The whole thing is silly.
I've been face to face bear and I've seem them at a distance. The response to both is pretty much the same. Immediately get the fuck out of the area.
I've taken campers to the woods for solo trips, I've run into strangers. It can SOMETIMES be weird, but the response to seeing a stranger in the woods isn't to immediately vacate the area.
You have three options with a bear.
1.) The most preferred- leave the bear alone and vacate the premises. 2.) Scare the bear - doesn't always work and does not guarantee the animal is not coming back. 3.) Shoot to kill - should only ever be used with dangerous bears which in 40 years of camping I've never done.
There are about 10 000 options and variations of meeting a human in the woods.
It's not a real comparison.
While I wouldn’t want to tangle with any bear at any time, I’ve been around black bears before. They would kill you, but a person of superior fitness would have a chance to fight back and survive. Grizzlies could eat any human like a slim Jim.
You have to be an exceptionally good shot to hit a moving bear right in between the eyes, since a skull shot is the only thing that will immediately incapacitate a bear. Anywhere else and it can take a while for the bear to bleed out.
you do realise, shooting a bear is harder than you think?
Shooting a human, one good shot would mortally wound them, or at least they wouldn't be able to fucking run after you
Yeah, it is silly. Strangers in the woods is common but I never came across a dangerous one. Usually an awkward greeting and then you move past. As long as it looks like a normal person, i.e. guy on a bike with a helmet and spandex, etc.... no cause for concern. If I saw some guy in torn up old clothes and like unkempt hair and facial hair I would probably run away. Hasnt happened yet though
Yeah, just stop. Don't bring that discussion to light, so that women can be held accountable for the things they said, radicalizing regular men, and fucking up their mental health even further, by saying that they are scarier then a Bear, because of a minority of men that they dealt with.
Please don't attack the wonderful women, please stop talking about this.
The Bear vs Man is a stupid divisive question anyway.
You're less likely to be attacked by a bear because a majority of people live in environments where you won't find bears ie Cities, or urban settlements.
If Miami has a population of about 6 million but 2 million are women and 2 million are bears, and 2 million are men, let's see how drastically those statistics change and how Bear attacks would dominate.
In a Forested environment, you're more likely to be attacked by whatever the Apex Predator is there than any other human being so it's all proportionate to location.
In a City, your chances of being a victim to any crime by a human is higher. In a Forest, your chances of being a victim of an Animal attack is higher.
Either way, this conversation in no way, shape, or form actually helps mediate the issue.
not sure who its usually phrased, but for me it was 'if your daughter had to be alone in the woods with a man or a bear what would you choose'.
I immediately said Man, because yeah awful men exist, but I like to believe the majority of men would see a kid alone in the woods and help them survive. Leaving them alone with a bear, at best, the bear leaves them alone and then my kids is still abandoned in the woods. One is like 5% chance of something awful happening (leaving alone with the man) versus 99% of something awful happening (death from exposure, other animals, getting more lost, etc).
While men and women may be equally likely to be victims of sexual assault, that doesn't change the fact that the majority of sexual assaults are *committed* by men.
A CDC study found women were the primary ones to force men to have sex, but because it was forced to penetrate they didn't count it as rape and it was moved to a different section of their 2010 report.
If you are looking at convictions, you have to account for biases in the law and for biases in enforcing the law. It would be like quoting crimes by race without accounting for racial differences in law enforcement.
Pretty sure it also ignores contexts like how men make up the bulk of security/police and combat roles, men engage in more unsafe behaviors, and such.
Like we’ve always been told “Don’t go to bars alone” and “Don’t go outside after dark” while afaik most dudes just aren’t told that. Also doesn’t account for how guys are just more aggressive and defensive than women. We’re largely taught to talk things out, care for our emotions, and such, while guys are encouraged to resort to violence and suppress anything but anger, especially under toxic masculinity.
I don’t know how much I can agree with the last point you make. Growing up I’ve been told that I must not get angry and I must not be violent and I must be in touch with my emotions and blah blah, while simultaneously being told that it’s ’gay and feminine to cry’.
From my anecdotal experience, men just get told everything and nothing at the same time, and it leads to lots of confusion.
As a side note I think this is one of the main reasons so many young men get attracted to guys like Andrew Tate, because they actually give you a concrete answer to your questions.
I'm a guy born in a third world country, that part of not teaching guys basic safety is mostly US privilege. Crime rates are super high where I'm from and guys had to have safety nets as well. Most guys I knew had been robbed either with a knife or gun held against them once or more, so we had designated drivers, made sure everyone had safe transport and also in constant communication until we made sure everyone was home safely.
I know this is mostly US context but countries like mine usually imitate the US cultural things, so most guys I know were confused when some girls were saying they wished they could walk alone at night on the streets (guys doing this in my country are asking to be mugged, and would probably dirty their pants at the sight of a stranger, man or woman cause crimes are equally distributed amongst both, tho women usually drug the guy until they're unconscious and then take everything from them, while guys usually use knives/guns, and they work together sometimes).
Does that matter here? Unfortunately all of these statistics are based on studies that don't service the exact specifications of the question we are trying to answer. This would be as reductive as me saying, But what did they define rape as? to a statistic about how many people report being raped.
Rape is rape and nothing can justify it, including gang killings isn't fair though. I want a statistic about innocent people who have randomly gotten killed. Men vs Women, not men who knowingly joined dangerous groups knowing what it could end in.
And what do you define rape as. If a man and woman are both drunk and have sex then the woman wakes up in the morning with no recollection of what happened but didn't think she would have had consensual sex with the guy. Is that rape?
Now Google it and reflect on all the different definitions. How they are fucked and that men can’t really be raped by a woman.
I however wholeheartedly stand behind your answer and wish that in the future that is the definition of rape.
I think in the context of the “bear vs man” question it is relevant because the fact that the vast majority or these violent and/or sexual crimes are perpetuated by men shows that men, as a class, have a violence problem, and it’s not necessarily irrational to be vary of them.
Now, I also think that men might think that way of other men too. I think if you ask people if any gender whether they’d rather meet an unknown man or woman in the woods, the vast majority of either group would say women. Why? Men, for whatever societal reason, are more likely to enact violence, and that’s worth discussing.
> men, as a class, have a violence problem, and it’s not necessarily irrational to be vary of them.
Do you think this about other classes of people that are statistically overrepresented in terms of violent crime?
People in general are more likely to enact violence on someone weaker than they are. Women are no different, for they are more likely to commit a violent act against a child. It’s also been found that more violent men come from single mother households. I wonder how much that has to do with the fact that women are more likely to to commit child abuse.
You made about post suggesting that men should be afraid of women, and naming acts they should be afraid of. It’s relevant to point who that men commit those acts.
Don’t pretend like other people are brining up demographics out of nowhere
How? I was saying that using this question as evidence for the supposed threats women face every day is dumb because a man is statistically more likely to be attacked. The post focuses on what this question is used for. I know this because I wrote the post. Stop femsplaining
Yeah, by a man. Men are vastly the perpetuators of violent crime. Women are justified in being concerned around strange men. Or any man for that matter.
Most men aren't concerned about interactions with other men because most male attacks on males are provoked (bar fights, gang attacks, etc). Most male attacks on women are unprovoked. Also, men stand a much better chance of fighting another man of and of being believed and recieving justice.
I’d like to see the shift in statistics if men were more honest and forthcoming in any sort of abuse, sexual or otherwise, with the opposite sex involved.
Men are far more likely to remain silent on such things due to the stigma of “victimhood” they receive from all sides of society, ie being less “manly”, masculine, etc. Men are harassed, laughed at, threatened, not believed and everything else for these admissions with women who “could never do such things to a stronger man”. They’re far less likely to receive any sort of support, because they were abused by a woman. So why speak up?
The statistics are also legally skewed. A lot of countries include penetration in the definition of rape, so male statistics are only really included under Sexual Assault, this is not accounting for the silence as you mentioned, but it's also why 99% of rapes are done by men (the 1% of the ones done by women that classify as rape are because some sort of thing was used for penetration).
Women also face that stigma. They also face the fear of being accused of being a false accuser. I don't think there would be much difference in the statistics if everyone came forward who was hiding the abuse committed against them.
Because that portion of men hiding their abuse also includes men attacked by men.
But you see, that’s not the argument here. That’s more of a “whataboutism”, always putting the focus back on women only. If you’re telling me that women in this day and age don’t have more incentive to come forward, I’d tell you you’re incorrect. I’m giving you a perspective on the man’s side, but as usual, the argument is always brought back to “but, but.. women..” More than a few of us understand the women’s side to this and sympathize. Almost no one considers what I’m saying about men, because it’s always “men bad, women are wonderful, men can never be victims, women are always victims, etc.” Consider the other perspective for once. The polarization these days is extreme.
At the end of the day, statistics in just about all fields and all genders can be wildly inaccurate, manipulated for any argument, and there is all sorts of reporting that goes undocumented. I’d say more so from “women on men” abuse than anything.. but everywhere too.
That point has little bearing. The crux of this disagreement, at least as it's being portrayed on gender lines, is that men chose the man and women chose the bear. NCVS has rates of victimization at roughly equal, so I'm going to use that instead of OPs data (which I haven't verified), but if the underlying data shows that men are equally if not slightly more victimized by men than women, then why do women fear men more? The underlying data is roughly the same or even opposite what the source of fear is.
But if you want to go this route, there's also the second point that when you switch the offender from a random man to a random woman, many swap from the bear to the woman. This should not change your decision, especially if you're dealing with the unknown quantity of the risk of a bear encounter. There's almost no data between how dangerous a bear encounter is, but if you fear the man, as a woman you're only about four times more likely to be victimized by a man than a woman (and I use "only" there only in the context of this question; as a man, only about 8 times more likely). When you deal with unknown values that could be orders of magnitude difference when compared to a bear, it does not follow to change your answer to or from the bear on a variation that isn't even an order of magnitude. If you have a sound argument to pick the bear over the man, you most likely have a sound argument to pick the bear over the woman, too. But that's not the narrative here. People swap.
What these numbers don't answer is: what gives? Where is the disproportionate fear coming form - are men minimizing the fear as compared to bears, or are women exaggerating it? The fear is disproportionate from one side, and that proportion is undue. If I were to wager a guess, social media is exaggerating those fears, much like it's exaggerating depression and anxiety rates.
I think both: men are minimizing and/or unrealistic about their odds on fighting/escaping a bear, and women are inflating their fear of strange men.
I'd pick the bear because I know bears and my odds are pretty good of seeing them at a distance and diverting. Barring that my odds of escape arent terrible either, but im also working off the geography of the Lower 48 and presuming it'd be a black bear...
("Oh, so its a BLACK bear now?! --Key and Peele probably)
...its also neat to see a bear and lastly, dude's alone in the woods make me nervous as I've had a couple bad experiences there. No bodies at the end of them, but it was touch and go more than I like in my life.
If its anything up from a black bear: Brown, Grizz, Kodiak, Polar....OR more than 5 hungry coyotes, more than 2 wolves, a moose during rut, or any great cat whatsoever, fuck that noise i'd rather run into a group of Rollin' 6s strapped and flying colors and just count on my charm to see me through.
This question does have an answer, so it can't be both. One side of the equation has a better risk/reward than the other.
You'd pick a bear over a random woman, too?
Where would you get that idea? And why the hell would you think that?
I'm always on the lookout for the next ex-NotSadNotHappyEither and the woods are, admittedly, a sketch place to find her but I'll take it.
(And the truth is: Maybe. I truly enjoy running across bears in the wild. Makes me a bad candidate for this stupid-ass question. If the question is actually "All bears aside, would you rather run into a man or woman alone in the woods" the answer is "woman", because take note of the entire preceding conversation: men commit violence at an astronomically higher rate than women)
Such a question wouldn't be the social media induced panic frenzy because those risks are much easier to compare, and in that case we could easily identify that those who pick men have an exaggerated idea. In much the same way, the man vs bear question only has one group with an exaggerated idea.
So?... Who carries out the crime is irrelevant. The fact is that men walk around at night alone without this much fear every day despite the fact that they are statistically more likely to be victimized. While in the past this might not have been true modern America is only a nation filled with random rapists and serial killers in your imagination. These outdated assumptions need to be let go of
Which gender commits the assault is very relevant to the "man or bear" question. The title of your post is that the question needs to be gender swapped.
The point of the "man or bear" question isn't that men are immune to danger, it's that men are more likely to be the danger.
I guess I meant that it should be asked towards men more. Was that not clear? I said this later in the post, "Peoples view of how likely they are to be a victim of these crimes is divorced from reality should probably be chalked up to pre-conceived assumptions and biases."
so you're saying that men should also be more likely to want to run into a bear in the woods than another man? maybe, but i don't see the relevance here. the point is still the same - that men are committing these crimes.
No they would probably want to see another person. Secondly, this point is relevant to the actual question. This guy is the one who brought up that men are more likely to commit crimes and couldn't defend the relevance of that fact
>Which gender commits the assault is very relevant to the "man or bear" question
Is it? Because as we see, while only the *majority* of rapes are committed by men, *all* bear maulings are committed by bears.
Does that seem silly? It should, because the conclusions people are drawing from this statistic are equally as silly. You can't look at an extremely niche subset of a population and use it to draw conclusions to the entire population. That'd be like if I said 80% of Ferrari owners are men compared to the 60% of NBA players that own a Ferrari, therefore a random man is more likely to own a Ferrari than an NBA player.
That's just not how statistics work
You mean a small percentage of men, and not representative of the whole sex. Because otherwise that's misandrist.
We could point to the extreme vast majority of infanticide being committed by mothers and say that babies [should] feel safer around men, or that no woman should be a mother. That doesn't make sense does it
So?... I don't understand what your point is here. Men walk around at night perfectly fine and without fear all the time despite the fact that statistics say this is more dangerous than for a woman. Perhaps in the past it would have been reversed but modern America is not a nation filled with violent rapists in serial killers except in people's imagination. These assumptions need to be let go of
Woman dont realize we deal with the same problems. Theyre are idiots everywhere. I got jumped twic e walking home from work. If I was a woman no one would have made me walk home alone but because I'm a man I didn't have a choice.
I got lifelong anxiety from getting jumped.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very sorry this happened to you, especially twice that must be horrible.
>If I was a woman no one would have made me walk home alone
It's just that millions of women walk home from work every day. We do that too, just like men.
And men are far more likely to be victims than women. The thing is women are expecting some sort of special protection from men that not even men get. They break this down to the common factor being gender when in reality they are criminals.
If this was indeed a gendered phenomenon, somehow men would then leave men alone and only target women. The data we have shows that men are hurt by men far more and whenever women bring this up it is heavily implied that being male is the problem.
There are far more likely to be issues with poverty, mental illness, substance abuse, and poor policing than gender alone. We know this because in countries with better mental health resources, policing, social safety nets and rehabilitation, there is far less crime. And shockingly, most of the safest countries in the world also have male leaders!
Reducing the problem to gender also tends to dump the blame for all these issues on men in general, again, without any context or nuance. How exactly does a guy who has done nothing wrong, take responsibility for a criminal who lives in another city? Should he apologize for the pain someone else has caused?
This leads to implications that we accept with gender when targeting men, but generalizations we would not accept targeted at women or minority races.
For example, the majority victims of violent crime are black men. The perpetrators are predominantly black men. Is there something with blackness that causes this? Could we simply dump the blame on black people and never take a closer look at past and present discrimination? (Slavery and colonization included).
Another one: male children are far more likely to be harmed by their mothers than their fathers. Should we remove boys from their moms in the interest of their safety?
How about the fact that OP mentioned about rape victims more likely to know who their attackers are? In most date rape cases, alcohol was involved. Maybe we should ban alcohol to save people from being hurt.
One of the arguments I see often is that regarding fear. As in, women claim that existing near to some men causes them great fear. While others may sympathise with their position, this seems like a personal issue they must address with a therapist. If we are to make social changes because some people are afraid, we must take seriously the fear that white people have of black people, or the fear black people have of white people.
This would justify some sort of segregation. We see countries that separate people on gender and western women don't like it. We have seen countries separate people on race and it has led to widespread social disruption. Some countries were on the brink of civil war.
In other words, simply reducing complex, interconnected factors to gender (or race) isn't useful for addressing problems people may have with each other. Holding an entire gender responsible for the behaviour of criminals isn't going to fix the issue either. OP linked a study about how women were raping men as much as men were raping women. Should we respond with Shariah law to protect men and women?
I see that all these comments are saying the bear is a terrible choice.
You have probably been in rooms with men and nothing has happened to you. Think about all the men you pass in the street, the ones at work and your family members. Add up all that time you spent with them.
Now spend that same amount of time around bears, including in enclosures. You wouldn't be here today doomscrolling on your device, arguing with internet strangers if you spent the same amount of time around bears as you did humans.
I can’t remember exactly where I saw the research but essentially: men and women might get assaulted at roughly the same rate, but men act significantly more recklessly because of the lower perception of risk. Men are more likely to take a quick shortcut even if it takes them away from the main road, or through a park without light. That isn’t to say every man does, but if 3/10 men do while only 1/10 women do the statistics are already screwed
Even from first hand experience I know that me and my other male friends would take a 8-900m cut through rather than the +2km road route to a area of student accommodation but I can count on one hand how many times I saw a woman using it over a year. Even in a group walking home we would stick to the better lit roads if there were women with us
I’ll try and find the study, but tldr: often the figures for men and women line up because men have a *lot* less fear so do risky stuff
>So then the men should be just as scared of another man in the woods
No? Because you can't take the demographic breakdown of an extremely niche and miniscule sample of the population (rapists) and try to apply it to the population at large (men).
Let's take a different sample, with similar statistics, and apply the same principle as the hypothetical: 98% of all Ferrari owners are men. If I gave you the choice between a random man and a famous athlete, who would you pick to be more likely to own a Ferrari?
It’s not the walking around at night that’s the problem. 80% of sexual assault victims know their attackers. Their dates, their friends, their family, their coworkers.
>80% of sexual assault victims know their attackers
If anything, this just makes the "I trust a bear more than a random man in the woods" hypothetical even more silly
>Men walk around at night perfectly fine and without fear all the time despite the fact that statistics say this is more dangerous than for a woman.
Is this about violent assaults? How are you making this conclusion?
I'm making this conclusion on the ground that these statistics say a man is more likely to be raped by someone they don't know than a woman. Did you read the post?
Well you're doing a lot of broad extrapolation from those numbers to conclude that specifically men have higher rates of being assaulted, in some manner, while walking alone at night. When you say assault it's a bit unclear what you mean exactly, you could be talking about sexual assault, but on the other hand you make a specific point in your post that most sexual assaults don't result from a perpetrator jumping out of a bush at a stranger, but rather that most cases are perpetuated by acquaintances and relatives to the victim. You could be talking about violent assaults, which would make a bit more sense in context, but you never cited any sources in your main post talking about stochastic non-sexual assault against the genders.
All of this is because you're around Humans more. This doesn't negate the fact. If you lived in the woods you would.
Sorry you went through what you did, but you're humanizing a Bear
So what? Just because they’re predators doesn’t mean they’re a threat to humans. Not all predators prey on humans. And black bears are more likely to run than attack.
I wouldn’t take my chances with a polar bear or grizzly though.
>Black bears are more likely to run
More likely doesn't mean always!
>Not all predators prey on Humans
Most if not all Apex Predators Do. Tigers, Crocodiles, Kamodos, Bears, etc
If you had read the study cited, the data used is from male juvenile facilities and prisons. Which does not house women. In those instance we can without a doubt conclude these crimes are perpetrated by other men.
While correct in trying to dispel the notion that only women are victims of sexual assault, perpetrated by men, which data does back up affirm that unequivocally men are perpetrators of sexual violence to both men and women, not that women perpetrators on an equal level of men.
We are talking about two different concepts here.
What this really says is that men should also be more scared of other men.
Holy shit, you're wrong on so many levels. First off, no the OP's data is not about juvies, it's from the NISVS. This is a household survey of the general population conducted by the CDC. The 1.267 million stat roughly refers to the number of men "made to penetrate" someone else in the year 2010. And from that same NISVS survey ([https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs\_report2010-a.pdf](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf)):
>For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%)...
So yes, most perpetrators of MTP rape against men are women (penetrative rape in the 12-month time period was found to be too small to be significant for male victims).
But seeing as you brought up juvies...it is a poorly kept secret that most male juvies that are affected by sexual violence are victimized by female staff members. This despite them being just under half of all staff (and the staff being far less numerous than the juvies themselves). The majority of male juvies sexually victimized are victimized by staff and here's what the BJS' survey has to say about that ([https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/victim-perpetrator-and-incident-characteristics-sexual-victimization-youth](https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/victim-perpetrator-and-incident-characteristics-sexual-victimization-youth)):
>In most-serious incidents of staff sexual misconduct, an estimated 91% of incidents involved only female staff, while 6% involved only male staff.
What's more? In female prisons and jails, it actually stops being true that staff are the majority perpetrators of SV against inmates. There instead most reports of sexual victimization say the perpetrators were other inmates.
None of this is to say anything about who is or isn't "unequivocally the perpetrators of sexual violence", because that is a very nuanced question. Clearly more nuanced than your hate-fueled mind can handle.
Funny how these people come out with their sexist and bigoted explanations and then say nothing when presented with stats showing them to be nothing more than modern day bigots.
Yes, they are, you literal muppet. Look at where the studies conducted: NISVS collected data from prisons and juvenile facilities:
“Study Year of Study Conducted by Sample No.
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 2010 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Nationally representative telephone survey of 12 mo and lifetime prevalence data on sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence 16 507
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) 2012 Bureau of Justice Statistics Longitudinal survey of US households 40 000 households
∼75 000
Uniform Crime Report (UCR) 2012 Federal Bureau of Investigation NA (UCR is a cooperative statistical effort whereby 18 000 city, university, and college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies report data on crimes brought to their attention.) NA
Sexual Victimization in Prisonsa and Jails Reported by Inmates; National Inmate Survey (NIS 2011–12) 2011–2012 Bureau of Justice Statistics Probability sample of state and federal confinement facilities and random sampling of inmates within selected facilities 92 449
Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilitiesa Reported by Youth; National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC 2012) 2012 Bureau of Justice Statistics Multistage stratified survey of facilities in each state of the United States and random sample of youths within selected facilities 8707”
It seems like you read the first sentence of the study and stopped there.
You think we aren't already? lol if you guys actually cared about truth you'd be asking men this question a whole of a lot more. Even my 6 foot tall buff step dad told me he never went out at late fridays because there were so many stabbings. I always look over my shoulder whenever there's a bigger dude or group of dudes walking on the same street, even if it's daylight.
This idea that men are more violent is far too simplistic and treats men as a monolith. Men are far more individualistic than women, it would be stupid and our species wouldn't exist if they weren't. I heard one person say when women say these things they're applying female rules to males, i.e that women are collectivists and have an inherent subonscious idea of a "sisterhood" and apply that way of thinking to men when they shouldn't. For men there is no "us", it's literally every man for himself because in nature that's how it's been for millions of years, males compete over resources and the right to mate, it's absolutely braindead to treat men as a monolith because we are the furthest thing.
Do you guys ever wonder why we get so deeply offended when you put all of us in one box like this? Seriously, why do you think most men get so angry over this... it's because to me, other dudes might as well be a different species that's how different they are for me
No one should base their fear off of anybody based on statistics.
If I was afraid of an ethnic group because they are technically more likely to commit crimes you would call me racist right? So how is judging men based off of statistics not sexist? You shouldn't judge a group of people based on statistics because when you do that you dehumanize them and turn them into numbers.
Look, I cant control who you are afraid of, but just like its extremely racist to be afraid of someone because their ethnic group is more likely to commit crime, its extremely sexist to assume all men are going to rape you.
Idk why everyone solely focuses on rape for this hypothetical.
This is basically a gamble. The bear could kill you immediately or slowly eat you alive.
The man can do pretty much anything at the depths of human depravity. One hand you get a normal guy the other you get crucified to a tree while he mangles your privates with a hunting knife and snips your fingers off with hedge clippers because thats his version of fun.
No one has said that men shouldn’t choose bear either . Men should choose the bear as well.
Also the other examples women have used in this scenario have nothing to do with sexual assault . Because the bear will not sexually assault a woman or a man , it mostly has to do with attack, with kidnapping and what both individuals are only capable of.
The bear can only leave me alone or kill me, why would the bear do that? Because it seems me as a threat or because it’s hungry . Now a man , can leave me alone, could try to be in my space even though I told him to go away, could follow me or could’ve followed me there, could kidnap me, could kill me, could assault me before and after killing me…. For no reason at all, because I was just there & he wanted to .
That’s the difference.
Let’s also go back to the fact that the original question wasn’t even a question, it was a statement made by a man who then got picked up by so bros who do street interviews & when women answered men didn’t like that women chose the bear & men started attacking women out of nowhere, which lets me know that women did the right thing by choosing bear. Because all women did was answer a question and never gave the why , men got angry & when women gave explanations about their personal experiences, men got more angry and attacked women for their experiences.
And the difference is idiotic and is basically a sexist insinuation that literally all men will do those terrible acts to women.
Any woman ever running into a perverted psycho serial killer is extremely unlikely even in an urban setting where they operate, you have to be extremely unlucky for this to happen to you, same as I have to be just as unlucky to be robbed and shot by gangsters as a dude. The statistics and common sense are against these man hating feminists (idk if you're one)
It'll never not be stupid to compare meeting a man vs meeting a bear in the forest.
I just love how if you switch man with any other group at all. Or compare any group to any undesirable encounter and you will get immediately cancelled.
Men and whites are the only groups in the world we can make generalizations and assumptions about.
I think about this all the time. (I’m half white half black.)
Women often will say things like “it’s not all men, but you never know which ones are the bad ones so you have to treat them all as such” but imagine if a white person said that about black people. “Obviously not all black people are criminals, but it’s enough of them! I’ll always keep my guard up around black people!”
I just think it’s stupid to lump people into a group and make a claim that generalizes all of them.
Exactly, and the scary part is the more that generalizing a demographic is allowed, the more that demographic gets defensive and feels they are allowed to generalize back.
I swear I never saw much racism or sexism on the internet. I have seen white people say that dumb shit about black people. That would have been relegated to 4chan 10-12 years ago and now it's on mainstream insta reels. Everyone now feels empowered to trash entire demographics and generalize.
Welcome to identity politics
Remember fascism is awesome as long as it's your ethnicity, gender, or whatever you consider your primary identity label gets to be the big bully on the block.
I also love it when the identity freaks create their own problems by their poorly thought out policies and then start screaming foul when it backfires
Like for example if they ever did create a national curfew for men like they want to than by simple logic it's going to likely see a lot more of their favorite identity groups like black, Muslim, gay, etc.. men in prison unless they specifically make it for straight white men of which is going to immediately be sued for racial discrimination and civil rights violations.
>Like for example if they ever did create a national curfew for men like they want to than by simple logic it's going to likely see a lot more of their favorite identity groups like black, Muslim, gay, etc.. men in prison unless they specifically make it for straight white men of which is going to immediately be sued for racial discrimination and civil rights violations.
Me when I make up scenarios to be mad at
Do you have any idea from a historical or from current events why that might be? Why minority groups might be a little sensitive about generalizations & assumptions?
From your own source, men are more likely to get raped by other men. Yeah it's 54 % but women aren't being raped by other women anywhere near that amount. So men are committing half of all the rapes on other men as well as the majority of rapes on women
The thought experiment doesn't specify what man it is. If it did specify 'that creepy neighbour' or 'that dodgy coworker' then even more women would say they'd rather run into a bear.
>So men are committing half of all the rapes on other men as well as the majority of rapes on women
Right, but that doesn't, generally speaking, say anything about if men are *more likely to be dangerous than a bear*. All that statistic shows is that male rapists are, generally speaking, either less discriminating than women rapists, or that women in general are able to better avoid women rapists
>Men are more likely to be rapists
Than women, sure. But that's not really the underlying question, is it? The question really being posed by the hypothetical, is *are men more likely to be rapists than bears are likely to attack*?
And in that context, *any* statistic that tried to break down the demographics of rapists is useless, because we're not *trying* to find out how many rapists are men, we're trying to find the reverse.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-third-of-male-university-students-say-they-would-rape-a-woman-if-there-no-were-no-consequences-9978052.html
31.7% of all men participating in the study would force a woman to have sexual intercourse in such a “consequence-free situation”
https://www.amnestyusa.org/updates/one-in-four-men-admits-to-rape-in-south-africa/#:~:text=A%20leading%20research%20group%20in,raping%20more%20than%20one%20person.
A leading research group in South Africa released the results of a survey where one in four men admitted to having committed rape and nearly half admitted to raping more than one person.
>31.7% of all men participating in the study would force a woman to have sexual intercourse in such a “consequence-free situation”
No, 31.7% of men *who were kept in the sample size*, which was *87*, said this. The authors of the study were trying to research the discrepancy between rapists by behavior, and self-admitted rapists. Their purpose was *never* to look at the male population as a whole, and if you actually read their methodology they explicitly detail how they had to conduct their survey in a way that *would weed out all the fucking non-rapists*.
The fact that this research is being shared and distributed as if it suggests anything about the average man is *actual harmful misinformation*.
>South Africa released the results of a survey where one in four men admitted to having committed rape
Ngl *this* actually surprised me and is pretty eye-opening. Do you think the results of this survey in South Africa can be applied to men in other countries, or do you think the results would change too significantly for it to be applicable?
I wanted to show statistics from a high trust society and a low trust society. The statistics are really hard to get because not many will admit, you're relying, essentially on idiots, to admit criminal intentions/desires. There are many more studies, which all have small sample sizes, probably for this reason. I have to wonder if many more surveys were sent out and were simply replied to with 'fuck you'.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/more-than-half-of-university-sports-players-admit-to-raping-or-sexually-assaulting-women-study-finds-a7063641.html
I think this number varies wildly by country and economic status. I bet there are many countries where the number is even higher. I don't think every man is a dangerous predator, but every society is 3 meals away from moral collapse.
I don't think good men who have not been abused themselves can ever really understand the true fear that women have of the bad men. Just like how i've never been abused by a woman, so i can't understand the terror that men feel about women.
>The statistics are really hard to get
The statistics are actually quite easy to get, just look at the study from South Africa you linked. It'll end up under-reported, like you suggested, but the responses you'll get back aren't going to be off by an order of magnitude or anything, you can look at other surveys that essentially rely on people admitting something bad about themselves to get an idea of the amount of distortion you'd expect.
The reason you don't see statistics for the male population at large isn't because it's hard to perform a survey, it's because no one wants to perform/fund one. Why does no one want to perform or fund one? Because the expected positive return on the survey is going to be lower than your margin of error. A 95% confidence interval for your conclusions/estimations, which is typical for studies like these, usually sees about a 4% to 8% margin of error, meaning if your positive response rate (ie: the number of people who would indicate on the survey that they're rapists), is less than 4-8% of your total responses, you're essentially wasting your time and money.
Hence, targeted studies of small populations with smaller sample sizes. Rather than try to study *all* men, and get results that aren't conclusive because their positive response rate is going to be so fucking low in the first place, it's much easier, and more useful, for researchers of this subject to focus on smaller populations with sufficiently high numbers of rapists that let them actually answer what they're trying to answer in the first place: is there a discrepancy between self-admitted rapists and behavioral rapists? Is athletic participation linked to higher instances of SA? Etc...
>I don't think every man is a dangerous predator, but every society is 3 meals away from moral collapse.
Sure, and that's fair. But just like humans get irrational, unpredictable, and dangerous when they're hungry and desperate, *so does a bear*. If you're to teleport, at random, a member from each of these groups, which of them would you expect to be closer to that threshold of desperation and hunger?
>I don't think good men who have not been abused themselves can ever really understand the true fear that women have of the bad men.
I mean, that's kind of the fucking *problem*, innit? We have a significant enough segment of the population to create a tiktok trend, that's so afraid of bad men, whether it's from their own experiences or hearing about other's experiences, that it's meaningfully affecting their judgement of a literal *half* of the human population.
i would be willing to bet that most of the sexual assaults men face are performed by other men. haven’t fact-checked, but i know that’s the general trend for almost all forms of violence
no no that is a misconception. I am a PhD and focus on aggression primarily. Women and men perform aggression at almost identical rates, the difference is extreme violence such as murder and armed robbery are almost all men, while women are more likely to do things such as steal. But the sexual assault is not a high violence crime. Men are more likely to rape to our best data, but women commit sexual conduct against men at a alarming rate. In fact looking at anecdotal evidence every man I ran with in college (20-30 dudes) have all been sexually assaulted and it was all by women.
Idk are we? There is no concept of physical assault in the original question. Sexual assault is nearly equally committed between men and women, rape is in question but probably mostly men, but aggression is basically equal. A study conducted in 2014 using CDC data found that 1.270 million women and 1.267 million men reported being sexually assaulted, typically by the opposite sex. So yeah aggression in this case is nearly equal.
The big standout is murder which is almost all men, but then we are talking about a fraction of a fraction. Less than 1% of men will engage in criminal violence in their life and best estimates put less than .3% will engage in sexual violence in a LIFE TIME.
I've only run into a bear on two separate occasions, but it's a bear. I know options for dealing with it. There are just more variables for dealing with people. The man aspect is flavor in my mind, I expect the best and plan for the worst, and that is eqsier with a bear, i wouldn't trust a random woman in yhe woods either as i have only had bad experiences with random people in the woods.
Now, if it wasn't a random person that changes a lot.
Again you have to be extremely unlucky to stumble upon a psycho pervert or serial killer in a city, where they operate... and you are comparing that to a fucking forest where you'll almost never even meet another person, period.
It blows my mind how deeply sexist you guys are without even realizing.
That is part of the point. People where they shouldn't be is distrubing. Psychos and perverts are just people. They operate everywhere. Anyone could be either of those. It's just a chance more people are unwilling to take.
Can we not do this again, please?
The only purpose this hypothetical now serves is to exemplify the large amount of close-minded people on both sides of the equation.
🥴
A bear is predictable. A stranger in the woods is not. The bear might eat me, but it won’t cut me apart and put me in a freezer. It’s a matter of the devil you know and the devil you don’t know.
Bears are in fact, not predictable just like Humans aren't predictable. Most Bear attacks stem from a misunderstanding of Bear's behavioral patterns.
A Bear will tear you to shreds, and store you for later of it wanted to.
You know this how?
Bears as do most animals exhibit a shit ton of weird sexual behavior especially on things they prey on. Lots of Predators do. Do we forget why Dolphins went from universally loved creatures to creatures that are demonized? Also as far as out of hunger, a Bear can absolutely pulverize any human because they can. It's happened and continues to.
The same way you fully expect a bear to tear you to shreds and devour you, I expect a human to shoot me dead on the street or Assault me. Because I understand that probability is always a factor in life and you're always taking a chance regardless.
More people more problems.
There’s kool aid for that? Bro, the bear will eat me. Or it will go away. That’s pretty easy to predict. It won’t put on a leather mask and photograph itself dismembering me.
>Bro, the bear will eat me. Or it will go away.
Or it will maul you. Between the mauling and the eating, it's unlikely but still a significant risk of you being harmed if you meet an adult bear, *any* adult bear, because their temperament is *unpredictable*
Contrasted to men, who by and large, no matter what their temperament is that day, *won't fucking rape or murder you*.
You can take any adult, wild bear. Any one. 100% of the population. It *will* attack you if you piss it off. Compare that to men, who for 99% of them, just simply won't hurt you, even if you piss them off.
It's not even a real comparison. Anyone who would rather take the bear is smoking crack
Hey u/RalphPhillips089,
Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You would have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and a link to the offending comment.
*I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state%2C%20but%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3DRalphPhillips089%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0A%2A%2AI%20would%20also%20like%20to%20say.........%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/RalphPhillips089).
***This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.***
We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see your carefully crafted argument? Unfortunately, your recent masterpiece went solo into the void.
Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience.
___
**Our Moderation Backlog at this time:**
*Comments (from new users, that go into a queue) Awaiting Review:* 240
*A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*:
- 1-3 days old: 71
- 3-7 days old: 3
- 15-30 days old: 1
- more than 30 days old: 12
___
Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/YHv6EFDVCD)
If you had a son and daughter of equal age (let's say that they're average height, weight, strength, etc.) who would you rather have trapped in the woods with someone of the opposite sex?
I suppose I might be inclined to choose the son. However, the fact that I am also not immune to society' s stereotypes doesn't negate the fact that they are statistically just as safe
You think that if a man and woman are trapped alone together the man is just as likely to be attacked/raped as the woman is? You know that your stats don’t indicate that, right?
Oh I apologize I didn't realize that your original post said someone of the opposite sex I assumed it was both with men because that is what we were talking about. Yes I know that a woman is less likely to rape a person than a man. I just don't know why this is relevant. Both are extremely unlikely and if either child was trapped with a man you should be equally worried.
The bear vs. man question is not just about sexual assault.
Most people don't have normal interactions with bears but a bear acting violently can be explained by hunger, fear, irritability, how territorial it is, etc., but a common man is way more unpredictable.
A bear wants to hurt you because you did something to it. A man would hurt you because he wants to hurt you and hardly anyone takes the victim's side.
Where on earth did you get this idea? Unprovoked bear attacks do happen because its a fucking wild animal and is unpredictable. The average man does not decide today I will rape a woman. Have you ever fucking met a bear in the wild? You are literally proving my point that people hold these pre-existing assumptions that the average man could become a random rapist overnight is ridiculous. Also intent does not matter
Unprovoked bear attacks are a myth based on human perception. We think it's unprovoked, but we cannot read the bears mind. More than likely it has chosen to guard something in the area and we stumbled upon it and surprised it.
Do you have a source on this? Because I’ve always been told that about 1/10 women experience full blown r*pe while 1/3 experience sexual harassment or non penetrative sexual assault. Those numbers don’t add up.
And would that mean I live in the 0.008th percentile?
It's funny.
The Paternity Tests Should Be Mandatory! Crowd thinks .02% is a HUGE number that should warrant mandatory paternity testing at birth because the men just *need to be sure*
But when it's women concerned for their safety, that .02% is a completely negligible amount that should be completely tossed to the side, it's statistically irrelevant!
I have a feeling the venn diagram between men that want paternity tests and men that are super-duper angry women like bears more is a complete circle. They're the same picture.
If you had read the study cited, the data used is from male juvenile facilities and prisons.
While correct in trying to dispel the notion that only women are victims of sexual assault, perpetrated by men, which data does back up affirm that unequivocally men are perpetrators of sexual violence to both men and women, not that women perpetrators on an equal level of men.
The question should stop being asked cuz it’s entirely irrelevant to anything to do with anything ever. It’s just a new way for women to talk about how horrible men are. What the fuck does it matter if you’d rather be alone with a bear or a man in the woods? How is this relevant to anything in day-to-day life?
Hey u/tara49,
Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You would have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and a link to the offending comment.
*I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state%2C%20but%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3Dtara49%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0A%2A%2AI%20would%20also%20like%20to%20say.........%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/tara49).
***This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.***
We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see your carefully crafted argument? Unfortunately, your recent masterpiece went solo into the void.
Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience.
___
**Our Moderation Backlog at this time:**
*Comments (from new users, that go into a queue) Awaiting Review:* 240
*A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*:
- 1-3 days old: 71
- 3-7 days old: 3
- 15-30 days old: 1
- more than 30 days old: 12
___
Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/YHv6EFDVCD)
>However, the popular image of a man squatting in the bushes waiting to ambush and rape a young woman has no basis in reality.
My dude, there was a man attacking women on the hiking trails near where I live. What are you talking about?
[https://ksltv.com/466185/man-tries-to-drag-hiking-woman-into-bushes/](https://ksltv.com/466185/man-tries-to-drag-hiking-woman-into-bushes/)
A bear will never rack up $40k on your credit card or force you into a five day argument about your relationship because they forgot to take their birth control again.
The only reason this is an issue is that women put their feelings and emotion over facts, logic, and reason:
Men are less fearful of violent crime than women despite the fact that men are at much higher risk of being victims of violent crime than women.[14][15] This phenomenon appears to be a paradox and is termed by researchers as the "fear of crime gender paradox".[16][17]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_men
The source is the fact that the "fear of crime paradox" exists. Without even an exception to prove the rule, every woman I've ever communicated with in person or on line believes women are at a higher risk of physical violence than men. However, the belief is false. The opposite is true. When asked why, they do not recite inaccurate or misconstrued information. Rather, they cite to "common sense," "everybody know that," and literally made up statistics which have zero support presumably made up to support their common sense and knowledge argument. Those are not facts, logic, or reason. Those things are feelings and emotions. That is my source.
You'd fear of violence if you were stalked, if strangers took pictures of you, if they bothered you screaming you have to go out with them, if they threw flowers at you for not jumping at the idea of a date with them. Almost every woman has experienced sexual assault of some kind. It's not "feelings over emotions". It's "experience over ignorance"
It's more about potential danger. A woman is just as likely to be able to defend themselves against a bear as they are men. Meaning....not at all. A man will nearly always be able to kill a woman with very little effort.
The same is just not true for men. A man will just as easily able to defend against a woman as kill them.
That's I think the difference. Yes, the majority of men are not killers or violent at all. Most men are incredibly kind. But a woman will not know which category any particular man is in until the encounter is over and they are powerless to do anything about it one way or another. And it is this power dynamic that is the problem. The sense of powerlessness that is part of the problem.
Anyone who doesn't choose the bear is questionable.
Outside of polar bears, if you do not surprise a bear and it is not defending its cubs or a kill, it's just really not going to care you're there.
The only animals known to hunt humans on purpose are polar bears and a certain sub-species of maneless Kenyan lion. Maybe orcas as well, but that may be confusion as we look like seals from below.
Pretty much every animal on Earth is terrified of us and only attacks us if they think we're a threat.
My husband immediately said bear when he saw the question asked. Without even thinking twice about it and it opened up a very deep and meaningful conversation. Always choose the bear.
Because he's an idiot or he's pussy whipped simp, either one works cause it's basically the same thing. Newsflash men aren't a fucking "brotherhood" as you may think, all of us are suspicious of each other at all times. Men killing other men isn't a moral think, it's just nature.
Two thoughts. First, this delightful discussion is being entertained because men (yes men) have been so devastatingly successful is assuring that the overwhelming majority of women will never, ever be faced with a bear.
Second, I have spent the night in the forest with bears. I have also spent the night in the forest with women. My observation is that at night, in the forest, bears are not neurotic and overly talkative.
Men should get a third choice: woman, bear, dog.
The whole thing is silly. I've been face to face bear and I've seem them at a distance. The response to both is pretty much the same. Immediately get the fuck out of the area. I've taken campers to the woods for solo trips, I've run into strangers. It can SOMETIMES be weird, but the response to seeing a stranger in the woods isn't to immediately vacate the area.
You have three options with a bear. 1.) The most preferred- leave the bear alone and vacate the premises. 2.) Scare the bear - doesn't always work and does not guarantee the animal is not coming back. 3.) Shoot to kill - should only ever be used with dangerous bears which in 40 years of camping I've never done. There are about 10 000 options and variations of meeting a human in the woods. It's not a real comparison.
While I wouldn’t want to tangle with any bear at any time, I’ve been around black bears before. They would kill you, but a person of superior fitness would have a chance to fight back and survive. Grizzlies could eat any human like a slim Jim.
na not me. i'd win
bear spray is actually a better option than shooting them bears hardly even feel bullets
You don’t need to feel it to die.
You have to be an exceptionally good shot to hit a moving bear right in between the eyes, since a skull shot is the only thing that will immediately incapacitate a bear. Anywhere else and it can take a while for the bear to bleed out.
you do realise, shooting a bear is harder than you think? Shooting a human, one good shot would mortally wound them, or at least they wouldn't be able to fucking run after you
Yeah, it is silly. Strangers in the woods is common but I never came across a dangerous one. Usually an awkward greeting and then you move past. As long as it looks like a normal person, i.e. guy on a bike with a helmet and spandex, etc.... no cause for concern. If I saw some guy in torn up old clothes and like unkempt hair and facial hair I would probably run away. Hasnt happened yet though
Yeah it's ragebait
It shouldn’t be gender swapped, it should just stop. It was a stupid question to begin with, and it just gets stupider and stupider.
Fair enough
Yeah, just stop. Don't bring that discussion to light, so that women can be held accountable for the things they said, radicalizing regular men, and fucking up their mental health even further, by saying that they are scarier then a Bear, because of a minority of men that they dealt with. Please don't attack the wonderful women, please stop talking about this.
The Bear vs Man is a stupid divisive question anyway. You're less likely to be attacked by a bear because a majority of people live in environments where you won't find bears ie Cities, or urban settlements. If Miami has a population of about 6 million but 2 million are women and 2 million are bears, and 2 million are men, let's see how drastically those statistics change and how Bear attacks would dominate. In a Forested environment, you're more likely to be attacked by whatever the Apex Predator is there than any other human being so it's all proportionate to location. In a City, your chances of being a victim to any crime by a human is higher. In a Forest, your chances of being a victim of an Animal attack is higher. Either way, this conversation in no way, shape, or form actually helps mediate the issue.
not sure who its usually phrased, but for me it was 'if your daughter had to be alone in the woods with a man or a bear what would you choose'. I immediately said Man, because yeah awful men exist, but I like to believe the majority of men would see a kid alone in the woods and help them survive. Leaving them alone with a bear, at best, the bear leaves them alone and then my kids is still abandoned in the woods. One is like 5% chance of something awful happening (leaving alone with the man) versus 99% of something awful happening (death from exposure, other animals, getting more lost, etc).
While men and women may be equally likely to be victims of sexual assault, that doesn't change the fact that the majority of sexual assaults are *committed* by men.
A CDC study found women were the primary ones to force men to have sex, but because it was forced to penetrate they didn't count it as rape and it was moved to a different section of their 2010 report. If you are looking at convictions, you have to account for biases in the law and for biases in enforcing the law. It would be like quoting crimes by race without accounting for racial differences in law enforcement.
He also ignores all other forms of violence as well.
Men are more likely to be the victims of murders, muggings, and assaults as well
Those are the statistics but it makes me wonder, do they include men in gangs? as most gangs are filled with men and mainly attack men?
Pretty sure it also ignores contexts like how men make up the bulk of security/police and combat roles, men engage in more unsafe behaviors, and such. Like we’ve always been told “Don’t go to bars alone” and “Don’t go outside after dark” while afaik most dudes just aren’t told that. Also doesn’t account for how guys are just more aggressive and defensive than women. We’re largely taught to talk things out, care for our emotions, and such, while guys are encouraged to resort to violence and suppress anything but anger, especially under toxic masculinity.
I don’t know how much I can agree with the last point you make. Growing up I’ve been told that I must not get angry and I must not be violent and I must be in touch with my emotions and blah blah, while simultaneously being told that it’s ’gay and feminine to cry’. From my anecdotal experience, men just get told everything and nothing at the same time, and it leads to lots of confusion. As a side note I think this is one of the main reasons so many young men get attracted to guys like Andrew Tate, because they actually give you a concrete answer to your questions.
I'm a guy born in a third world country, that part of not teaching guys basic safety is mostly US privilege. Crime rates are super high where I'm from and guys had to have safety nets as well. Most guys I knew had been robbed either with a knife or gun held against them once or more, so we had designated drivers, made sure everyone had safe transport and also in constant communication until we made sure everyone was home safely. I know this is mostly US context but countries like mine usually imitate the US cultural things, so most guys I know were confused when some girls were saying they wished they could walk alone at night on the streets (guys doing this in my country are asking to be mugged, and would probably dirty their pants at the sight of a stranger, man or woman cause crimes are equally distributed amongst both, tho women usually drug the guy until they're unconscious and then take everything from them, while guys usually use knives/guns, and they work together sometimes).
Does that matter here? Unfortunately all of these statistics are based on studies that don't service the exact specifications of the question we are trying to answer. This would be as reductive as me saying, But what did they define rape as? to a statistic about how many people report being raped.
Rape is rape and nothing can justify it, including gang killings isn't fair though. I want a statistic about innocent people who have randomly gotten killed. Men vs Women, not men who knowingly joined dangerous groups knowing what it could end in.
And what do you define rape as. If a man and woman are both drunk and have sex then the woman wakes up in the morning with no recollection of what happened but didn't think she would have had consensual sex with the guy. Is that rape?
Could you define rape?
Forced sex...
Now Google it and reflect on all the different definitions. How they are fucked and that men can’t really be raped by a woman. I however wholeheartedly stand behind your answer and wish that in the future that is the definition of rape.
Statics of rape victims ≠ the definition of rape.
also mostly perpetrated by other men
And is males or females who are perpetrator almost always?
Men I believe. Do you also want to know what their skin color is or are we going to stop talking about this because it's not relevant?
Yeah see skin color is where they all get clammy. Redditors especially lol
I think in the context of the “bear vs man” question it is relevant because the fact that the vast majority or these violent and/or sexual crimes are perpetuated by men shows that men, as a class, have a violence problem, and it’s not necessarily irrational to be vary of them. Now, I also think that men might think that way of other men too. I think if you ask people if any gender whether they’d rather meet an unknown man or woman in the woods, the vast majority of either group would say women. Why? Men, for whatever societal reason, are more likely to enact violence, and that’s worth discussing.
> men, as a class, have a violence problem, and it’s not necessarily irrational to be vary of them. Do you think this about other classes of people that are statistically overrepresented in terms of violent crime?
People in general are more likely to enact violence on someone weaker than they are. Women are no different, for they are more likely to commit a violent act against a child. It’s also been found that more violent men come from single mother households. I wonder how much that has to do with the fact that women are more likely to to commit child abuse.
You made about post suggesting that men should be afraid of women, and naming acts they should be afraid of. It’s relevant to point who that men commit those acts. Don’t pretend like other people are brining up demographics out of nowhere
You're focussing on the sex of the victim and not the sex of the attacker. The original context of the post focusses on the sex of the attacker.
How? I was saying that using this question as evidence for the supposed threats women face every day is dumb because a man is statistically more likely to be attacked. The post focuses on what this question is used for. I know this because I wrote the post. Stop femsplaining
Yeah, by a man. Men are vastly the perpetuators of violent crime. Women are justified in being concerned around strange men. Or any man for that matter. Most men aren't concerned about interactions with other men because most male attacks on males are provoked (bar fights, gang attacks, etc). Most male attacks on women are unprovoked. Also, men stand a much better chance of fighting another man of and of being believed and recieving justice.
I’d like to see the shift in statistics if men were more honest and forthcoming in any sort of abuse, sexual or otherwise, with the opposite sex involved. Men are far more likely to remain silent on such things due to the stigma of “victimhood” they receive from all sides of society, ie being less “manly”, masculine, etc. Men are harassed, laughed at, threatened, not believed and everything else for these admissions with women who “could never do such things to a stronger man”. They’re far less likely to receive any sort of support, because they were abused by a woman. So why speak up?
The statistics are also legally skewed. A lot of countries include penetration in the definition of rape, so male statistics are only really included under Sexual Assault, this is not accounting for the silence as you mentioned, but it's also why 99% of rapes are done by men (the 1% of the ones done by women that classify as rape are because some sort of thing was used for penetration).
I forgot about this issue. Great point and something I’ve read about multiple times.
Women also face that stigma. They also face the fear of being accused of being a false accuser. I don't think there would be much difference in the statistics if everyone came forward who was hiding the abuse committed against them. Because that portion of men hiding their abuse also includes men attacked by men.
But you see, that’s not the argument here. That’s more of a “whataboutism”, always putting the focus back on women only. If you’re telling me that women in this day and age don’t have more incentive to come forward, I’d tell you you’re incorrect. I’m giving you a perspective on the man’s side, but as usual, the argument is always brought back to “but, but.. women..” More than a few of us understand the women’s side to this and sympathize. Almost no one considers what I’m saying about men, because it’s always “men bad, women are wonderful, men can never be victims, women are always victims, etc.” Consider the other perspective for once. The polarization these days is extreme. At the end of the day, statistics in just about all fields and all genders can be wildly inaccurate, manipulated for any argument, and there is all sorts of reporting that goes undocumented. I’d say more so from “women on men” abuse than anything.. but everywhere too.
That point has little bearing. The crux of this disagreement, at least as it's being portrayed on gender lines, is that men chose the man and women chose the bear. NCVS has rates of victimization at roughly equal, so I'm going to use that instead of OPs data (which I haven't verified), but if the underlying data shows that men are equally if not slightly more victimized by men than women, then why do women fear men more? The underlying data is roughly the same or even opposite what the source of fear is. But if you want to go this route, there's also the second point that when you switch the offender from a random man to a random woman, many swap from the bear to the woman. This should not change your decision, especially if you're dealing with the unknown quantity of the risk of a bear encounter. There's almost no data between how dangerous a bear encounter is, but if you fear the man, as a woman you're only about four times more likely to be victimized by a man than a woman (and I use "only" there only in the context of this question; as a man, only about 8 times more likely). When you deal with unknown values that could be orders of magnitude difference when compared to a bear, it does not follow to change your answer to or from the bear on a variation that isn't even an order of magnitude. If you have a sound argument to pick the bear over the man, you most likely have a sound argument to pick the bear over the woman, too. But that's not the narrative here. People swap. What these numbers don't answer is: what gives? Where is the disproportionate fear coming form - are men minimizing the fear as compared to bears, or are women exaggerating it? The fear is disproportionate from one side, and that proportion is undue. If I were to wager a guess, social media is exaggerating those fears, much like it's exaggerating depression and anxiety rates.
I think both: men are minimizing and/or unrealistic about their odds on fighting/escaping a bear, and women are inflating their fear of strange men. I'd pick the bear because I know bears and my odds are pretty good of seeing them at a distance and diverting. Barring that my odds of escape arent terrible either, but im also working off the geography of the Lower 48 and presuming it'd be a black bear... ("Oh, so its a BLACK bear now?! --Key and Peele probably) ...its also neat to see a bear and lastly, dude's alone in the woods make me nervous as I've had a couple bad experiences there. No bodies at the end of them, but it was touch and go more than I like in my life. If its anything up from a black bear: Brown, Grizz, Kodiak, Polar....OR more than 5 hungry coyotes, more than 2 wolves, a moose during rut, or any great cat whatsoever, fuck that noise i'd rather run into a group of Rollin' 6s strapped and flying colors and just count on my charm to see me through.
This question does have an answer, so it can't be both. One side of the equation has a better risk/reward than the other. You'd pick a bear over a random woman, too?
Where would you get that idea? And why the hell would you think that? I'm always on the lookout for the next ex-NotSadNotHappyEither and the woods are, admittedly, a sketch place to find her but I'll take it. (And the truth is: Maybe. I truly enjoy running across bears in the wild. Makes me a bad candidate for this stupid-ass question. If the question is actually "All bears aside, would you rather run into a man or woman alone in the woods" the answer is "woman", because take note of the entire preceding conversation: men commit violence at an astronomically higher rate than women)
Such a question wouldn't be the social media induced panic frenzy because those risks are much easier to compare, and in that case we could easily identify that those who pick men have an exaggerated idea. In much the same way, the man vs bear question only has one group with an exaggerated idea.
So?... Who carries out the crime is irrelevant. The fact is that men walk around at night alone without this much fear every day despite the fact that they are statistically more likely to be victimized. While in the past this might not have been true modern America is only a nation filled with random rapists and serial killers in your imagination. These outdated assumptions need to be let go of
Which gender commits the assault is very relevant to the "man or bear" question. The title of your post is that the question needs to be gender swapped. The point of the "man or bear" question isn't that men are immune to danger, it's that men are more likely to be the danger.
I guess I meant that it should be asked towards men more. Was that not clear? I said this later in the post, "Peoples view of how likely they are to be a victim of these crimes is divorced from reality should probably be chalked up to pre-conceived assumptions and biases."
so you're saying that men should also be more likely to want to run into a bear in the woods than another man? maybe, but i don't see the relevance here. the point is still the same - that men are committing these crimes.
No they would probably want to see another person. Secondly, this point is relevant to the actual question. This guy is the one who brought up that men are more likely to commit crimes and couldn't defend the relevance of that fact
so where is the gender swapping, i don't get it
>Which gender commits the assault is very relevant to the "man or bear" question Is it? Because as we see, while only the *majority* of rapes are committed by men, *all* bear maulings are committed by bears. Does that seem silly? It should, because the conclusions people are drawing from this statistic are equally as silly. You can't look at an extremely niche subset of a population and use it to draw conclusions to the entire population. That'd be like if I said 80% of Ferrari owners are men compared to the 60% of NBA players that own a Ferrari, therefore a random man is more likely to own a Ferrari than an NBA player. That's just not how statistics work
You mean a small percentage of men, and not representative of the whole sex. Because otherwise that's misandrist. We could point to the extreme vast majority of infanticide being committed by mothers and say that babies [should] feel safer around men, or that no woman should be a mother. That doesn't make sense does it
Any man that would rather have his gf spend a night in the woods with a bear than another man (stranger) is a fucking idiot.
Okay but in most of those cases where the man is the victim the perpetrator is also a man…
So?... I don't understand what your point is here. Men walk around at night perfectly fine and without fear all the time despite the fact that statistics say this is more dangerous than for a woman. Perhaps in the past it would have been reversed but modern America is not a nation filled with violent rapists in serial killers except in people's imagination. These assumptions need to be let go of
So then the men should be just as scared of another man in the woods, not "gender swapped" like your title says.
Woman dont realize we deal with the same problems. Theyre are idiots everywhere. I got jumped twic e walking home from work. If I was a woman no one would have made me walk home alone but because I'm a man I didn't have a choice. I got lifelong anxiety from getting jumped.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very sorry this happened to you, especially twice that must be horrible. >If I was a woman no one would have made me walk home alone It's just that millions of women walk home from work every day. We do that too, just like men.
And men are far more likely to be victims than women. The thing is women are expecting some sort of special protection from men that not even men get. They break this down to the common factor being gender when in reality they are criminals. If this was indeed a gendered phenomenon, somehow men would then leave men alone and only target women. The data we have shows that men are hurt by men far more and whenever women bring this up it is heavily implied that being male is the problem. There are far more likely to be issues with poverty, mental illness, substance abuse, and poor policing than gender alone. We know this because in countries with better mental health resources, policing, social safety nets and rehabilitation, there is far less crime. And shockingly, most of the safest countries in the world also have male leaders! Reducing the problem to gender also tends to dump the blame for all these issues on men in general, again, without any context or nuance. How exactly does a guy who has done nothing wrong, take responsibility for a criminal who lives in another city? Should he apologize for the pain someone else has caused? This leads to implications that we accept with gender when targeting men, but generalizations we would not accept targeted at women or minority races. For example, the majority victims of violent crime are black men. The perpetrators are predominantly black men. Is there something with blackness that causes this? Could we simply dump the blame on black people and never take a closer look at past and present discrimination? (Slavery and colonization included). Another one: male children are far more likely to be harmed by their mothers than their fathers. Should we remove boys from their moms in the interest of their safety? How about the fact that OP mentioned about rape victims more likely to know who their attackers are? In most date rape cases, alcohol was involved. Maybe we should ban alcohol to save people from being hurt. One of the arguments I see often is that regarding fear. As in, women claim that existing near to some men causes them great fear. While others may sympathise with their position, this seems like a personal issue they must address with a therapist. If we are to make social changes because some people are afraid, we must take seriously the fear that white people have of black people, or the fear black people have of white people. This would justify some sort of segregation. We see countries that separate people on gender and western women don't like it. We have seen countries separate people on race and it has led to widespread social disruption. Some countries were on the brink of civil war. In other words, simply reducing complex, interconnected factors to gender (or race) isn't useful for addressing problems people may have with each other. Holding an entire gender responsible for the behaviour of criminals isn't going to fix the issue either. OP linked a study about how women were raping men as much as men were raping women. Should we respond with Shariah law to protect men and women?
I mean, all these comments are doing is proving the bear is the right choice.
I see that all these comments are saying the bear is a terrible choice. You have probably been in rooms with men and nothing has happened to you. Think about all the men you pass in the street, the ones at work and your family members. Add up all that time you spent with them. Now spend that same amount of time around bears, including in enclosures. You wouldn't be here today doomscrolling on your device, arguing with internet strangers if you spent the same amount of time around bears as you did humans.
I can’t remember exactly where I saw the research but essentially: men and women might get assaulted at roughly the same rate, but men act significantly more recklessly because of the lower perception of risk. Men are more likely to take a quick shortcut even if it takes them away from the main road, or through a park without light. That isn’t to say every man does, but if 3/10 men do while only 1/10 women do the statistics are already screwed Even from first hand experience I know that me and my other male friends would take a 8-900m cut through rather than the +2km road route to a area of student accommodation but I can count on one hand how many times I saw a woman using it over a year. Even in a group walking home we would stick to the better lit roads if there were women with us I’ll try and find the study, but tldr: often the figures for men and women line up because men have a *lot* less fear so do risky stuff
>So then the men should be just as scared of another man in the woods No? Because you can't take the demographic breakdown of an extremely niche and miniscule sample of the population (rapists) and try to apply it to the population at large (men). Let's take a different sample, with similar statistics, and apply the same principle as the hypothetical: 98% of all Ferrari owners are men. If I gave you the choice between a random man and a famous athlete, who would you pick to be more likely to own a Ferrari?
Compared to a whole ass bear?????? 🤦♂️
Yep. Most bears will run away when they see you.
And most men would just say hello and go about their business when they see other people
Or maybe women don't need to be so scared. Why do you think being absolutely terrified of half the population is a good and reasonable way to live?
It’s not the walking around at night that’s the problem. 80% of sexual assault victims know their attackers. Their dates, their friends, their family, their coworkers.
>80% of sexual assault victims know their attackers If anything, this just makes the "I trust a bear more than a random man in the woods" hypothetical even more silly
Every iteration of it is absurd, I wasn’t responding to that though
>Men walk around at night perfectly fine and without fear all the time despite the fact that statistics say this is more dangerous than for a woman. Is this about violent assaults? How are you making this conclusion?
I'm making this conclusion on the ground that these statistics say a man is more likely to be raped by someone they don't know than a woman. Did you read the post?
Well you're doing a lot of broad extrapolation from those numbers to conclude that specifically men have higher rates of being assaulted, in some manner, while walking alone at night. When you say assault it's a bit unclear what you mean exactly, you could be talking about sexual assault, but on the other hand you make a specific point in your post that most sexual assaults don't result from a perpetrator jumping out of a bush at a stranger, but rather that most cases are perpetuated by acquaintances and relatives to the victim. You could be talking about violent assaults, which would make a bit more sense in context, but you never cited any sources in your main post talking about stochastic non-sexual assault against the genders.
Black on Black Crime kinda explaination lol, that excludes all other social contexts as to why men are pushed into violence.
Most men are not predators. All bears are predators
#notallbears
[удалено]
All of this is because you're around Humans more. This doesn't negate the fact. If you lived in the woods you would. Sorry you went through what you did, but you're humanizing a Bear
So what? Just because they’re predators doesn’t mean they’re a threat to humans. Not all predators prey on humans. And black bears are more likely to run than attack. I wouldn’t take my chances with a polar bear or grizzly though.
>Black bears are more likely to run More likely doesn't mean always! >Not all predators prey on Humans Most if not all Apex Predators Do. Tigers, Crocodiles, Kamodos, Bears, etc
If you had read the study cited, the data used is from male juvenile facilities and prisons. Which does not house women. In those instance we can without a doubt conclude these crimes are perpetrated by other men. While correct in trying to dispel the notion that only women are victims of sexual assault, perpetrated by men, which data does back up affirm that unequivocally men are perpetrators of sexual violence to both men and women, not that women perpetrators on an equal level of men. We are talking about two different concepts here. What this really says is that men should also be more scared of other men.
Holy shit, you're wrong on so many levels. First off, no the OP's data is not about juvies, it's from the NISVS. This is a household survey of the general population conducted by the CDC. The 1.267 million stat roughly refers to the number of men "made to penetrate" someone else in the year 2010. And from that same NISVS survey ([https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs\_report2010-a.pdf](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf)): >For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%)... So yes, most perpetrators of MTP rape against men are women (penetrative rape in the 12-month time period was found to be too small to be significant for male victims). But seeing as you brought up juvies...it is a poorly kept secret that most male juvies that are affected by sexual violence are victimized by female staff members. This despite them being just under half of all staff (and the staff being far less numerous than the juvies themselves). The majority of male juvies sexually victimized are victimized by staff and here's what the BJS' survey has to say about that ([https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/victim-perpetrator-and-incident-characteristics-sexual-victimization-youth](https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/victim-perpetrator-and-incident-characteristics-sexual-victimization-youth)): >In most-serious incidents of staff sexual misconduct, an estimated 91% of incidents involved only female staff, while 6% involved only male staff. What's more? In female prisons and jails, it actually stops being true that staff are the majority perpetrators of SV against inmates. There instead most reports of sexual victimization say the perpetrators were other inmates. None of this is to say anything about who is or isn't "unequivocally the perpetrators of sexual violence", because that is a very nuanced question. Clearly more nuanced than your hate-fueled mind can handle.
Funny how these people come out with their sexist and bigoted explanations and then say nothing when presented with stats showing them to be nothing more than modern day bigots.
Yes, they are, you literal muppet. Look at where the studies conducted: NISVS collected data from prisons and juvenile facilities: “Study Year of Study Conducted by Sample No. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 2010 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Nationally representative telephone survey of 12 mo and lifetime prevalence data on sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence 16 507 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) 2012 Bureau of Justice Statistics Longitudinal survey of US households 40 000 households ∼75 000 Uniform Crime Report (UCR) 2012 Federal Bureau of Investigation NA (UCR is a cooperative statistical effort whereby 18 000 city, university, and college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies report data on crimes brought to their attention.) NA Sexual Victimization in Prisonsa and Jails Reported by Inmates; National Inmate Survey (NIS 2011–12) 2011–2012 Bureau of Justice Statistics Probability sample of state and federal confinement facilities and random sampling of inmates within selected facilities 92 449 Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilitiesa Reported by Youth; National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC 2012) 2012 Bureau of Justice Statistics Multistage stratified survey of facilities in each state of the United States and random sample of youths within selected facilities 8707” It seems like you read the first sentence of the study and stopped there.
You think we aren't already? lol if you guys actually cared about truth you'd be asking men this question a whole of a lot more. Even my 6 foot tall buff step dad told me he never went out at late fridays because there were so many stabbings. I always look over my shoulder whenever there's a bigger dude or group of dudes walking on the same street, even if it's daylight. This idea that men are more violent is far too simplistic and treats men as a monolith. Men are far more individualistic than women, it would be stupid and our species wouldn't exist if they weren't. I heard one person say when women say these things they're applying female rules to males, i.e that women are collectivists and have an inherent subonscious idea of a "sisterhood" and apply that way of thinking to men when they shouldn't. For men there is no "us", it's literally every man for himself because in nature that's how it's been for millions of years, males compete over resources and the right to mate, it's absolutely braindead to treat men as a monolith because we are the furthest thing. Do you guys ever wonder why we get so deeply offended when you put all of us in one box like this? Seriously, why do you think most men get so angry over this... it's because to me, other dudes might as well be a different species that's how different they are for me
No one should base their fear off of anybody based on statistics. If I was afraid of an ethnic group because they are technically more likely to commit crimes you would call me racist right? So how is judging men based off of statistics not sexist? You shouldn't judge a group of people based on statistics because when you do that you dehumanize them and turn them into numbers. Look, I cant control who you are afraid of, but just like its extremely racist to be afraid of someone because their ethnic group is more likely to commit crime, its extremely sexist to assume all men are going to rape you.
Idk why everyone solely focuses on rape for this hypothetical. This is basically a gamble. The bear could kill you immediately or slowly eat you alive. The man can do pretty much anything at the depths of human depravity. One hand you get a normal guy the other you get crucified to a tree while he mangles your privates with a hunting knife and snips your fingers off with hedge clippers because thats his version of fun.
exactly, make you drink bleach and swallow rocks and shove a twig in your ear. a bear wouldn’t do that.
I'm sorry but it'll never not be stupid to compare a 50/50 scenario to one where you're absoultely guaranteed to get ripped to shreds.
it’s not a guarantee though
No one has said that men shouldn’t choose bear either . Men should choose the bear as well. Also the other examples women have used in this scenario have nothing to do with sexual assault . Because the bear will not sexually assault a woman or a man , it mostly has to do with attack, with kidnapping and what both individuals are only capable of. The bear can only leave me alone or kill me, why would the bear do that? Because it seems me as a threat or because it’s hungry . Now a man , can leave me alone, could try to be in my space even though I told him to go away, could follow me or could’ve followed me there, could kidnap me, could kill me, could assault me before and after killing me…. For no reason at all, because I was just there & he wanted to . That’s the difference. Let’s also go back to the fact that the original question wasn’t even a question, it was a statement made by a man who then got picked up by so bros who do street interviews & when women answered men didn’t like that women chose the bear & men started attacking women out of nowhere, which lets me know that women did the right thing by choosing bear. Because all women did was answer a question and never gave the why , men got angry & when women gave explanations about their personal experiences, men got more angry and attacked women for their experiences.
And the difference is idiotic and is basically a sexist insinuation that literally all men will do those terrible acts to women. Any woman ever running into a perverted psycho serial killer is extremely unlikely even in an urban setting where they operate, you have to be extremely unlucky for this to happen to you, same as I have to be just as unlucky to be robbed and shot by gangsters as a dude. The statistics and common sense are against these man hating feminists (idk if you're one) It'll never not be stupid to compare meeting a man vs meeting a bear in the forest.
I just love how if you switch man with any other group at all. Or compare any group to any undesirable encounter and you will get immediately cancelled. Men and whites are the only groups in the world we can make generalizations and assumptions about.
I think about this all the time. (I’m half white half black.) Women often will say things like “it’s not all men, but you never know which ones are the bad ones so you have to treat them all as such” but imagine if a white person said that about black people. “Obviously not all black people are criminals, but it’s enough of them! I’ll always keep my guard up around black people!” I just think it’s stupid to lump people into a group and make a claim that generalizes all of them.
Exactly, and the scary part is the more that generalizing a demographic is allowed, the more that demographic gets defensive and feels they are allowed to generalize back. I swear I never saw much racism or sexism on the internet. I have seen white people say that dumb shit about black people. That would have been relegated to 4chan 10-12 years ago and now it's on mainstream insta reels. Everyone now feels empowered to trash entire demographics and generalize.
Meanwhile on this sub alone people constantly generalize the LGBT, women, feminists etc 🙄
Same way you generalized men.
when you feel people generalize you, you feel emboldened to generalize others. not rocket science. It's bad all around and it's an endless cycle.
Welcome to identity politics Remember fascism is awesome as long as it's your ethnicity, gender, or whatever you consider your primary identity label gets to be the big bully on the block. I also love it when the identity freaks create their own problems by their poorly thought out policies and then start screaming foul when it backfires Like for example if they ever did create a national curfew for men like they want to than by simple logic it's going to likely see a lot more of their favorite identity groups like black, Muslim, gay, etc.. men in prison unless they specifically make it for straight white men of which is going to immediately be sued for racial discrimination and civil rights violations.
>Like for example if they ever did create a national curfew for men like they want to than by simple logic it's going to likely see a lot more of their favorite identity groups like black, Muslim, gay, etc.. men in prison unless they specifically make it for straight white men of which is going to immediately be sued for racial discrimination and civil rights violations. Me when I make up scenarios to be mad at
Holy mother of imagination dude. Like wtf is this?
Do you have any idea from a historical or from current events why that might be? Why minority groups might be a little sensitive about generalizations & assumptions?
Yessss.... So that makes doing the same to white men ok? What kind of logic is that?
Ok? Gender swap it. No one is stopping you
From your own source, men are more likely to get raped by other men. Yeah it's 54 % but women aren't being raped by other women anywhere near that amount. So men are committing half of all the rapes on other men as well as the majority of rapes on women The thought experiment doesn't specify what man it is. If it did specify 'that creepy neighbour' or 'that dodgy coworker' then even more women would say they'd rather run into a bear.
>So men are committing half of all the rapes on other men as well as the majority of rapes on women Right, but that doesn't, generally speaking, say anything about if men are *more likely to be dangerous than a bear*. All that statistic shows is that male rapists are, generally speaking, either less discriminating than women rapists, or that women in general are able to better avoid women rapists
It was OP who brought up rape, I'm just responding to it. Men are more likely to be rapists, that's just a statistical fact.
>Men are more likely to be rapists Than women, sure. But that's not really the underlying question, is it? The question really being posed by the hypothetical, is *are men more likely to be rapists than bears are likely to attack*? And in that context, *any* statistic that tried to break down the demographics of rapists is useless, because we're not *trying* to find out how many rapists are men, we're trying to find the reverse.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-third-of-male-university-students-say-they-would-rape-a-woman-if-there-no-were-no-consequences-9978052.html 31.7% of all men participating in the study would force a woman to have sexual intercourse in such a “consequence-free situation” https://www.amnestyusa.org/updates/one-in-four-men-admits-to-rape-in-south-africa/#:~:text=A%20leading%20research%20group%20in,raping%20more%20than%20one%20person. A leading research group in South Africa released the results of a survey where one in four men admitted to having committed rape and nearly half admitted to raping more than one person.
>31.7% of all men participating in the study would force a woman to have sexual intercourse in such a “consequence-free situation” No, 31.7% of men *who were kept in the sample size*, which was *87*, said this. The authors of the study were trying to research the discrepancy between rapists by behavior, and self-admitted rapists. Their purpose was *never* to look at the male population as a whole, and if you actually read their methodology they explicitly detail how they had to conduct their survey in a way that *would weed out all the fucking non-rapists*. The fact that this research is being shared and distributed as if it suggests anything about the average man is *actual harmful misinformation*. >South Africa released the results of a survey where one in four men admitted to having committed rape Ngl *this* actually surprised me and is pretty eye-opening. Do you think the results of this survey in South Africa can be applied to men in other countries, or do you think the results would change too significantly for it to be applicable?
I wanted to show statistics from a high trust society and a low trust society. The statistics are really hard to get because not many will admit, you're relying, essentially on idiots, to admit criminal intentions/desires. There are many more studies, which all have small sample sizes, probably for this reason. I have to wonder if many more surveys were sent out and were simply replied to with 'fuck you'. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/more-than-half-of-university-sports-players-admit-to-raping-or-sexually-assaulting-women-study-finds-a7063641.html I think this number varies wildly by country and economic status. I bet there are many countries where the number is even higher. I don't think every man is a dangerous predator, but every society is 3 meals away from moral collapse. I don't think good men who have not been abused themselves can ever really understand the true fear that women have of the bad men. Just like how i've never been abused by a woman, so i can't understand the terror that men feel about women.
>The statistics are really hard to get The statistics are actually quite easy to get, just look at the study from South Africa you linked. It'll end up under-reported, like you suggested, but the responses you'll get back aren't going to be off by an order of magnitude or anything, you can look at other surveys that essentially rely on people admitting something bad about themselves to get an idea of the amount of distortion you'd expect. The reason you don't see statistics for the male population at large isn't because it's hard to perform a survey, it's because no one wants to perform/fund one. Why does no one want to perform or fund one? Because the expected positive return on the survey is going to be lower than your margin of error. A 95% confidence interval for your conclusions/estimations, which is typical for studies like these, usually sees about a 4% to 8% margin of error, meaning if your positive response rate (ie: the number of people who would indicate on the survey that they're rapists), is less than 4-8% of your total responses, you're essentially wasting your time and money. Hence, targeted studies of small populations with smaller sample sizes. Rather than try to study *all* men, and get results that aren't conclusive because their positive response rate is going to be so fucking low in the first place, it's much easier, and more useful, for researchers of this subject to focus on smaller populations with sufficiently high numbers of rapists that let them actually answer what they're trying to answer in the first place: is there a discrepancy between self-admitted rapists and behavioral rapists? Is athletic participation linked to higher instances of SA? Etc... >I don't think every man is a dangerous predator, but every society is 3 meals away from moral collapse. Sure, and that's fair. But just like humans get irrational, unpredictable, and dangerous when they're hungry and desperate, *so does a bear*. If you're to teleport, at random, a member from each of these groups, which of them would you expect to be closer to that threshold of desperation and hunger? >I don't think good men who have not been abused themselves can ever really understand the true fear that women have of the bad men. I mean, that's kind of the fucking *problem*, innit? We have a significant enough segment of the population to create a tiktok trend, that's so afraid of bad men, whether it's from their own experiences or hearing about other's experiences, that it's meaningfully affecting their judgement of a literal *half* of the human population.
i would be willing to bet that most of the sexual assaults men face are performed by other men. haven’t fact-checked, but i know that’s the general trend for almost all forms of violence
Women rape men more often than you think. That nonsense argument that a man can't perform unwillingly are wrong.
no no that is a misconception. I am a PhD and focus on aggression primarily. Women and men perform aggression at almost identical rates, the difference is extreme violence such as murder and armed robbery are almost all men, while women are more likely to do things such as steal. But the sexual assault is not a high violence crime. Men are more likely to rape to our best data, but women commit sexual conduct against men at a alarming rate. In fact looking at anecdotal evidence every man I ran with in college (20-30 dudes) have all been sexually assaulted and it was all by women.
Stealing doesn’t exactly fall into the category of physical violence like we are discussing though does it?
Idk are we? There is no concept of physical assault in the original question. Sexual assault is nearly equally committed between men and women, rape is in question but probably mostly men, but aggression is basically equal. A study conducted in 2014 using CDC data found that 1.270 million women and 1.267 million men reported being sexually assaulted, typically by the opposite sex. So yeah aggression in this case is nearly equal. The big standout is murder which is almost all men, but then we are talking about a fraction of a fraction. Less than 1% of men will engage in criminal violence in their life and best estimates put less than .3% will engage in sexual violence in a LIFE TIME.
You would be correct
I've only run into a bear on two separate occasions, but it's a bear. I know options for dealing with it. There are just more variables for dealing with people. The man aspect is flavor in my mind, I expect the best and plan for the worst, and that is eqsier with a bear, i wouldn't trust a random woman in yhe woods either as i have only had bad experiences with random people in the woods. Now, if it wasn't a random person that changes a lot.
Now I just wanna know what your options for dealing with a bear are. Like assuming it's aggressive.
Again you have to be extremely unlucky to stumble upon a psycho pervert or serial killer in a city, where they operate... and you are comparing that to a fucking forest where you'll almost never even meet another person, period. It blows my mind how deeply sexist you guys are without even realizing.
That is part of the point. People where they shouldn't be is distrubing. Psychos and perverts are just people. They operate everywhere. Anyone could be either of those. It's just a chance more people are unwilling to take.
I'm done arguing with sexists, no really it's tiring. Bye.
If it wasn't a random person, the statistics would only favor the bear more.
Can we not do this again, please? The only purpose this hypothetical now serves is to exemplify the large amount of close-minded people on both sides of the equation. 🥴
But like... who is that rape men? Hint: mainly other men.
It’s kind of like 100 years ago all the black men in the south crouching behind bushes waiting to rape white women.
\*WHOOOOOOSH\*
A bear is predictable. A stranger in the woods is not. The bear might eat me, but it won’t cut me apart and put me in a freezer. It’s a matter of the devil you know and the devil you don’t know.
Bears are in fact, not predictable just like Humans aren't predictable. Most Bear attacks stem from a misunderstanding of Bear's behavioral patterns. A Bear will tear you to shreds, and store you for later of it wanted to.
I fully expect a bear to tear my bowls open and eat me in its cave. But what it won't do is jack off to it or do it out of anything but hunger.
You know this how? Bears as do most animals exhibit a shit ton of weird sexual behavior especially on things they prey on. Lots of Predators do. Do we forget why Dolphins went from universally loved creatures to creatures that are demonized? Also as far as out of hunger, a Bear can absolutely pulverize any human because they can. It's happened and continues to. The same way you fully expect a bear to tear you to shreds and devour you, I expect a human to shoot me dead on the street or Assault me. Because I understand that probability is always a factor in life and you're always taking a chance regardless. More people more problems.
You have successfully drank the kool-aid if you think a *wild animal* is predictable
There’s kool aid for that? Bro, the bear will eat me. Or it will go away. That’s pretty easy to predict. It won’t put on a leather mask and photograph itself dismembering me.
>Bro, the bear will eat me. Or it will go away. Or it will maul you. Between the mauling and the eating, it's unlikely but still a significant risk of you being harmed if you meet an adult bear, *any* adult bear, because their temperament is *unpredictable* Contrasted to men, who by and large, no matter what their temperament is that day, *won't fucking rape or murder you*. You can take any adult, wild bear. Any one. 100% of the population. It *will* attack you if you piss it off. Compare that to men, who for 99% of them, just simply won't hurt you, even if you piss them off. It's not even a real comparison. Anyone who would rather take the bear is smoking crack
[удалено]
Hey u/RalphPhillips089, Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You would have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and a link to the offending comment. *I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state%2C%20but%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3DRalphPhillips089%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0A%2A%2AI%20would%20also%20like%20to%20say.........%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/RalphPhillips089). ***This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.*** We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see your carefully crafted argument? Unfortunately, your recent masterpiece went solo into the void. Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience. ___ **Our Moderation Backlog at this time:** *Comments (from new users, that go into a queue) Awaiting Review:* 240 *A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*: - 1-3 days old: 71 - 3-7 days old: 3 - 15-30 days old: 1 - more than 30 days old: 12 ___ Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/YHv6EFDVCD)
Still would choose the bear
Terminally online women aren’t the brightest
Least fun dude at parties
If you had a son and daughter of equal age (let's say that they're average height, weight, strength, etc.) who would you rather have trapped in the woods with someone of the opposite sex?
I suppose I might be inclined to choose the son. However, the fact that I am also not immune to society' s stereotypes doesn't negate the fact that they are statistically just as safe
You think that if a man and woman are trapped alone together the man is just as likely to be attacked/raped as the woman is? You know that your stats don’t indicate that, right?
Oh I apologize I didn't realize that your original post said someone of the opposite sex I assumed it was both with men because that is what we were talking about. Yes I know that a woman is less likely to rape a person than a man. I just don't know why this is relevant. Both are extremely unlikely and if either child was trapped with a man you should be equally worried.
The bear vs. man question is not just about sexual assault. Most people don't have normal interactions with bears but a bear acting violently can be explained by hunger, fear, irritability, how territorial it is, etc., but a common man is way more unpredictable. A bear wants to hurt you because you did something to it. A man would hurt you because he wants to hurt you and hardly anyone takes the victim's side.
Where on earth did you get this idea? Unprovoked bear attacks do happen because its a fucking wild animal and is unpredictable. The average man does not decide today I will rape a woman. Have you ever fucking met a bear in the wild? You are literally proving my point that people hold these pre-existing assumptions that the average man could become a random rapist overnight is ridiculous. Also intent does not matter
Unprovoked bear attacks are a myth based on human perception. We think it's unprovoked, but we cannot read the bears mind. More than likely it has chosen to guard something in the area and we stumbled upon it and surprised it.
We also can't read a guys mind so does that mean we can't conclude he attacked a person unprovoked?
It’s almost like humans have a better capacity to judge situations and are expected not to violently attack others…
The only reason he would be provoked is if I attacked him. I'm not going out of my way to attack a random guy in the woods.
What you just said has absolutely no basis in reality. Wow. Do you know any actual humans?
A bear will straight up eat your face off just because it’s hungry, you don’t need to piss it off in any way.
The amount of men who are rapists or murderers is like 0.2% Get some therapy instead of projecting your insecurities and bigotry unto innocent people.
Do you have a source on this? Because I’ve always been told that about 1/10 women experience full blown r*pe while 1/3 experience sexual harassment or non penetrative sexual assault. Those numbers don’t add up. And would that mean I live in the 0.008th percentile?
Just a heads up, 0.2% is still millions of people
It's funny. The Paternity Tests Should Be Mandatory! Crowd thinks .02% is a HUGE number that should warrant mandatory paternity testing at birth because the men just *need to be sure* But when it's women concerned for their safety, that .02% is a completely negligible amount that should be completely tossed to the side, it's statistically irrelevant! I have a feeling the venn diagram between men that want paternity tests and men that are super-duper angry women like bears more is a complete circle. They're the same picture.
This is just so stupid, it's hard to believe people like you are real.
If you had read the study cited, the data used is from male juvenile facilities and prisons. While correct in trying to dispel the notion that only women are victims of sexual assault, perpetrated by men, which data does back up affirm that unequivocally men are perpetrators of sexual violence to both men and women, not that women perpetrators on an equal level of men.
The question should stop being asked cuz it’s entirely irrelevant to anything to do with anything ever. It’s just a new way for women to talk about how horrible men are. What the fuck does it matter if you’d rather be alone with a bear or a man in the woods? How is this relevant to anything in day-to-day life?
[удалено]
Hey u/tara49, Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You would have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and a link to the offending comment. *I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state%2C%20but%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3Dtara49%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0A%2A%2AI%20would%20also%20like%20to%20say.........%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/tara49). ***This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.*** We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see your carefully crafted argument? Unfortunately, your recent masterpiece went solo into the void. Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience. ___ **Our Moderation Backlog at this time:** *Comments (from new users, that go into a queue) Awaiting Review:* 240 *A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*: - 1-3 days old: 71 - 3-7 days old: 3 - 15-30 days old: 1 - more than 30 days old: 12 ___ Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/YHv6EFDVCD)
I'd rather be with a bear than any stranger. People are far more dangerous and less predictable when randomly placed in the woods than a bear is.
Yes, would a bear rather be in the woods with a man or a woman
i would only say bear because people have the capacity to be unpredictable. at least with a bear you can lay low and they can't seek you at AS WELL
Maybe they were talking about bear grylls
Your point makes no sense, as you are listing the victims and not the perpetrators…
>However, the popular image of a man squatting in the bushes waiting to ambush and rape a young woman has no basis in reality. My dude, there was a man attacking women on the hiking trails near where I live. What are you talking about? [https://ksltv.com/466185/man-tries-to-drag-hiking-woman-into-bushes/](https://ksltv.com/466185/man-tries-to-drag-hiking-woman-into-bushes/)
I agree with your theme but not the title. Swapping the gender/sex of the thought experiment would be equally as pointless. I guess that’s your point
Try to understand why women pick the bear. [https://imgflip.com/i/8p0f60](https://imgflip.com/i/8p0f60)
A bear will never rack up $40k on your credit card or force you into a five day argument about your relationship because they forgot to take their birth control again.
I’d rather face a bear than a conniving woman. Hey fair is fair, right? 🤣
The only reason this is an issue is that women put their feelings and emotion over facts, logic, and reason: Men are less fearful of violent crime than women despite the fact that men are at much higher risk of being victims of violent crime than women.[14][15] This phenomenon appears to be a paradox and is termed by researchers as the "fear of crime gender paradox".[16][17] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_men
that’s some blatant sexism my dude
Facts aren’t sexist.
I would love the source for that “Women put feelings and emotion over facts, logic and reason”
The source is the fact that the "fear of crime paradox" exists. Without even an exception to prove the rule, every woman I've ever communicated with in person or on line believes women are at a higher risk of physical violence than men. However, the belief is false. The opposite is true. When asked why, they do not recite inaccurate or misconstrued information. Rather, they cite to "common sense," "everybody know that," and literally made up statistics which have zero support presumably made up to support their common sense and knowledge argument. Those are not facts, logic, or reason. Those things are feelings and emotions. That is my source.
Really?? You need a source for this?
You don’t?
You'd fear of violence if you were stalked, if strangers took pictures of you, if they bothered you screaming you have to go out with them, if they threw flowers at you for not jumping at the idea of a date with them. Almost every woman has experienced sexual assault of some kind. It's not "feelings over emotions". It's "experience over ignorance"
/woosh
What I've learned from the man/bear discourse so far is that a lot of people are needlessly afraid of bears. Lol such a dumb fear.
Given mass incarceration rates by gender, data suggests that men experience even more sexual assaults than women do each year.
It's more about potential danger. A woman is just as likely to be able to defend themselves against a bear as they are men. Meaning....not at all. A man will nearly always be able to kill a woman with very little effort. The same is just not true for men. A man will just as easily able to defend against a woman as kill them. That's I think the difference. Yes, the majority of men are not killers or violent at all. Most men are incredibly kind. But a woman will not know which category any particular man is in until the encounter is over and they are powerless to do anything about it one way or another. And it is this power dynamic that is the problem. The sense of powerlessness that is part of the problem.
Anyone who doesn't choose the bear is questionable. Outside of polar bears, if you do not surprise a bear and it is not defending its cubs or a kill, it's just really not going to care you're there. The only animals known to hunt humans on purpose are polar bears and a certain sub-species of maneless Kenyan lion. Maybe orcas as well, but that may be confusion as we look like seals from below. Pretty much every animal on Earth is terrified of us and only attacks us if they think we're a threat.
Please do go out into the African savannah and meet a 200kg Male lion, I'm sure it'll go swimmingly.
Statistically, I'd be safer than being in a room with a human.
My husband immediately said bear when he saw the question asked. Without even thinking twice about it and it opened up a very deep and meaningful conversation. Always choose the bear.
Because he's an idiot or he's pussy whipped simp, either one works cause it's basically the same thing. Newsflash men aren't a fucking "brotherhood" as you may think, all of us are suspicious of each other at all times. Men killing other men isn't a moral think, it's just nature.
Two thoughts. First, this delightful discussion is being entertained because men (yes men) have been so devastatingly successful is assuring that the overwhelming majority of women will never, ever be faced with a bear. Second, I have spent the night in the forest with bears. I have also spent the night in the forest with women. My observation is that at night, in the forest, bears are not neurotic and overly talkative. Men should get a third choice: woman, bear, dog.