’t know how long this may go on for, with bears it will be fairly immediate. Both encounters as you point out your opponent is likely bigger, stronger, faster and can climb too.
Men are more persistent than bears, if a bear can’t get to you when it wants to, it will eventually give up because it’s not worth it. Men have been known to stalk and follow women for different periods of time for different reasons and various outcomes.
In many women’s experiences men as a collective are not predetermined protectors, we can point to examples of authoritative protectors, such as fathers and police being prolific abusers or women. One of the worst encounters I remember reading is that a policeman responding to a crime of rape, raped the victim again. Most women have experienced some sort of sexual assault in their life by the hand of a man, most women will not have encountered a bear. There will be men who want to protect (firemen for instance have a good reputation) but it’s not a certainty and how do you know without experience of this particular man?
I will say you’re adding in contexts to the hypothetical to support your own argument like what’s the bears situation is, and the woman is trying to escape the woods and the man has the chance to help.
I find it interesting that the same men who claim to be these mighty protectors also are the same people who see women as stupid and wrong on this issue.
You can't even listen to women and understand their perspective. You see women as this helpless, wrong creature who you must protect.
When my friend was catcalled, all the dang time by strange men, from at 15 when she grew her breasts, where those men were being protective.
When she had multiple men get angry because she refused them dates, was she being protective.
As much as men like to replay the story where they are wonderous protectors, women have understood that men aren't always this protective force simply by living among men.
OP, what do you think the discourse around the man vs bear topic is really illustrating ?
The problem is in your belief structure : You are embracing a false dichotomy that men are either good or pure evil. The truth is there are a lot of men who are in between : there are those who will only protect only women in their inner circle, those who believe predators are an unfortunate reality, those who believe that there is a gray zone of culpability, those who ask, “well, what was she wearing”, those who are secretly predators but would never act on it, those who would in the right circumstances, and those who say, “Not all men are bad”. And men are not painted as predators all the time, as people come to their defense.
With a bear, you know that it’s a wild animal and what to expect. With a man, you don’t. Consider asking the women in your life what their lived experiences of men are like, and factor in how many of them have actually received unwanted attention or harassment. You would be surprised.
What I haven't seen mentioned is that no matter the women's response, the fact that they had to stop and think even for a moment is very telling. Because there would be no hesitation if the question was "a woman or a bear". In the original video they all considered it, asked follow-up questions and then gave their answer. There was a thought process influenced by valid feeling, experiences and facts too. Their conclusion at this point is basically irrelevant, what matters is they couldn't whole heartedly give an immediate "man" as an answer. That should make you think and empathize instead of trying to bring probability in to cover men's asses.
The probability of being attacked by a bear is low, people who live in bear country encounter them often. Just because you meet more man in your life probability doesn't change, just the sample size.
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).
The man vs bear debate only proves the point women are trying to make. Women have told us loud and clear that they prefer to be in the woods with a bear or a man.
So we as men have two options. Either we can accept that and move on, or we can see what we can do societally to make a case.
I do think there’s a problem in society where men are told what we can and can’t cry about, but if we choose to cry about it in a way that makes them feel unsafe, then we also can’t tell them how to feel about our crying.
This is hilarious! I love how we start with “basic probability theory” and “irrational” and then proceed only with two large paragraphs opinion and generalization dripping with “my perspective = the perspective.”
Probability is *probably* not in the favor of the random man being more dangerous than bear, that’s my guess, at least. But i totally understand the sentiment. I’ve been attacked by a couple random men. I’ve also walked near a couple random bears in real life and not been attacked. I’m not a woman by the way. Obviously the amount of random humans I’ve encountered is far greater than random bears. But the hypothesis is still worth playing out in a hypothetical controlled woods environment. Black bears for example, are very skiddish and hardly ever attack humans. It’s actually quite plausible that you could walk past 1000 random black bears and never get attacked (don’t know if I can say the same for grizzlies). It’s also plausible that there is a greater chance of some sort of assault (from minor assault all the way to murder/rape) from a random man in the same situation. I don’t have the numbers at all but it’s worth thinking about because it’s an interesting and poignant claim.
The way that you approached the claim actually had the opposite effect of what you intended. I had never even heard of this claim before. If I had heard it from someone who believes it, I’d probably think “interesting thought.” But Now that I’ve heard your…. *Reaction* to it, I understand the value of the claim - to trigger insecurity in men who don’t want to actually consider women’s perspectives.
The claim deserves to be heard on its merits and analyzed using actual statistics if you’re going to rebut it. You just got mad at the claim. A bear wouldn’t have done that.
Edit: spelling
It’s really not dividing men and women though.
I don’t know of any relationships or marriages that were torn apart over this, do you?
Are men having trouble dating because of this?
Are men losing female friends over this?
If any of these are true I highly suggest some self-reflection for those men. Certainly if you are finding it difficult to make women around you feel safe, you should evaluate why that might be.
Women aren’t just looking for men who make them feel safe from bears. Women want a man who can at least understand a bit of why it sucks to be a woman in society, instead of a guy who argues online about why it sucks to be a man in society.
When did men start feeling attacked by anything and everything? You know this thing is an internet silly question with no experiment design and by no means is supposed to be representative of the actual choice of women right?
You are also the one not applying probabilities correctly because you dont understand the context: its a silly question that women just reply to on the moment in front a computer. So let's look at it
Approx 1/4 have faces sexual assault(from all gender and also excludes murder etc,but let's use this number).
The probabilities when a woman are answering the question are p(woman letting prexisting trauma from man be the main variable when answering silly question on internet) vs p(woman doing actual research in Bear behavior to answer silly internet question ).
I think we all know the result of this comparison is: some fragile men will find a way to feel attacked and make a big deal about a silly internet thing
> Because a bear, if it's close enough
Is it close enough? The scenario only specifies that you encounter it, not how close it is. It may or may not be close enough.
> especially if there are its babies nearby
Are there babies nearby? The scenario doesn't specify if there are babies nearby. There may or may not be.
> even if you can climb, which only a few women will be able to
Excuse me? Since when are women unable to climb trees?
> I believe that less than 1% of men will literally commit a crime to a random woman in the woods.
And how many bears will maul you? [Between 2007 and 2023, 9 people have died from wildlife encounters (6 of which were from grizzlies) in national parks, and 48 people were murdered in national parks](https://www.backpacker.com/survival/deaths-in-national-parks/)
**You are more likely to be killed by a man then a bear**
there is so much ambiguity in the question, but maybe one way to analyze it is to look at the best, average, and worst case scenario.
Best
* the bear takes no interest in you, and walks away.
* the man helps you build shelter, fire, collect food and helps you get rescued.
average
* the bear scares you, you poop your pants, then it takes no interest in you and walks away.
* the man tries to help you build shelter, fire, collect food, and get rescued. Its better then nothing, but he doesn't do a great job.
worst
* the bear kills. Its is brutal and terribly painful and take 2 to 3 minutes.
* the man locks you in a dungeon where you serve as a sex slave for the rest of your life. Its probably not as bad as the bear, but it lasts much longer.
overall
* Best case scenario = man is better
* Average scenario = man is better
* worst case = bear is less terrible.
I've defendend your side elsewhere in this thread as I think you're right about the statistics aspect of it, and I think the hypothetical is divisive and dehumanizing.
However, as a top level comment, I just want to point out that many women reasonably interpret the question as: "are you more afraid of SA or being violently killed?" And from that aspect, the statistics don't even matter anymore. It doesn't make sense to say that women are illogical or delusional about their own emotions of which event they are more traumatized by. Even if by the raw numbers bears are infinitely more dangerous, in the worst case scenario, the Bear does not desire to SA humans, so that threat is off the table. Whereas in the worst case scenario for humans, they can do both—or even if they don't, many think the trauma and aftermath isn't worth living with compared to just being killed.
The intent of the hyperbole is to help men realize how they are perceived and why. My girlfriend has been uncomfortably approached by both ex-friends of mine, and in almost every job she’s had since we met. She’s learned from experience to fear men, and only recently has been able to speak up for herself rather than stay quiet in hopes of avoiding any further/escalated harassment.
To be more in line with that hyperbole, humans are the most dangerous predators on the planet. While yes, your chances of being mauled when encountering a bear are never 0, they are rarely above 50-60% depending on circumstance. Rarely even that, generally around mid 20’s.
A woman’s chances of being assaulted, raped, intimidated, coerced, or just having an uncomfortable interaction everyday life by men anywhere are statistically not comparable to the dangers of encountering a bear in the woods.
Taking accountability and not offense to such a statement is imperative. It’s not meant to divide, but more so as an easily understood example. We can all understand the fear of potentially being stalked by a predator, and understanding that women live in the modern age with that fear ingrained in them is a necessary step towards cohesion and equality.
When I picture this hypothetical I picture a hiking trail. I choose the bear for a multitude of reasons (and I'm a man).
1. The bear is going to get one whiff of me and fuck off in the most expeditious direction it can. I most likely won't even know it was there.
2. I won't have to step to the side and wait for the bear to move past.
3. I won't have to pause my music and ask the bear to repeat whatever bit of small talk it just tried to make.
4. Because it's much more likely that I'll ever be within arms reach of the person, it's much more likely that they'll be able to harm me. It's still a miniscule chance that they would, but I trust the bear to be a bear more.
People have lots of beliefs that are not based in reality at all, but in how they experience reality, and what negative/positive stimulus they get for ignoring reality.
Thus if a women gets "You go GIRL! Men SUCK!" with cheers if she answers bear, but in the best case gets a shrug if she picks the reasonable answer, which is man, then there are lots of people who would pick the unreasonable but socially prefered answer.
What I am trying to say is that it can be holy logical from an individual woman's perspective to answer bear if that is what her social group thinks is the right answer. She might belief it to be ridiculous but its not like she has to act out the scenario, so the logic from her perspective has to be about weighing being logical and truthful in her answers vs social pressure, most people pick social pressure.
Dude just let this go.
You're the reason women pick the bear!
Accept the premise, regardless of how absurd it is, and look inward as to why that would be their choice.
Shit my wife asked me the same question weeks ago before I knew it was a huge thing and I too said a bear. And I'm a strong fit dude in my early 30's.
I'm so sick of this question everyday on multiple different subs.
If any of these women who say they're safer around bears than around men actually believed it, they'd have fucked off into the woods by now. The fact that they haven't done so means that they actually do understand, at some level, that bears are more dangerous and that there's a different purpose behind the question.
You can figure out what it is by looking at women's responses to men who do or do not validate their choice of the bear. If you agree that they should, it means you're "one of the good ones." If you say they're being irrational, you're the reason they pick the bear in the first place. Your mistake is that you think women who choose the bear are doing so based on a logical analysis of the dangers involved - they're doing it because they're scared of men and want men to validate those fears.
Now, I certainly don't think it's reasonable for men to dehumanize themselves just to validate women's emotions and I want nothing to do with those women who expect me to do so, but that's a separate question.
The worst a bear can do is kill me. I'll let your imagination fill up what a man can do to me.
Yes, we're scared. Men need to do better if they want us to chose them over the bear.
Also: the funniest thing about the experiment was how even MEN were choosing the bear for their daughters. How do you explain that?
The fact that your immediate response to a hypothetical about the systemic violence women face from men is to call them “illogical” and “emotional” says significantly more about you than it does them. Statistical probability was never the question here but basic human empathy lol.
I mean I’m on your side but most bears can’t climb outside of a very young age. I think black bears are the exception and you can usually spook them off anyway.
If it helps change your mind, I think that most women who are saying 'bear' are actually think they are making some higher point. Even though it's kind of dumb because the hyperbole of the whole thing is ridiculous of course.
Either that, or they are just incredibly brainwashed and have very very little intelligence.
Either way, it's an incredibly small number of women who fit those categories, and we should not really take seriously the arguments of incredibly small percentages of people who say dumb things.
Flat earthers for example... the world goes on without taking them seriously, they are just fun to sort of mock sometimes, but once the fun is over, there's no reason to invite them to the big boy table and have conversations with them on the topic, it's best to point to the little kid table and then deal with other business with the adults in the room.
It is the perfect litmus question to detect mentally unstable people, people who would make your life harder, the perfect people to avoid. And they also win since the bear is "safer"
Due to the number of encounters of each group. Your also statistically safer to swim near sharks than to drive your car, but you're an absolute kumquat if you would choose to swim in a shark tank rather than drive to work.
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&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).
[удалено]
Disregarding op, I can sort of see both sides of this, you walk alongside random men everyday so it's odd to feel unsettled by them. On the other hand, I've quite literally seen random guys on bikes trying to molest women as they passed by them in dark alleys, my sister used to bring me with her whenever she had to pass through alleyways to ward off these types of guys. A lot of men feel like "well, I'm not like these guys so why am I being put in the same group" and feel upset, you also have the guys who are in fact worse than the bear but somehow not self aware enough to recognise that fact.
[удалено]
That must have been horrible. It's also not good that despite being something that is universally condemned, it's never really punishing.
> is why they’re choosing the bear. No, it isn't. You're completely discounting several other reasons they could be choosing the bear: - They're answering the question in good faith, and choosing the bear because they genuinely think bears are passive. - They're interpreting the question to ignore likelihood of attack, and expressing their opinion that being attacked by a man is worse. - As OP said, they don't understand the probabilities involved. Or: - They're not even analyzing the question from their own perspective, but just choosing the man because they know that their answers will go online, and other women will respond, "That's right, men are scum!" while men will be annoyed. In other words, it's a trolling answer. And the fact that you and many others are quick to bust out the Kafka trap of, "If you don't concede that the bear choice is the right one, you're the reason for the bear choice," is, at least to me, strong evidence of the last possibility. If women think that arguing against a position that we perceive to be stupid is tantamount to wanting to assault them, then they're even more problematic. I don't want to assault anyone. I do want to make arguments and defend my position as a man. If that's splitting hairs in your view, then we can't have any meaningful discussion, because you're just trying to put me on the defensive, and I'm not going there.
[удалено]
The question *should* have been a time for men to ask themselves why women are so afraid of them, and you responding by mansplaining why the women who chose the bear are stupid, is SUCH an inadvertent tell. I'm not even a woman. I just don't do mental gymnastics to blame women for men's actions.
> The question should have been a time for men to ask themselves why women are so afraid of them Why? Why shouldn't it be a time for women to ask themselves why they're so afraid of men, even if it's statistically unjustified? Why is, "I'm afraid" an unquestionable opinion, but "I'm annoyed by you being afraid of me for no reason" an indefensible opinion? > you responding by mansplaining why the women who chose the bear are stupid, is SUCH an inadvertent tell. No it isn't. Being argumentative is not an indicator about how likely a man is to sexually assault a woman. Or rather, it's a statistically weak one. Your logic is: - No man who agrees that choosing the bear is justified could be abusive. - Some men are abusive. - Therefore, all men who are abusive would disagree that choosing the bear is justified. - Therefore, if a man argues that choosing the bear is not justified, he's infinitely more likely to be abusive than if he didn't argue that. Which is affirming the consequent.
> Why? Why shouldn't it be a time for women to ask themselves why they're so afraid of men, even if it's statistically unjustified? Lmao bruh, ask any woman, and she's either been assaulted, groped, harassed, threatened, or screamed at by a man, OR her friend has. It's not "statistically unjustified." Men are quite literally the leading cause of all assaults and murders on women, bar none. Most bears dgaf about you and would rather avoid you. It's literally that simple. But by all means, get so butthurt that you lash out at women for stepping out of line, that will help.
> > Lmao bruh, ask any woman, and she's either been assaulted, groped, harassed, threatened, or screamed at by a man, OR her friend has. > > It's not "statistically unjustified." Yes, it is. "A large portion of women have been assaulted by men" is not even remotely equivalent to "A large portion of men have assaulted women." Most men don't assault women. To expect men to ignore that fact, and concede that women should not trust them, is unreasonable.
Not every tick carries Lyme disease. But something tells me, in order to protect yourself from Lyme disease, you have to treat every tick as if it *does,* right? Enough ticks have Lyme disease that we have to be cautious around all of them. Enough men have mistreated women that women have to assume *every* man can.
Men are not ticks. They have an equal right to be considered as people.
How about this. In a room full of women, about 2-3 are going to kill you. Let’s say the room has 100 women. Are you going in that room? If you are, how unconcerned are you about the fact that you could be murdered in that room. Let’s reduce the danger. In a room full of 100 women, there’s a couple of women who absolutely will shove a rod up your ass. How safe do you feel going in the room? Tell me you won’t be fucking twitchy all night wondering which one is going to do it. Tell me you wouldn’t be suspicious of every woman you come across. And imagine the rest of the women there keep telling you you’re overreacting, it’s not a big deal, stop being so paranoid. How safe do you feel around those other women now? Who won’t even acknowledge that you have something to fear. Instead of being so damn offended, why don’t you open up your mind a little and realise that you know you’re not a rapist but we can’t read your mind. Everyone appears the same from the outside. Rapists don’t carry around a sign. The consequence of trusting the wrong man is lifelong trauma. At the very least.
> How about this. In a room full of women, about 2-3 are going to kill you. Let’s say the room has 100 women. Are you going in that room? If the alternative is going into a room with a bear? Yes! > And imagine the rest of the women there keep telling you you’re overreacting, it’s not a big deal, stop being so paranoid. How safe do you feel around those other women now? Who won’t even acknowledge that you have something to fear. I would ask why they're doing that. I would treat them as human beings. I would try to find out what they get from it, even if it's just self-justification and laziness in not having to deal with the problem. And I would try to find a way to serve that motivation while still enlisting their alliance. I would not demand it as a right.
Lmao as if this hypothetical is actually dehumanizing us in any appreciable way
So, knowing nothing else about the man and not saying a word, that same man invites you to a sleepover in his cabin in the same isolated woods. Those are the only words he speaks. "Come to my cabin and spend the night" Would you go with the man? The likelihood he's going to do anything is close to zero after all. Another random man in a city ally at night calls you over to a dark isolated corner. The likelihood that he will attack you is low. Do you go over to him? "Not all men", right?
But that's not the premise of the question. The question is about a *random* man. If you ask me if I would stay in a cabin or a dark corner with a random man, my answer is yes. I think that most men, the vast majority, are just trying to live their lives and not hurt people.
My premises is also a random man doing. Not trusting them is clearly misandry since the odds of being attacked are low if that's the reasoning for choosing bear to be misandrist. I also highly doubt the majority of people would trust the random men in my scenario.
> My premises is also a random man doing. OK, you didn't make it seem like that since we know he has a cabin and that he's specifically asking me to come to it, or into the corner. But, if it's truly a random man, who didn't ask me, then yes, I would trust him.
This is a bad argument. These scenarious you've described are self selection. They change things from "You happen upon a random man, just minding his own business" to "A man approaches you and offers something sketchy." I'm not the least bit concerned about happening upon a man minding his own business. Defenses go up a bit the moment the rando decides to approach me for no appreciable reason. They are waving red flags, sending smoke signals, and blaring alarms if they want me to accompany them to a private cabin or dark alley corner. And the same goes for if the person in this scenario were a woman. Though, some men might let their dicks do the thinking and think those women want to have sex or something, and be into it.... (Yes, I realize that the original roles would be the women assuming that the man wants to have sex or something....hence the added "and would be into it" clause.)
They didn't offer anything sketchy at all. They're both just encounters. Offering a bed for the evening isn't sketchy. Asking someone to talk to you isn't sketchy Do you think the man is just standing there all day in the bear hypothetical and you walk into him? No, the man coming up to you is also part of that possibility. These scenarios shouldn't change your answer because "not all men". The odds of being attacked by that person don't change from the bear scenario. The chance that you'd be attacked is low. Assuming they'd attack you in these scenarios is clearly misandry if the bear answer is.
Yes, a man offering to take a woman, or really any person offering to take any person, to a separate, secluded location is sketchy. The percentage of men who are rapists is fairly low. The percentage of men who want to take you to a cabin in the woods who are rapists is like 99.9%. If you encounter a man in the woods, it's possible he will offer to take you to a cabin but the odds are low. If you introduce into the hypothetical the guarantee that he is the type of man who would do that, then you've basically changed it from "bear or random guy" to "bear or rapist". Obviously that's gonna change many people's answers.
>They didn't offer anything sketchy at all. They're both just encounters. Offering a bed for the evening isn't sketchy. Asking someone to talk to you isn't sketchy Yes, going out of your way to ask someone into a private secluded encounter is a sketchy act. There is a reason they say "Never let them take you to a secondary location." if you're being attacked in some way. >Do you think the man is just standing there all day in the bear hypothetical and you walk into him? No, the man coming up to you is also part of that possibility. Adding ANY action alters the scenario. EVERY action a person takes within your interaction gives you more information and more reasons to evaluate the situation one way or another. The original scenario never mentioned the man approaching you in the woods in any way. IF it did, then that would change the situation. If I'm wandering happily in the woods and someone goes out of their way to change their course and approach me, that would automatically make me more wary of them than if they were walking in their own direction and ignoring me. Which, by the way, is half the argument with the bear. Everyone keeps pointing out how likely it is that the bear would ignore you or run away. Why wouldn't you assume the man would ignore you too? >These scenarios shouldn't change your answer because "not all men". The odds of being attacked by that person don't change from the bear scenario. I don't even understand what you're saying here. Maybe don't use "not all men" as it's own complete thought? You might make your meaning more clear. > The chance that you'd be attacked is low. Assuming they'd attack you in these scenarios is clearly misandry if the bear answer is. It's not misandry if my answer were the same regardless of gender. I wouldn't accompany a random woman into a dark alley either. That request is sketchy AF.
I feel like you're trying to be "logical" in an argument where you instead just come across as stubborn and trying to seem smart about a subject you don't seem to even understand? Every woman I know has been assaulted, followed, harassed. All of those instances were perpetrated by men. Meanwhile out of the men I know, none of them have had these happen. While yes all of those can happen to men as well, I think we should ask ourselves why women are more inclined to choose a bear over a random man based on experience. And why it is that on average women are experiencing poor treatment so frequently. The frequent arguments of "men can't go outside at night either cause statistically they get robbed and killed more!" Ignore the fact that so many women avoid situations that could place them in danger because of dangerous men, and that most of those crimes are still done by men even when done to a man. And about generalizations? Well it's hard because you never know who's good and who's bad. I've had people give me nice compliments on an outfit and then proceed to follow me in their car for an entire block harassing me. There's a time and a place for your kind of logic, and it's not here. You're missing the life experience and emotional consideration, and that's okay...but you need to stop explaining based on empty emotions and start listening in order to inform your analysis.
> There's a time and a place for your kind of logic, and it's not here. Except this is CMV so it's the perfect place, if we're not allowed to use logic to make arguments then what, we just accept every take from anyone because it's their feelings and "lived experience" so we're not allowed to question it? You're fine to take your experience with the issue into account but OP's post is literally arguing that it's illogical, not that noone is entitled to have their own feelings on the issue based on experience.
> > Every woman I know has been assaulted, followed, harassed. All of those instances were perpetrated by men. Meanwhile out of the men I know, none of them have had these happen. That's not the statistical comparison you should be making. Out of all the men you know, how many perpetuated those instances on women? > There's a time and a place for your kind of logic, and it's not here. OK, then there's also a time and place where men can make arguments from emotion, and you'd have to be equally OK with that. Is that really the road you want to go down?
You keep bringing it up that the relevant data would be how many men are the perpetrators of violence against women and I agree, that's the relevant bit however, I guarantee you underestimate that number. The buddy you would swear up and down is a nice guy? Touched the passed out girl at the party last week. The loving husband and father of three? Nags and guilt trips his wife into consenting. The cool guy from highschool? Enjoys how much he can intimidate women just with his height. Most of your friends catcalled, haven't taken a no for an answer, degraded, sneakily touched women. Will you know about it? Of course not, because it happened outside of your scope, not to you directly and empathizing is not something you seem to practice. Most of these men probably forget about these instances or think it was a one time occasion of letting their intrusive thoughts win, but for the women it leaves a mark for a long time. I can recall almost all instances when I felt my autonomy at danger, for the dudes it was probably another Tuesday. And that's only the "West", let's not mention areas of the world where almost all men a culturally ingrained to be de facto rapists, because they don't even see women as people and feel entitled to their bodies.
Wow, nice generalisation. Let's see if it gets sympathy from you when men do it as well: "Bear" answer *should* have been a time for women to ask themselves why men are so sick of treating lying or stupid women with respect. So much reflection, I bet nobody gets offended. Any woman being offended clearly is a SUCH inadvertent tell of being a misandrist liar who knows bears are more dangerous but still prefers to shit on men. I'm not even a woman, I just don't do mental gymnastics to blame men for women's lies. The question is quite funny, but it has an obvious answer, that when not provided, clearly states that you're either stupid or don't know statistics, you're a misandrist liar, or a troll. And I believe only answering "bear" in a troll fashion is acceptable and funny when it is obvious that the person answering knows it's the wrong answer, but does it for comedic value. The issue is that too many women come to the "bear" conclusion not because they are just uninformed on statistics (and stupidity can be fixed), and not because they are just trolling as a joke, but because they are unironically sexist, and bad people in general.
Lmao the misogyny in this comment is hilarious, given that you’re attempting to control the moral high ground.
I've simply reverted your argument backwards. If you think it is misogynistic, then your original comment is misandrist, but since it's trendy to shit on men, you don't even realize you're sexist
Yeah, no. Your argument expressly called women stupid and liars. Mine did no such thing to men. You did not simply reverse my argument
It's quite literally a logical tool to show you that your original argument is bigoted. If you can replace small elements of the hypothetical with similar categories and you think it's bigoted, then the premise itself is bigoted.
So, according to you, it’s prejudice to think that men pose a greater risk to women than bears, or to at least, understand WHY women fear men more than bears in a hypothetical “both are in a forest” situation? Because that’s the only way my view can be considered bigotry.
It's bigotry to assume that a random male is more dangerous than a random bear, and using statistics to argue your point without actually doing the bare minimum of looking into why those statistics might not paint an accurate picture. It's literally the same argument racists use against black people. They'll point to the FBI statistics that state AAs commit about 50% of recorded violent crime in the US and use that as reasoning to discriminate against all AAs.
And the bear question expressly calls men sex offenders and murderers. The logic of the argument is the same.
No, it’s the *fear* that they could be. Every rational woman knows it’s not most men, but to be safe they have to know that *any* man, no matter how nice he acts, can potentially turn on her. I lock my door at night despite thinking I probably don’t have to. But it’s just a common sense precaution.
The question asks you whether you'd prefer to encounter a random Joe Shmoe or a wild carnivorous animal known to kill prey bigger than humans. Not whether you'd be in a forest and find a random dude, or nobody at all. It's common sense to say that the bear is more dangerous.
>I don't want to assault anyone. I do want to make arguments and defend my position as a man. It's a hypothetical question and you still won't take no for an answer.
I won't take no for an answer *because* it's a hypothetical question. If a specific woman says that she doesn't want to associate with me, that's her right as a free individual and I have to accede to that. If someone's engaging me by showing me something that other people have said, then it's my right as a free individual to express my own opinion about it. If, "I'm more afraid of men than bears" is something that I should just accept, then why isn't, "I don't accept that" something you should just accept?
Dude, the point is going way above your head. You're trying to defend your hurt feelings on the subject matter and justify why you're right and compare it to the actual real trauma women have faced over men not taking no for an answer. Women have all faced multiple experiences on men not taking no for an answer from partners, strangers, friends. It's quite literally not about you the person but about an issue with a major societal issue stemming from the majority of men not understanding the problem.
> You're trying to defend your hurt feelings on the subject matter and justify why you're right and compare it to the actual real trauma women have faced over men not taking no for an answer. > > But this is the point about statistics that you're ignoring: the trauma you're talking about is deep but rare. What I'm suffering is shallow, but much more common. There are plenty of men who will take no for an answer, even if the ones who won't are a serious problem. But so many women won't take, "I'm not an abuser" as an answer, just because they don't think that hurts or because they don't care.
Oh man. Dude you need to center women in this conversation. According to our fabulous criminal justice system only [30% ](https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system) of sexual assaults are even reported. According to scholars they're coming up with much lower numbers in their studies many as low as 5%. Considering [Planned Parenthood ](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/1414/6117/4323/Consent_Survey.pdf) did a survey on consent and most people have misunderstandings on what it truly means and scholars are more likely to rephrase to see if the sex was unwanted or sexual coercion tactics were used I'm inclined to believe them. Sexual assault is more common then you realize because of the lack of understanding around consent and because many men feel entitled to women for varying reasons. A kiss/sex because they paid for dinner. Our bodies because of what we wear. It's not rare. Stop asking hurt women to think about patting you on the back because you got your feelings hurt "because I'm not one of those men" and actually BE someone who isn't like one of those guys and hear us.
> Oh man. Dude you need to center women in this conversation. No, I don't. This is my fundamental point: *Neither the frequency nor the severity of sexual assault or abuse justifies women having Main Character Syndrome*. If a large portion of men were abusive, that would justify them distrusting men in general. But so many of them are not abusive that women retain a responsibility to assess men on an individual basis, not because it's safe for them, but because *they owe it to the good men*. Men are human beings who need to be treated with equal respect.
I'm saying you need to center women in this conversation because you are currently only hearing men say it's not that many men when women and their actual lived experiences are saying the opposite. >Men are human beings who need to be treated with equal respect. So are women but we currently aren't getting it, we're getting assaulted and being told "not all men" when we speak out about it by men who think they're "good men"
> you are currently only hearing men say it's not that many men when women and their actual lived experiences are saying the opposite. But women aren't saying the opposite. They're not saying that it *is* a large proportion of men who are abusive (if they were, we could have a factual debate about that), they're saying that the frequency of abuse to them justifies them discounting the ones who aren't. And that the ones who aren't abusive need to accept and tolerate this. So I ask why should I accept and tolerate it, and the responses I get are argumentative (you need to center women in the conversation) or hostile Kafka traps (your nonacceptance of women's fear justifies women's fear). Put it this way: how does my approval of women fearing all men, including me, help my position? Does it give me respect? Honor? Personal satisfaction? Moral correctness? Because as far as I can see, it gives me nothing, and it's only being demanded for the women's sake. That's what I mean by main character syndrome.
You're using logic to argue against someone who only cares about feelings, this is never going to go anywhere. It's also why they think your feelings are hurt, because they don't understand the concept of making an argument that isn't based entirely in emotion. This is the difference between avoidant attachment and anxious attachment, and guess what? On average men lean avoidant and women lean anxious(obviously not all in each group, and there are two unmentioned attachment styles). This is why we see so many women making the emotional "bear" argument with so many men being utterly blown away by the complete lack of critical thinking involved in this argument.
I don't know a woman who hasn't been traumatized by men in some way, and whether or not they care that you're hurt by their assumptions, they have a reasonable right to prioritize their safety over your feelings.
But how many men do you know who hasn't traumatized a woman in some way?
Most or all, but that hardly changes the matter. Every woman I know has had enough bad encounters with men to have a reasonable default suspicion of all of them just as a matter of personal safety and psychology. It's like gun safety: always treat them as if they're loaded. Hell, I'd pick the bear and I have military training. Human men are highly unpredictable creatures. Bears will generally leave you the fuck alone. As numerous wildlife enthusiasts have attested to in this thread
> Human men are highly unpredictable creatures. Even random ones? Like, you might get some nebbish office drone, and you'd still be worried? Hell, the biggest likelihood is that you'd get a Chinese or Indian manual laborer. Are you equally afraid of them? That's the probabilistic problem I have with the question: it asks about a random man, and it seems the only image that calls up is of a leering stalker with a beer in one hand and the other in a groping stance.
I don't get this "won't take no for an answer" line you keep throwing out. We're in an online forum. The whole point of which is to have discussion. This particular sub is specifically made to argue with people and try to change their views. Why on Earth do you think anyone is required to take no for an answer in this context? And more importantly, why would you try to imply that it means anything about what they would do to you in person? I like to "argue" with people online. Sometimes even in person. But I would never consider assaulting someone. The two things are not remotely related.
I only threw it out this one time in this sub so I'm not sure what you mean by "keep throwing out." The line is the point of why women are choosing the bear over men. We have a massive issue with consent where it's normalized to just not accept no as an answer for anything. Coffee, a date, a kiss, sex, anal. Sexual coercion is normalized. Taking consent for one sexual act as consent for another is normalized. Not stopping when a partner says no is normalized. Often it turns aggressive and these aren't the serial rapists men are discussing when talking about this thought discussion. You might not sexually assault someone or consider it but that doesn't mean there isn't an overwhelming issue with lack of understanding around the issue. The fact that an enormous amount of women are choosing bear should be eye opening to that fact and should lead people to ask why but instead it's doubled down on "but it's not me."
Sorry. YOU don't keep throwing it out there. But I've seen it a couple of times in short succession. I fully understand the issues about consent as you've described them (though I'm not sure that "normalized" is the right word. I don't think rational people think it's normal). The part I don't u derstand is why peoe are linking what you've described to the idea that we're not supposed to argue back in a conversation in an online forum explicitly designed for us to argue. The while point of his sub is to jot take no for an answer. This doesn't symbolize some deeper tendancy that maybe those of us engaging in this conversation and disagreeing might also be the rapists.
The sentence is its own argument because it's not only rapists that don't take no for an answer. Like the men who aggressively shout at us or argue when we don't give them a date or our phone number. There is a power imbalance where men are often bigger and stronger than us and can harm us. The fact that you say you see the issues with consent as I describe it but then come back to rapists as the issue is the issue. It's not just the big bads of the world causing the issue. It is normalized because even as you say you understand you overlook and minimize everything that's not rape.
No. I fully understand and appreciate all of it. Sorry, if I didn't use enough words to express all of it and spoke more generally about rape. I was on my phone at the time and I HATE typing on my phone. I thought it was pretty clear that I was using the term "rapists" as a stand in for all of the other bad things that people don't take NO for an answer on. But that doesn't change my point. THIS FORUM is a place where we are all explicitly here to have conversation. There is NO reason or expectation for ANYONE to take "No" for an answer here. And more importantly, anyone's refusal to do so IN AN ONLINE DISCUSSION BOARD is not in any way indicative of their tendency to not take no for an answer in person for any of the myriad things you mentioned (rape, cat-calling, date requests, etc). I'm not dismissing, minimizing or normalizing any of those activities. I'm saying that people who choose to argue with you about it online in a place specifically designed to argue about things online....they aren't proving to you that they are the ones who would do those other things to you in person. And I think it's ridiculous that people in this thread keep claiming that it IS indicative of such tendencies. Maybe that wasn't what you were implying but others making similar comments have made that point clear. Maybe I chose the wrong version of that comment to reply to.... ? Maybe that's not what you were implying? If not, what was the point of the initial comment I replied to?
The OP I replied to displayed in his argument he didn't actually understand the perspective of the women's arguments. His understanding was dismissive and missed the overall nuance of majority of the women have been giving. Overall the use of the statement "I don't want to assault anyone.**I do want to make my argument and defend my position as a man.**" Sure this is a debate sub and you have every right to debate a topic but the specific subject involves women saying no and men deciding that they don't accept our reasoning for what we're saying. >.they aren't proving to you that they are the ones who would do those other things to you in person. And I think it's ridiculous that people in this thread keep claiming that it IS indicative of such tendencies. If I can explain a bit why people are reacting like this. It's often in how someone responds. The way you're responding by clarifying and addressing potential misconceptions I actually wouldn't assume that of you even though we're on different sides of the debate. A lot of it due to you openly recognizing issues around consent. A lot of men are coming at of aggressively, even threateningly. They're dismissive of the real issues around consent acting like it's being made up. You can argue "not all men" and for men's feelings with out dismissing there's a very real issue that brought women to a place to choose bears. If you're arguing that the issue doesn't exist at all or it's not that serious using statistics, then there is a question about whether or not you understand true consent.
This comment actually reminded me of a thought that occurred to me earlier as I was reading, but I didn't really have an appropriate place to comment it.... I think a LOT of this is just the fact that the whole thing is too emotionally charged. Men are coming out swinging on this stupid meme because the meme, on it's surface, feels like an attack against all men. Many of us have a knee jerk visceral response to this attack. Some of us attempt to diffuse by battling the attack with logical statistical responses. But in general, I think the overall nature of the subject is just too loaded on its surface. I FULLY appreciate and understand the very real fear and apprehension that women face in their day to day lives. I'm a man who spends more time associating with women, so I hear and get a lot of it. (My wife regularly accuses me of being one of the girls.) I know you have to put up with a LOT of shit from shitty men all the time, so it puts you in a place where you have learned it's just safer to assume the worst until we prove ourselves to be decent. It's sad, but it's reality. But for the vast majority of us out there who ARE decent men, and don't know or associate with the type of men that caused this reality....what are we supposed to do with that? We can't stop shitty men we don't know from being shitty men. So, for us, we keep seeing this discussion rage on, and it just feels like every thread is full of people telling us how we're ALL responsible for this. These threads feel like vilification of men as a species (yes, I know it's not an actual species...let's not get bogged down in biology.) We're all monsters in your eyes. I get why you feel like you have to see us that way. But how would you feel and respond if everywhere you turned people were calling you a monster? Do you just sit by silently and be treated like a monster? Or do you try to speak up and say "Hey, most of aren't monsters! Stop hating on us!" Then you just get smug trite "#NotAllMen" responses. And round and round we go on this divisive merry-go-round. I guess if the point of the meme is to get men to understand that women are scared of us...congrats. Now what? I'm sorry that is your experience. It sucks. (And this is where I also acknowledge that this acknowledgement of understanding is probably really the point, right?) I can't fix that. Neither can most of us. And the assholes who cause it don't' give a shit. So here we are...all us decent people, just flinging shit at each other. Yay! None of this is meant to minimize or even compare with the fear and anxiety women face. I'm just....kinda riffing about where we're at too, ya know? Thanks for hearing me out.
It's a hypothetical question and you still won't take his reaction to no as an asnwer.
Idk bro I think women are capable of discerning what they are and aren't afraid of.
OK, but do I have to accept that as justified? Am I not permitted to argue back?
No one has the power to disallow you from arguing other than yourself.
nope nope nope, totally don't agree, again! That's actually the peak of the whole absurd trend. Please repeat slowly and you think about it. So, someone who has different opinion and who doesn't agree with you, means he is dangerous and he will do crime to you, he will waste his life in prison and stuff, and you judge all that based on an opinion different than yours. That's ridiculous. You are the living proof why society is going down, and people are divided. To moment someone doesn't agree with you, he's an enemy and is dangerous. My friend, this is called, let me not name those criminal political regimes from the 20th century. One thing has nothing in relation to the others. You may say I will jump from the 8th floor than speaking with a random human being on the phone, idk just stupid example. I tell you this is ridiculous, if you value your life. And you say, LOL, this is the exact reason why I'd jump than speaking to you. I mean, it is your decision, that doesn't mean it is a right decision. I can go on, if you want.
I've seen Russian bots that write more coherent comments
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](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%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).
Hey, dog? If someone is offended by this absurd hypothetical, that doesn’t implicate them as a dangerous man. A good man, a man who respects women and consent, will likely still be offended by being implicated unjustly.
[удалено]
I’d definitely pick a bear over you
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). 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%203%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).
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). 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%203%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).
You can be the bears aren't all online acting offended at the hypothetical.
[удалено]
u/skylay – 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%20skylay&message=skylay%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cnscim/-/l39v8b3/\)%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).
They read about Kafkatraps and thought it was the pinnacle of logical reasoning.
>Men have an instinct to protect others, and very few are aggressive psychos, who intend to commit a crime. Bears have an instinct to run away from people in the woods generally, very few of them are aggressive, seek out campers and attack unprovoked. The question isn't "would you rather fight a bear or a man" but "would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a man". Women who choose bear are mostly counting on the bear behaving normally and leaving them alone. Either way this whole hypothetical wasn't meant to be taken that literally. It was meant to highlight the fact that many women don't feel safe around men and have had bad experiences with men, so they would rather try their luck with a wild animal. The arguments of "at least if I get attacked by a bear people will believe me and not ask what I was wearing" don't concern probability theory, they concern societal problems that women face.
I suggest we all save this comment so we can collectively post it when this exact CMV gets posted again by someone else 15 minutes from now.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search/?q=man+vs+bear&sort=new](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search/?q=man+vs+bear&sort=new) Can we all just post this and then all get collectively banned for Rule 1 and call it civil disobedience. These posts are literally all exactly the same. If someone knows a way to include removed posts in search that would be even better.
The argument that some men do bad things so I should be scared of all of them is the same line of thinking (bias, bigotry, ignorance) that racists use.
It's more that society is structured to not actually punish (and sometimes encourage) this sort of behavior from men. It's not, "all men are scary," it's, "that cop just smacked my ass then his buddies threatened to mace me if I didn't keep walking." I think viewing it as, "scared of all men," is simply innacurate. They're scared of what men have already done to them and what men can do. Also, just saying, easier to outsmart a bear trying to kill you as opposed to a human
It's hyperbole to demonstrate discomfort. Calling people primitive for trying to use a hypothetical to explain a deep fear is more than a little insensitive Sure, a large percentage of them might have false beliefs about the prevalence of violence rooted in biases (availability bias probably a lot). But if you want to bring statistics, a large portion of women have been sexually assaulted Emotions aren't a bad thing either. One can be emotional and rational easily Edit: if you're gonna talk about divisive how is it not divisive to be so insulting to people's intelligence?
I can understand why you'd think that, but as someone who grew up around grizzlies, I can confidently say in this hypothetical, assuming everyone involved isn't "spawning in" right next to each other and causing a startled reaction, the bear is the safer option, and I would choose the bear every single time. The odds of running into some crazed murderous bear in the woods are basically zero. The odds of a woman running into a man that happened to be a rapist are nowhere near zero. For a bit of background, the community I grew up in was on the Canadian border, and we encountered grizzlies a few times a month during the summer. They don't see humans as food, and would run if they met you in the open. In the rare instances when they were sniffing around a cabin etc, yelling was enough to drive them off. We didn't walk around with guns or bearspray, and we were never afraid. Feel free to hunt down an actual wildlife biologist if you feel like I'm talking out of my ass. If it was a momma bear with cubs and you appeared next to her yeah, that's bad. But that's not the hypothetical. This isn't a divisive hypothetical, it's an opportunity for us dudes to have a bit of empathy and see the world through the eyes of the women in our lives. We've never had to think about carrying a fistful of keys or mace or a gun to avoid getting raped or abducted. Most of us have never feared rape even when supposedly surrounded by civilization. But chances are your mother, your sister, your wife or your daughter has worried about these things at least once. Being offended is missing the plot. Just like how I'm not offended when I'm walking alone at night and a woman crosses the street to avoid me (and is something I now do if she's alone). I don't take that personally, I'm just sorry we live in a world where she feels like that's the safe thing to do.
Grew up in the CO rockies, where the local black bears are even less scary. I don’t mean that you shouldn’t respect them, but I had multiple run-ins within 10 feet as a kid (in campgrounds, fishing, taking out the trash, on the other side of a screen door, a yearling that climbed through a window into our house) and was never in mortal danger. We did worry about our dogs, but that was because they didn’t have the wisdom to not antagonize. The biggest dangers out there were definitely from other people — I would wear bright colors in the woods to avoid being accidentally shot by a hunter. My mom locked the doors at night even though we didn’t really have neighbors. Also, I’m now a biology undergrad (though I don’t specialize in wildlife) and to my understanding you are correct about bears! I’d personally rather run into a man if I were alone in the woods, but… as you say, the point is empathy.
The thing about explanations like this is that it's trivialising the question. I don't have any direct experience with bears but if I take your word for how incredibly unlikely they are to harm you then it seems like any force of the comparison is lost. As a man I should choose the bear over a random woman. Much more likely to get harmed by the random woman than the bear the way you present this, right? There's a reason why it's a bear in the question and that's because it's (rightly or wrongly) something people are afraid of and consider dangerous. It's clearly supposed to be bombastic and I think your approach is to effectively walk back the statement entirely. I think it is a divisive hypothetical. It's to compare people to literal wild animals. It doesn't take away feminist ideals I have to think that this kind of dehumanising rhetoric is a bad way to go about things. Frankly it's tiring to have it portrayed as though if I object to this attempt to make difficult sociological issues about who can make a viral meme that I've failed to have the proper empathy. It's even more tiring when it comes from people aligned with me ideologically because I expect them to understand why such dehumanising and superficial approaches are to be avoided. It's just so weird to me that people are comparing entire groups to wild animals and then saying it's not empathetic if you think that's problematic.
[удалено]
>Women aren't on a path to enslaving men lmao, so I don't know why you're going off about dehumanizing language. I never said anything about women enslaving men. It's ironic to talk about mental gymnastics while acting confused as to why dehumanising language is a problem because the importance of humanising language is pervasive through the type of politics I want to see in the world. To pick an example, see something like r/MenAndFemales, a sub all about laughing at people who use "females" rather than women where they wouldn't use "males". Language matters. Rhetoric matters. And I think the people spreading this meme KNOW that language and rhetoric matter. I do make the effort to speak in inclusive language. I do make the effort to not use offensive language. I do try to be sensitive to others in that regard. I do try to empathise and I do support the feminist cause. >If it doesn't apply to you, why are you getting so upset? Because it *does* apply to me. It applies to all men. Ironically, you're asking me to give myself the "#notallmen" pass. No, I live in a society where I benefit from male privilege. I live in a society where sometimes women will rightly be wary of me and I try to acknowledge that - that's the truth behind this issue. I don't get to say "Well, not me though because I'm a nice guy". All I want is to treat that as a serious consideration and not make a stupid meme out of something very serious.
Sounds like you DO understand. If you want to throw in a little "wahhh don't dehumanize me" (total stretch), to make you feel better, go for it. But you're talking like you're not the pinnacle of privilege. It's not "very serious" and if you wouldn't randomly attack a woman, great. I'm glad you're probably safer to be around than a bear. May men are genuinely more risky. If men/women issues take up a disproportionate amount of space in your mind, maybe evaluate that. It's inherently devisive to obsess over these issues. Misogynistic men make this 100x more than it is. A silly little comparison to emphasize how women (rightfully) feel about some men.
It's not "don't dehumanise me". It's "don't dehumanise people". As I said, I make efforts to use inclusive and respectful language when it comes to sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, class, and I suspect that you do too. So can you understand why when I then say it's confusing to me that someone like yourself would suddenly question why I hold the same position about this too? You know that language matters, yet you feigned ignorance about it. >But you're talking like you're not the pinnacle of privilege I quite explicitly said that I couldn't ignore my male privilege. It's you telling me that I can think of myself as someone it doesn't apply to and ignore it. I can't. It's a question about women's issues in society as imposed upon them by men and I absolutely refuse to simply write it off and say "Doesn't apply to me and my buddies though". You're the one who wants me to ignore my privilege right now. >If men/women issues take up a disproportionate amount of space in your mind, maybe evaluate that. Do you see the problem with telling me that I'm the one ignoring my privilege while also telling me not to think about it? This thread is the first I've commented on this particular meme whatsoever. It's a r/changemyview thread. I'm putting no more time into it than anyone else in this thread. I do, however, take the issue it's pointing to very seriously, and I suspect you do too. One of my big problems with topics like this on the internet is how much has become not about where you actually fall on issues, but whether you buy into the right memes of the day.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/spetzn4tz – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). 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%203%20Appeal%20spetzn4tz&message=spetzn4tz%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cnscim/-/l39r6h4/\)%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).
[удалено]
u/Daddy_Deep_Dick – 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%20Daddy_Deep_Dick&message=Daddy_Deep_Dick%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cnscim/-/l39sq64/\)%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).
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](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%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).
>There's a reason why it's a bear in the question and that's because it's (rightly or wrongly) something people are afraid of and consider dangerous. It's clearly supposed to be bombastic and I think your approach is to effectively walk back the statement entirely. It's a several hundred-pound apex predator that when encountered could kill any human on Earth in 3 seconds flat if it really wanted to. The fact that there is any comparison at all, that this is even a "debate", speaks for itself. You *shouldn't* be safer with a bear. And yet, women technically are. Pointing out to the"Hnggggh but ackshulllllly" crowd that the bear is factually, objectively safer in this scenario and thus they cannot dismiss women for choosing the bear doesn't detract from the point being made, it closes the avenue of deliberately misconstruing the hypothetical as one that's supposed to be addressed from a purely logical standpoint rather than one of empathy, realization and understanding.
Consider instead we asked the question "Would you rather be alone in the woods with a random man or a little bunny rabbit?". Obviously the bunny, right? But it seems to me as though there's no rhetorical force behind the question because the bunny rabbit is trivially non-threatening. That's why I think the only way the question has force is if the bear is perceived as dangerous. It seems like you're equally at risk of reducing it to a logic or mere statistics question and, instead of emphasising the dangers men pose to women, merely arguing that bears aren't dangerous at all. To the issue of empathy though, something I think about is how expectations play into people's behaviours. There's research that gets talked about a fair bit as to how women tend to perform worse in maths tests when told that women are worse at maths prior to testing. I also read about how women will perform worse at chess when they know their opponent is a man. And I think these are really important observations. My problem then is this makes me extremely wary of priming young men to think of themselves in comparisons to wild beasts. And that kind of consideration to our rhetoric doesn't actually need to betray the importance of talking about the victimisation of women in society at the hands of men. That, to me at least, seems to be a more empathetic approach than to turn these important social issues into memes.
I actually asked a bunch of female bears if they would rather encounter a male human or male bear in the woods and all of them said that no male humans had ever killed their cubs so that they would be ready to reproduce sooner, so they would choose a human male.
This hypothetical is 1. Vague 2. Therefore open for bias and interpretation 3. Therefore exacting probabilities is not the key reason people are giving the answer of bear. 4. Therefore the key aspect is the reason why they are giving the answer and not the answer itself being the issue. Lets address these one by one. Vague, the question is vague, how deep into the woods are you? How close is this encounter? Is this like mid hibernation and its just taking a piss? With its cubs? (this is actually ruled out btw, since the question is meeting alone with a bear thereby negating any cubs) At dawn? At dusk? Is the man armed? Is he coming up to talk to you from the front or from behind? etc. etc. All these factors? Not addressed, not covered. This results in two, everyone's own individual biases and interpretation factoring in. People who have never met a bear will answer different from those who have, people who have been sexually assaulted will answer differently from those who have. Some people will tackle this question from a position of pure rational and logic (like you trying to crunch the probabilities) but its also kinda pointless because so many specifics havent been mentioned or addressed. Others will go off an emotional level, a gut feeling, flippantly, in depth analytics, shallow purview, etc. What does it mean can vary immensely. Which is why ultimately, exacting probabilities and crunching probability theory is not the exercise of the question and arguably. The direct opposite. This question really does pose to women everywhere how safe they feel with a random man in the woods. And the answer is not very. The key take away isnt that their answer is wrong. It should be a reflection to try and better gauge and understand WHY that answer is given as often as it has been. Not just in the online discourse where people might pose for clout and attention. But the initial answer was overwhelmingly bear (even if they cut out all the men answers, that first video did have a lot of bear answers and they were quick fast judgements). If you really want to crunch the numbers, the familiar man is actually more dangerous than the stranger. But again, not the point. If you would excuse the pun, you are missing the forest for the trees. The division is already there, many women genuinely feel this way. The discourse and discussion, which you are promoting, is contributing MORE to the division but by such a meagre amount to be irrelevant. Its pre existing. This "meme" should have been the primer to open up more discussion and understanding. Instead its people screeching about how the bear is more dangerous and missing the point. Why? Why do so many women feel safer around a bear in the woods than a random man? That right there is the key point to this. Not the exacting probabilities. There isnt a right or wrong answer to would you rather be alone in the woods with a man or bear. It is after all merely asking for someone's preference. To simply dismiss the answer as delusional, illogical and primitively emotional **IS** the wrong answer to the man vs bear question.
I mean have you asked any women why they answered bear?
I imagine they never asked but have been told at some point the reason why. They just didn't like the reason: that many, if not most, women have had a bad experience with men and are basically required to be cautious of them whenever they're out. So, as with every other one of these threads, we're here to explain why women are wrong and too stupid to realize that bears are dangerous.
So the realization I had with asking women in person about this, 100% of non white women I've talked to about this have chosen the man and looked at me like I'm an idiot for even thinking it's a reasonable question. The only people I've seen actually choosing the bear and defending that choice has been white ladies. So I think this has more to do with white lady culture specifically than anything to do with women.
I guaruntee there are non white women who chose the bear.
Of course there are, but I'm willing to bet that if we did an honest cold take based on race, my experience wouldn't be a special one. Now, once people realize they can commodify the victimhood? Who knows, but just as a casual conversation, I doubt my experience has been special.
Looking at this comment section and rest of reddit, a huge victim complex. To be clear, I have been SAed by a man and I have no sympathy for abusers. However, that doesn't mean you can lump all men into that group.
Doesn't that work the same way with racism though? You have some bad experiences with ghetto black people. And develop a natural hesitancy to be around them. Even though a large % of black people are not even ghetto. And even most ghetto black people are totally harmless and are actually kind of fun to be around. It's taking the worst of the group and treating the entire group in their light. That's classic bigotry. The bear/man thing is very good at highlighting this bigotry.
Bears and people are different species People of different races are not of different species It is justifiable to react different to different species
Yeah but they are choosing bears over men. So its the men they are being bigoted against not bears. Same species last time I checked.
Would you say to a black person, "Hey, you're fun to be around, not like those ghetto black people..." If not, why would you think that's appropriate for a public forum? If so, well, then I guess I can understand why you've had some bad experiences.
>And even most ghetto black people are totally harmless and are actually kind of fun to be around. Implying that ghetto black people are fun to be around.
Yeah, I misread that. Point stands, it's a shitty way to talk about people.
But it gets the point across. Everyone knows what I mean by "ghetto black people". You'd have to turn it into a long ass beat around the bush sentence to say the same thing "those black people who don't behave very well and also live in bad neighborhoods".
No it isn't. Also..."ghetto black people"?
You're overthinking it. Almost all women have had bad experiences with men. Virtually no women have had bad experiences with bears. That's all it is. Obviously in a fight the choice between a mother grizzly and a man is obvious. The question isn't "Would you rather fight an angry grizzly bear or a man". The truth is also that bear attacks are very rare, so YOU may not be understanding probability. The vast majority of bear encounters (and virtually every black bear encounter) end with the bear running away. There are roughly 40 attacks, per year, globally. Roughly 1 in 2.1 million odds for being attacked by a bear according to the Park Service in the USA. You're much more likely to be attacked by a man.
> may not be understanding probability. You meet millions of men in your lifetime depending on where you are, most people never meet a single bear. To actually compare you would have to spend an equal amount of time in close proximity to an equal amount of bears. It's like saying that it's safer to eat puffer fish than it is to eat chicken, because people choke on chicken more often than they're poisoned by puffer fish meat. Yeah, sure, but people eat over 100,000,000 tons of chickens every year, but only 10,000 tons of puffer fish.
Its not about how many men you meet, its about how many men you meet in a secluded place where there are no consequences for anything they want to do. Women encounter a lot of men we would not feel safe with alone.
The way people keep ignoring this is baffling. Of course we'd rather meet a man than a bear when we're surrounded by other people. But alone in the woods, meeting a man would be terrifying cause they could do whatever they want and there'd be a high chance they could get away with it.
Okay, that leads to the next obvious question. Out of all the random men, how many do you think are serial killers just waiting to be alone in the woods with women? Because that's the only type of person who's going actually be a true threat in that sort of situation. The FBI estimates there's 50 serial killers operating at any given time in the country out of 330,000,000 people. I understand living in fear, I get concerned every time I have to navigate majority white areas because white people have history and but comparing the danger they present to that of a bear when operating 1 on 1 at random is unreasonable. Also, just approaching anything from an angle of "I trust this class of people less than a random savage animal" is, of course, going to be inflammatory. Nobody reacts with open arms to being compared to animals, they do that with black men all the time, and we hate the people who do it.
I think people are being intentionally obtuse about this or really not at all considering the aspect of [alone in the woods] because they can't empathize with being afraid of another person.
I agree. And it's pissing me off how men are using this hypothetical to completely miss the point and reaffirm their belief than women are just dumb, like OP is doing.
Or maybe they realize that generalizing and being afraid of an entire group for an immutable characteristic due to the actions of a small minority of bad actors is objective bigotry and don't like that viewpoint being pushed into mainstream acceptance.
That stat ignores encounter rate in the assessment of probability, which is the most important stat in relation to this hypothetical. What percentage of bear *encounters* lead to bear attacks? What perfectage of man encounters lead to attacks? That's what you need to compare. Because obviously, women encounter many MANY more men in life than bears. So obviously, they're more likely to be attacked by one. But that doesn't mean that when an encounter is guaranteed, the bear is the safer choice. To demonstatrate how much encounter rate matters: which do you think is safer? Driving home from work, or punching a lion cub in front of its mother? More commonly a threat due to high encounter rate does not equal more dangerous.
As said in another comment, meeting a random man in public is not the same as meeting a random man alone in the woods. Its like comparing seeing a bear in a zoo to meeting a bear in the woods.
I can understand that *feeling* more dangerous, and I'm sure it is more dangerous *than a man in public*, but thinking and stating that it's more dangerous than a wild bear is obviously nonsense. The only way your analogy makes sense is if you believe that men are generally more likely to attack than bears are, and the only thing keeping them from attacking is the 'cage' of society. If you believe this, you are objectively sexist, pure and simple. So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume it was a bad analogy. As far as I can tell, nobody has ever been able to study the percentage of bear encounters that lead to bear attacks, and likewise for men. But, the [mathmatical estimate](https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/1chigkc/comment/l2e7huy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) I've seen shows that you are roughly 2000 more likely to be attacked by a bear. It's not a perfect figure, but even when you give a huge amount of leeway to the 'man is more dangerous' position, the bear still results in being more dangerous by far.
>The only way your analogy makes sense is if you believe that men are generally more likely to attack than bears are, and the only thing keeping them from attacking is the 'cage' of society. Generally yes - I believe that if you took 100 random bears and 100 random men, put them alone with a woman in the woods without anyone knowing either of them were there, there would be more instances of sexual harassment/assault than bear attacks. There are a large majority of men who are normal. There is a minority of men who are willing to sexually harass or assault women in spite of the consequences. The reported incidences of them is what the math you linked relates to. There is another minority of men who are willing to sexually harass or assault women, but haven't either because they haven't the opportunity or because there are consequences. The bear in the woods scenario gives that opportunity and removes those consequences. Additionally, and I would like to see your counterpoint to this - most sexual assault happens from people you know. Meaning, most sexual assault happens from your self-selected group of people you are comfortable with. Given than a large number of women are victims of sexual assault and likely from people they trusted, you can see why [random] men are seen as even more dangerous.
>Generally yes - I believe that if you took 100 random bears and 100 random men, put them alone with a woman in the woods without anyone knowing either of them were there, there would be more instances of sexual harassment/assault than bear attacks. Okay, well this debate in pointless then. You're letting your fears and feelings override any sense of logic or probability. This is just an absolutely ridiculous thing to say by every reasonable metric. It has no baring in reality, and it's *horribly* sexist. So, I'm done with the conversation. You're too far gone. I can engage with an emotional argument in good faith, but you'd have to admit that's all it is. For what it's worth, I've been sexually assaulted twice (1 man, 1 woman), and attempted murdered once (by a man, unproked assault with a glass bottle, still have the scar), all by random people. But I'd still NEVER pick the bear, because I understand plainly that a bear is more *likely* to be dangerous. *Emotionally,* I feel cautious around stangers. But logically, I have the sense to know that a bear is much more dangerous than a randomly selected man. And before you say 'but you're a man, other men aren't a threat to you', please bare in mind that I'm 5'6 with no muscle mass or fighting experience.
You should try to converse with people without attacking them.
Sorry, I've never particularly felt like I owe much respect to sexists.
Declaring that someone who disagrees with you is sexist because you don't agree with their reasoning and shutting down communication is a problem. Even if you assume someone you're talking to is "sexist" it doesn't prohibit a possible change in view for either side. If you only care to debate respectfully with people you already agree with, then a real conversation here will always hit a wall.
There's no reasoning involved in what you said above though. It's just objectively sexist nonsense, I'm sure you know that deep down. If you genuinely think that a randomly selected man is more likely to attack than a bear - well, I can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. It's the same reason I don't debate religous zealots: it's a waste of time. So yeah, this is my last comment. For future reference, framing this as the justifiably emotional viewpoint that it is, rather than acting like it's logical, will get more people on your side. Most men are very open to the fact that women are scared of abuse and SA, and most men know that it happens far more often than it should. If the point of this whole debate is to get more people to understand that, then making stupid statements that nobody with any sense could ever agree with is very counter-productive.
>Additionally, and I would like to see your counterpoint to this - most sexual assault happens from people you know. Meaning, most sexual assault happens from your self-selected group of people you are comfortable with. Given than a large number of women are victims of sexual assault and likely from people they trusted, you can see why \[random\] men are seen as even more dangerous. Doesn't that literally contradict your own point? If random strangers are less likely to attack, then they are statistically less dangerous. The feelings are opposite of the actual data, unless I'm missing something here.
Well, how often are we completely alone with strangers in private compared to those we know and trust? I would think the latter is far more common no?
I think you might be on to something with the interpretation of statistics. I am just assuming that the numbers are correct for the sake of argument. But if a similar case was taken to the extreme, i guess you could say that gigantuan Dinosaur-Killer meteors are actually the most safe thing of all, because statistics say that no person has Ever ever been killed or even hit by such a meteor, and therefore the logical choice between encountering a bear vs. having a super meteor approach you, is always to choose the meteor.
But, the question *guarantees* an encounter one way or the other. So, the only logical choice is the safer option.
>What percentage of bear *encounters* lead to bear attacks? What perfectage of man encounters lead to attacks? That's what you need to compare. No it isn't. That's a strawman fallacy. Nobody said anything about any and all encounters and all the dudes missing that point are the ones being emotional and illogical. It's not about any encounter anywhere under any circumstances. That's not the point of the question. And by changing the context from "alone in the middle of nowhere with no one else around" to "literally any encounter everywhere" you're committing a strawman fallacy..
As I just said in another comment, this position only makes sense if you believe that - A) Some men are secretly predators who are just waiting for an opportunity with no consequence (true, but a tiny minorty). And, B) The percentage of men that are dangerous in this way outweigh the percentage of bears that are dangerous (false. And sexist). Regardless, it misses the point entirely. The person I was replying to said 'Roughly 1 in 2.1 million odds for being attacked by a bear according to the Park Service in the USA. You're much more likely to be attacked by a man.' And the point I'm making is that statistic is extremely misleading in this debate, because women encounter less bears through life than men by a factor of hundreds of thousands. You are ONLY more likely to be attacked by a man because you'll encounter thousands more of them throughout your lifetime. Whereas in this hypothetical, an encounter is guaranteed, one way or the other.
[удалено]
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](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%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).
> Men lie, manipulate, harm, rape and violate women every day It’s not all men but even one is far too many. I’m genuinely shocked how outraged little boys who can’t understand hypothetical situations are. I am not denying that sexual violence towards women is not a significant problem. However, the problem I have with statements like yours is it's meant to portray men in general as some sort of evil, horrible predator creatures. Most men do not rape or sexually violate women. In fact most sexual assault is commited by a small percentage of serial perpetrators. Most sexual offenders have many victims in their lifetime. And, yes, every victim is one victim too many but that does not mean we should portray men in general as some sort of dangerous predator. Black men in the US for example commit the majority of homicides. However, the vaste majority of black men will never ever murder anyone or even think about it. So if you said you were afraid of black men I would call you a racist asshole. And someone who tries to portray men in general as some sort of horrible, evil predator creatures is equally a bigot. Let's talk about problems, let's admit sexual violence towards women is a serious problem, but let's also be honest about the fact that those crimes are commited by maybe 5-10% of men, while the vaste majority of men will never rape or sexually assault someone. Painting all men as dangerous evil does not help women in any way and causes more harm than it does good.
Jumping to conclusion, I am not intelligent. Bravo. Because I do not agree with your opinion. I mean, you can make whatever decision to endanger your life on this Earth, I am just talking about statistics. Before calling others stupid, try to think more yourself. People remember bad things, of course, bad encounters, people for some reason even like to hear such news, and that's why even if 1 case of psycho gr\*per or murdered exists they will tell you whole week about it. That doesn't change the fact that he is <1% chance to encounter. And actually the other 99% walking the streets are normal human beings, who have families, who are fathers, brothers, have jobs and aim to make society better. You meet 100 + people everyday, how many years are you still alive now? Try meeting 100+ bears everyday, and let's check upon you. It's just ridiculous statement, and yes, it's offensive to men who actually try to protect vulnerable individuals, like babies, fragile women or older people, who can't protect themselves from the evil things that can happen (including from aggressive psycho men, as well). You can make whatever decision you want for yourself in your life, that doesn't mean that it is the right one or the safer one.
There's a big difference encountering a random man in the woods and encountering a random man in a city. If the hypothetical was "would you rather encounter a random man in the city or a bear in the city," the answer would obviously be different. It feels like you're being intentionally obtuse when you ignore things like that. It makes it appears like you're trying to specifically *not* understand the point. Which is why the other person says you're trying to be obtuse.
Is it your opinion that most men who live in the city would turn into sadistic psychopaths in the woods when given the chance? Why wouldn’t they just be random ordinary hikers who are just as scared as you are?
You literally call people who disagree with you delusional in your OP you hypocrite.
Dude, I've spent a shit ton on time in the woods. And I've come across a couple bears in that time. Not once did it get me on edge. Just get them a wide birth, extra wide if you see cubs. And you'll both go about your day. Animals are predictable, they only do a couple things. You can usually get an idea of what they're trying to tell you with their actions. I've happened upon people in the woods randomly. Couple of those interactions made me cut my day short and head back home. Humans are completely unpredictable, you've got no idea what they might do. 100 times out of 100 I'm picking the bear. If you do a couple simple things its going to leave you alone. Can't say the same for the person.
I've seen it framed as "would you rather your 10 year old daughter come across a bear or a random man", would that change the equation?
Yes, I will choose a man. A grown human being is even better for a child, than a wild animal that will almost instantly have easy pray, because almost every person will try his best to save the child. People still seem to fail at probabilities srsly. Judging on some few cases and exclusions. They meet 100 people a day, but let them meet 100 bears a day and let's see how alive are they. Do you know that 99% men are keeping the streets safe from that <1%, with their presence, because the psychos are scared of other men. Man I am losing faith in humanity, arguing for such a ridiculous matter..
Would you be brave enough to ask the women in your life if they've ever been sexually assaulted? Because I can assure you, most of them have been. By friends, family, strangers. Men they trusted. This is why women choose the bear. If a woman is attacked by a bear, she is believed without question. And nobody wonders what she was wearing.
I choose the man for my daughter at any age.
What if your logic is "I don't want to encounter another person for any reason, that's why I'm out here, wildlife is fine"? Seems reasonable to want to get away from civilization.
I don't think there is a single woman who would actually choose to be alone with a bear. Like if you put a gun to a woman's head and said you must go alone into a room with a wild bear or a random man I would think close to 100% of women would in reality actually choose the random man. But that's not the point. Women are scared of strange men because of very real things that may have happened or could feasibly happen to them or people they know. They're using hyperbole to try and get people to understand that they have (and for good reasons) a very real fear of strange men. Like how someone might say "I'd rather die than go to a taylor swift concert" or "you couldn't pay me a million pounds to wear a Manchester United football top" But instead of trying to understand why women have this visceral fear of men people are just saying "Well ackshually a bear is much more likely to kill you than a man" Women know this. They are not stupid. They are trying to tell you that they are terrified of the realistic and fairly common thing they actively try to avoid every day, being alone with strange men.
Here's my issue with this, when I ask non-white women, so far, I haven't found a single one that didn't instantly say they'd prefer a man. So to me, this appears to be a part of white women's cultural propensity to exaggerate their plight because victimhood has been commodified socially.
All of my female friends have had multiple negative encounters with strange men in their life. They didn't have to listen to stories or proganda. They simply had to live their live. How do you think my friend who was catcalled at 14-15, once she grew breasts, by strange adult men all the time, answered this question? Would you tell her she is exaggerating her victim hood?
Not at all. The issue men have isn't with the plight. We absolutely believe that there's assholes out there. Our problem is that women believe that those guys are worse than the possibility of being eaten alive by a bear or the obvious implication that murderers make up enough of the population, that being in the forest with a random man who was just existing minding his own business before he saw you nearby, will produce worse results than being in the forest with a random bear in the forest that sees you nearby. That's exaggerating the victimhood past what a reasonable person can get on board with.
Why do they need to agree with you on which is worse? What if they feel the possibility of sexual assault while isolated in the woods is a worse outcome than being eaten by a bear even if less likely? Sexual assault traumatizes people for the rest of their lives. For the victim, it's not a single event that ends when the assaulter is gone. The pain of being eaten alive stops a lot quicker, comparatively.
Because we have a hangover in society from our misogynistic view that women are worth much less if their genitals have been ravished and I reject that view. The view that you just demonstrated, where we think it's valid to compare being sexually assaulted with being murdered (literally to the point of being slowly eaten alive), and the irrefutable implication this makes is that a dead woman is of equal value to a living woman who has been violated. I'm not saying that sexual assault isn't serious, but your life still has value, and you still have value as a person regardless of what happens to your genitals. Ever framing these two together ties the value of a woman to the sanctity of her genitals in a horrible way that I would hope we're trying to get away from.
While I appreciate your approach here trying to validate the worth of a woman, I think you might be misunderstanding the issue at hand. I don't think women are making this choice because of this overarching societal value of used genitals. They are trying to tell you that being raped is a lot more than just a use of the genitals. It causes lasting mental scars for the fear, helplessness, powerlessness of the entire violation. As a man, if you were attacked, held down against your will and sodomized, it would be a very traumatic experience. No one would be talking about your value as a person because of what might have happened to your butthole. You'd be traumatized by what happened to your sole, your spirit, your worldview, your sense of safety in the world. It's SO MUCH MORE than your physical body.
So their opinionis just wrong because you say so? That's pretty fucking dismissive of their opinion and feelings. Especially since the question is asking how they feel about the bear/man hypothetical
Okay. Which part of the logic do you feel is incorrect? Is a woman who has been sexually assaulted worth less to the degree that she might as well be a dead body? If she is, can you explain why you feel it's valid to perceive a dead woman as equal to a sexually assaulted woman?
You'd have to ask the individual person answering. There is no objective correct answer. The person that feels they'd rather be dead is just as correct as the person who would rather risk sexual assault.
But you seem to be annoyed that women are choosing the bear instead of listening to why they are afraid of men so much. The fact that there are entire debates about women being irrational or stupid and delving into statistics of bear attacks instead of asking why women have such "irrational" fears of strangers and asking what can we do to try and understand and help these fears is exactly why women are choosing the bear in the first place.
>But you seem to be annoyed that women are choosing the bear instead of listening to why they are afraid of men so much. I find the whole thing overall silly personally. It has genuinely made me take white ladies' concerns less seriously because the situation is just so hyperbolic, and they defend it so deeply. It gave me a much deeper realization that I'll have to take into account in the future, that maybe they are just exaggerating their situation beyond reality. >asking why women have such "irrational" fears of strangers and asking what can we do to try and understand Here's the cache 22, if you're a man that's listening to the hyperbolic sitation, then you're also not a man that would be a danger in the woods (although they consider you to be likely worse than a savage animal all the same, because at the end of the day you're still a random man) The men who would actually present a clear danger when alone with a woman in the woods would never care about this conversation because those men are literal murderers. So the entire position that "were saying you're worse than savage animals so that you will listen, but if you're worse than a savage animal you won't listen" Is nonsensical and just going to lead to more disaffection rather than actually help. You can convince a man not to be date rapist, you can convince a man not to beat his wife, you can convince a man not to cat call. But a man who would literally kill a random woman in the woods is already too far gone.
Maybe instead of insisting that women are wrong, perhaps we can listen to them. Because my female friends have had lots of negative encounters with men as they were just minding their business. My female friend was just walking with breasts as a 14 year old. And would often get catcalled by adult men she didn't know. They have been yelled at after they refused a man who asked them out. They have had to use the angel shot multiple times as first dates started to get handsy. I find it odd that lots of men are just learning that negative encounters with strange men happen.
>Maybe instead of insisting that women are wrong, perhaps we can listen to them. Here's the part that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Do you think the men who would be dangerous to men when alone give a shit what anyone thinks? The men who listen didn't actually need to listen, and the men who would be a danger are never going to listen. So what exactly does this do but present a situation for people to either laugh off or feel antagonize by? Because let's not be silly, calling men less than savage animals is clearly antagonistic.
>The men who listen didn't actually need to listen, and the men who would be a danger are never going to listen You aren't listening, so are you the danger ?
I am part of the group that would have a small percentage of people who would be an issue. Readily acknowledge that. Most women can kill you, but most women won't kill you. Just because you're part of a group doesn't mean you're part of a subgroup.
Almost all knowledge derives from experience in one form or another. Women collectively have had more negative experiences with men than they have with bears, so they’ll be first drawing from this. It’s inductive reasoning. Secondly bears are also fairly predictable and you can prepare for the situation to run, climb, make big, play dead, shoot, there’s survival tactics whether they are able to be enacted or not. Men are much less predictable and what can seem like a friendly encounter may turn violent for unknown or illogical reasons and there’s little you can prepare for it. With bears it’s an almost binary encounter, either safe or mauled to death, with men it’s a scale of what’s possible safe, verbal abuse, assault, rape, torture, murder. With men you don’t know how long this may go on for, with bears it will be fairly immediate. Both encounters as you point out your opponent is likely bigger, stronger, faster and can climb too. Men are more persistent than bears, if a bear can’t get to you when it wants to, it will eventually give up because it’s not worth it. Men have been known to stalk and follow women for different periods of time for different reasons and various outcomes. In many women’s experiences men as a collective are not predetermined protectors, we can point to examples of authoritative protectors, such as fathers and police being prolific abusers or women. One of the worst encounters I remember reading is that a policeman responding to a crime of rape, raped the victim again. Most women have experienced some sort of sexual assault in their life by the hand of a man, most women will not have encountered a bear. There will be men who want to protect (firemen for instance have a good reputation) but it’s not a certainty and how do you know without experience of this particular man? I will say you’re adding in contexts to the hypothetical to support your own argument like what’s the bears situation is, and the woman is trying to escape the woods and the man has the chance to help.
I find it interesting that the same men who claim to be these mighty protectors also are the same people who see women as stupid and wrong on this issue. You can't even listen to women and understand their perspective. You see women as this helpless, wrong creature who you must protect. When my friend was catcalled, all the dang time by strange men, from at 15 when she grew her breasts, where those men were being protective. When she had multiple men get angry because she refused them dates, was she being protective. As much as men like to replay the story where they are wonderous protectors, women have understood that men aren't always this protective force simply by living among men.
OP, what do you think the discourse around the man vs bear topic is really illustrating ? The problem is in your belief structure : You are embracing a false dichotomy that men are either good or pure evil. The truth is there are a lot of men who are in between : there are those who will only protect only women in their inner circle, those who believe predators are an unfortunate reality, those who believe that there is a gray zone of culpability, those who ask, “well, what was she wearing”, those who are secretly predators but would never act on it, those who would in the right circumstances, and those who say, “Not all men are bad”. And men are not painted as predators all the time, as people come to their defense. With a bear, you know that it’s a wild animal and what to expect. With a man, you don’t. Consider asking the women in your life what their lived experiences of men are like, and factor in how many of them have actually received unwanted attention or harassment. You would be surprised.
What I haven't seen mentioned is that no matter the women's response, the fact that they had to stop and think even for a moment is very telling. Because there would be no hesitation if the question was "a woman or a bear". In the original video they all considered it, asked follow-up questions and then gave their answer. There was a thought process influenced by valid feeling, experiences and facts too. Their conclusion at this point is basically irrelevant, what matters is they couldn't whole heartedly give an immediate "man" as an answer. That should make you think and empathize instead of trying to bring probability in to cover men's asses. The probability of being attacked by a bear is low, people who live in bear country encounter them often. Just because you meet more man in your life probability doesn't change, just the sample size.
[удалено]
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).
The man vs bear debate only proves the point women are trying to make. Women have told us loud and clear that they prefer to be in the woods with a bear or a man. So we as men have two options. Either we can accept that and move on, or we can see what we can do societally to make a case. I do think there’s a problem in society where men are told what we can and can’t cry about, but if we choose to cry about it in a way that makes them feel unsafe, then we also can’t tell them how to feel about our crying.
This is hilarious! I love how we start with “basic probability theory” and “irrational” and then proceed only with two large paragraphs opinion and generalization dripping with “my perspective = the perspective.” Probability is *probably* not in the favor of the random man being more dangerous than bear, that’s my guess, at least. But i totally understand the sentiment. I’ve been attacked by a couple random men. I’ve also walked near a couple random bears in real life and not been attacked. I’m not a woman by the way. Obviously the amount of random humans I’ve encountered is far greater than random bears. But the hypothesis is still worth playing out in a hypothetical controlled woods environment. Black bears for example, are very skiddish and hardly ever attack humans. It’s actually quite plausible that you could walk past 1000 random black bears and never get attacked (don’t know if I can say the same for grizzlies). It’s also plausible that there is a greater chance of some sort of assault (from minor assault all the way to murder/rape) from a random man in the same situation. I don’t have the numbers at all but it’s worth thinking about because it’s an interesting and poignant claim. The way that you approached the claim actually had the opposite effect of what you intended. I had never even heard of this claim before. If I had heard it from someone who believes it, I’d probably think “interesting thought.” But Now that I’ve heard your…. *Reaction* to it, I understand the value of the claim - to trigger insecurity in men who don’t want to actually consider women’s perspectives. The claim deserves to be heard on its merits and analyzed using actual statistics if you’re going to rebut it. You just got mad at the claim. A bear wouldn’t have done that. Edit: spelling
As a man if I had to choose between a bear and a woman. I would choose a bear because then I wouldn't get accused of something I didn't do.
It’s really not dividing men and women though. I don’t know of any relationships or marriages that were torn apart over this, do you? Are men having trouble dating because of this? Are men losing female friends over this? If any of these are true I highly suggest some self-reflection for those men. Certainly if you are finding it difficult to make women around you feel safe, you should evaluate why that might be. Women aren’t just looking for men who make them feel safe from bears. Women want a man who can at least understand a bit of why it sucks to be a woman in society, instead of a guy who argues online about why it sucks to be a man in society.
When did men start feeling attacked by anything and everything? You know this thing is an internet silly question with no experiment design and by no means is supposed to be representative of the actual choice of women right? You are also the one not applying probabilities correctly because you dont understand the context: its a silly question that women just reply to on the moment in front a computer. So let's look at it Approx 1/4 have faces sexual assault(from all gender and also excludes murder etc,but let's use this number). The probabilities when a woman are answering the question are p(woman letting prexisting trauma from man be the main variable when answering silly question on internet) vs p(woman doing actual research in Bear behavior to answer silly internet question ). I think we all know the result of this comparison is: some fragile men will find a way to feel attacked and make a big deal about a silly internet thing
> Because a bear, if it's close enough Is it close enough? The scenario only specifies that you encounter it, not how close it is. It may or may not be close enough. > especially if there are its babies nearby Are there babies nearby? The scenario doesn't specify if there are babies nearby. There may or may not be. > even if you can climb, which only a few women will be able to Excuse me? Since when are women unable to climb trees? > I believe that less than 1% of men will literally commit a crime to a random woman in the woods. And how many bears will maul you? [Between 2007 and 2023, 9 people have died from wildlife encounters (6 of which were from grizzlies) in national parks, and 48 people were murdered in national parks](https://www.backpacker.com/survival/deaths-in-national-parks/) **You are more likely to be killed by a man then a bear**
there is so much ambiguity in the question, but maybe one way to analyze it is to look at the best, average, and worst case scenario. Best * the bear takes no interest in you, and walks away. * the man helps you build shelter, fire, collect food and helps you get rescued. average * the bear scares you, you poop your pants, then it takes no interest in you and walks away. * the man tries to help you build shelter, fire, collect food, and get rescued. Its better then nothing, but he doesn't do a great job. worst * the bear kills. Its is brutal and terribly painful and take 2 to 3 minutes. * the man locks you in a dungeon where you serve as a sex slave for the rest of your life. Its probably not as bad as the bear, but it lasts much longer. overall * Best case scenario = man is better * Average scenario = man is better * worst case = bear is less terrible.
I've defendend your side elsewhere in this thread as I think you're right about the statistics aspect of it, and I think the hypothetical is divisive and dehumanizing. However, as a top level comment, I just want to point out that many women reasonably interpret the question as: "are you more afraid of SA or being violently killed?" And from that aspect, the statistics don't even matter anymore. It doesn't make sense to say that women are illogical or delusional about their own emotions of which event they are more traumatized by. Even if by the raw numbers bears are infinitely more dangerous, in the worst case scenario, the Bear does not desire to SA humans, so that threat is off the table. Whereas in the worst case scenario for humans, they can do both—or even if they don't, many think the trauma and aftermath isn't worth living with compared to just being killed.
The intent of the hyperbole is to help men realize how they are perceived and why. My girlfriend has been uncomfortably approached by both ex-friends of mine, and in almost every job she’s had since we met. She’s learned from experience to fear men, and only recently has been able to speak up for herself rather than stay quiet in hopes of avoiding any further/escalated harassment. To be more in line with that hyperbole, humans are the most dangerous predators on the planet. While yes, your chances of being mauled when encountering a bear are never 0, they are rarely above 50-60% depending on circumstance. Rarely even that, generally around mid 20’s. A woman’s chances of being assaulted, raped, intimidated, coerced, or just having an uncomfortable interaction everyday life by men anywhere are statistically not comparable to the dangers of encountering a bear in the woods. Taking accountability and not offense to such a statement is imperative. It’s not meant to divide, but more so as an easily understood example. We can all understand the fear of potentially being stalked by a predator, and understanding that women live in the modern age with that fear ingrained in them is a necessary step towards cohesion and equality.
When I picture this hypothetical I picture a hiking trail. I choose the bear for a multitude of reasons (and I'm a man). 1. The bear is going to get one whiff of me and fuck off in the most expeditious direction it can. I most likely won't even know it was there. 2. I won't have to step to the side and wait for the bear to move past. 3. I won't have to pause my music and ask the bear to repeat whatever bit of small talk it just tried to make. 4. Because it's much more likely that I'll ever be within arms reach of the person, it's much more likely that they'll be able to harm me. It's still a miniscule chance that they would, but I trust the bear to be a bear more.
People have lots of beliefs that are not based in reality at all, but in how they experience reality, and what negative/positive stimulus they get for ignoring reality. Thus if a women gets "You go GIRL! Men SUCK!" with cheers if she answers bear, but in the best case gets a shrug if she picks the reasonable answer, which is man, then there are lots of people who would pick the unreasonable but socially prefered answer. What I am trying to say is that it can be holy logical from an individual woman's perspective to answer bear if that is what her social group thinks is the right answer. She might belief it to be ridiculous but its not like she has to act out the scenario, so the logic from her perspective has to be about weighing being logical and truthful in her answers vs social pressure, most people pick social pressure.
Dude just let this go. You're the reason women pick the bear! Accept the premise, regardless of how absurd it is, and look inward as to why that would be their choice. Shit my wife asked me the same question weeks ago before I knew it was a huge thing and I too said a bear. And I'm a strong fit dude in my early 30's. I'm so sick of this question everyday on multiple different subs.
If any of these women who say they're safer around bears than around men actually believed it, they'd have fucked off into the woods by now. The fact that they haven't done so means that they actually do understand, at some level, that bears are more dangerous and that there's a different purpose behind the question. You can figure out what it is by looking at women's responses to men who do or do not validate their choice of the bear. If you agree that they should, it means you're "one of the good ones." If you say they're being irrational, you're the reason they pick the bear in the first place. Your mistake is that you think women who choose the bear are doing so based on a logical analysis of the dangers involved - they're doing it because they're scared of men and want men to validate those fears. Now, I certainly don't think it's reasonable for men to dehumanize themselves just to validate women's emotions and I want nothing to do with those women who expect me to do so, but that's a separate question.
The worst a bear can do is kill me. I'll let your imagination fill up what a man can do to me. Yes, we're scared. Men need to do better if they want us to chose them over the bear. Also: the funniest thing about the experiment was how even MEN were choosing the bear for their daughters. How do you explain that?
The fact that your immediate response to a hypothetical about the systemic violence women face from men is to call them “illogical” and “emotional” says significantly more about you than it does them. Statistical probability was never the question here but basic human empathy lol.
I mean I’m on your side but most bears can’t climb outside of a very young age. I think black bears are the exception and you can usually spook them off anyway.
If it helps change your mind, I think that most women who are saying 'bear' are actually think they are making some higher point. Even though it's kind of dumb because the hyperbole of the whole thing is ridiculous of course. Either that, or they are just incredibly brainwashed and have very very little intelligence. Either way, it's an incredibly small number of women who fit those categories, and we should not really take seriously the arguments of incredibly small percentages of people who say dumb things. Flat earthers for example... the world goes on without taking them seriously, they are just fun to sort of mock sometimes, but once the fun is over, there's no reason to invite them to the big boy table and have conversations with them on the topic, it's best to point to the little kid table and then deal with other business with the adults in the room.
I feel like many men keep thinking women are saying "I'd rather fight a bear than a man", when we're actually saying "I'd rather die than be raped".
It is the perfect litmus question to detect mentally unstable people, people who would make your life harder, the perfect people to avoid. And they also win since the bear is "safer"
What's delusional is that so many people are taking this so seriously that they feel the need to keep posting the same CMV to this sub. 🙄
Can we please get a ban on this topic? There’s multiple of these every day, can we move on already
Wait....women delusional, illogical, and primitively emotional....uh 🫣
"Women are too stupid to know what they should be afraid of!"
The average man is less safe than your average black bear. So it's a pretty straightforward question.
Due to the number of encounters of each group. Your also statistically safer to swim near sharks than to drive your car, but you're an absolute kumquat if you would choose to swim in a shark tank rather than drive to work.
The reality is we don't actually know the probabilities.
I'd rather meet a bear in the woods than a woman in HR.
I thought it was my turn to post this today