all 23 comments

[–]CheeseWizard 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Shhhhh. Stop telling feminists to not choose the bear, dammit.

I haven't even finished grabbing my popcorn yet.

[–]tiny-brown-mug 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There was a pretty awful incident a while back where a peaceful, 60-something year old guy was just chilling by his campsite and a Black Bear mauled him to death. Which was quite unusual, as Black Bears are rather small and don't usually attack humans. Happened in Arizona.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

On the other hand 8 women have been killed by bears in North America in the 2020s. Something like 2 per year.

In 2018, there were 1,946 females murdered by males in single victim/single offender incidents that were submitted to the FBI for its Supplementary Homicide Report, and Canada had about 500. Something like 2500 per year.

Possibly bears aren't as aggressive as the cartoon implies

[–]NastyWetSmear 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

That's not really: "On the other hand", that's a bit of a misunderstanding of how those statistics would work. For them to be a simple 1 to 1, women would have to pass equally as many bears in the street each day as they do men, at which stage you could say: "See? Far fewer woman are killed by bears!"

... Except that I suspect you'd be saying: "Holy shit, we need to do something about all the bears killing people in the street!".

As for bears being aggressive, I think that's as much case by case as the average man is. Mother bear with cubs near by? Guess you'll die. Hungry and you're hanging around? Sadly, I hear bears eat people alive, so it won't be over quickly. On the other hand, it could be a warm, summer day, no cubs, no mating season, plenty of food and the bear will trundle pass utterly indifferent to you. It's pretty hard to predict. Unlike a man, you can't really ask a bear what it's doing or why it's there, and baring you having a big'ol gun, that kind of ends your autonomy to address the bear situation. After that it's all down to how the bear feels about you in that specific moment.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

That's not really: "On the other hand", that's a bit of a misunderstanding of how those statistics would work.

The "Man or Bear" thing is about which a woman would feel safer with. It's not statistics. It's perception of risk.

As for bears being aggressive, I think that's as much case by case as the average man is.

Sure, the video is during the salmon run. But by the same token seeing a brown bear in the woods isn't a death sentence. Recommended behaviour involves the basic strategies of letting the bear know you're there, and relying on the fact that they don't generally attack if they know you're a human and don't perceive you as a threat.

And being eaten is relatively rare too. Playing dead is the recommended strategy if you're getting mauled, which only works if they're not eating you.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The "Man or Bear" thing is about which a woman would feel safer with. It's not statistics. It's perception of risk.

If their perception of risk is wildly inaccurate, then the conversation needs to shift to that. That would be like saying: "I don't eat fruit because it contains live bees. This isn't about if or not fruit actually contains live bees, it's about how I choose to live my life."... Really, you can frame your fruit issue however you want, but addressing the fact that fruit doesn't contain live bees should be priority number one.

Besides, I wasn't making a comment on the purpose of the discussion, I was just addressing the statistics you, yourself, raised. It's especially important to look at them logically if someone were about to base their choice on bumping into a bear vs bumping into a man on them, but believed that they showed an elevated risk per random man compared to per random bear.

But by the same token seeing a brown bear in the woods isn't a death sentence.

That's true, and that was also part of my point. It wouldn't be fair to say every contact with a bear is doomed to end in being eaten alive while on the phone with your mother over 3 hours or so. In fact, for every reported "Bear Interaction", I bet there's another, undocumented one where the person simply never tells anyone what happened, or they don't even see the near by bear.

I'll bet there's even a few where both parties, bear and person, are totally unaware, like some Warner Brothers cartoon skit where they both hear something move, lean up against the same tree, but peak around the opposite sides and totally miss each other.

With that said, you likely still pass more random men on a hiking trail than you do bears, let alone when you get back to the city, catch a bus, go to work and so on... Unless you work in a zoo, specifically caring for the bears, I guess? Then it might be a toss up.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

If their perception of risk is wildly inaccurate, then the conversation needs to shift to that.

Okay, How inaccurate do you think it is?

let alone when you get back to the city

I believe that the man or bear thought experiment is set in the wilderness.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Okay, How inaccurate do you think it is?

If the person's choice is: "Bear because there's only 2 bear attacks on women a year, but there's 2,500 a year in the US and Canada", I think it's: "Wildly, dangerously inaccurate". If it's: "Bear because men are more dangerous", I think it's: "Very".

I believe that the man or bear thought experiment is set in the wilderness.

Yes, but what I was driving at is that, in your day to day life, a person likely has upwards of 300 "Man interactions", assuming they are classified the same as "Bear interactions", which, I assume, cover being close to a bear. Are you saying that you think being alone in the wood would be enough to change a person's reaction? - Most interactions on the street don't allow for a rape or murder, but being in the wood provides opportunity, therefore motive? That sort of thing?

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

"Bear because men are more dangerous", I think it's: "Very".

What proportion of Bear sightings result in attacks, do you think?

What proportion of single man encounters with single women in the wilderness result in attacks to you think?

Most interactions on the street don't allow for a rape or murder, but being in the wood provides opportunity, therefore motive?

Being in the woods means that there's no help for the woman's if the man (or bear) is dangerous.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What proportion of Bear sightings result in attacks, do you think?

Not sure. Not many, I'd guess. Depends on the bear, the time of year, the luck of the camper and the bear.

What proportion of single man encounters with single women in the wilderness result in attacks to you think?

Not sure. Not many, I'd guess. Depends on the man the time of year, the luck of the camper and the man.

If your question is: Do I think bear attacks in the woods are as common as being attacked by men in the woods? It's a bit hard to measure those against each other. Bears don't normally follow you into the woods from the city, or invite you to the woods from the city. Bears also, however, don't pass you on the walking trail, smile and say good morning. If you're counting every encounter everyone ever had with a man in the woods vs an encounter everyone ever had with a bear in the woods, bears would be more dangerous by leagues, simply because camping areas, walking and hiking trails, observations spots, hunting locations, fishing locations all contain men that you're likely to meet alone, pumping the numbers up an astronomical amount compared to bear encounters.

On the other hand, the more you narrow the field, the more you tip it in one sides favour of the other: "Okay, but only men who are total strangers, when you're alone, after 9pm on a Friday night when they've been drinking." or "Okay, but only bears that came within 15 meters of you during mating season when they can smell other male bears around." - ultimately, humans send a lot more time in and around humans, which means, on average, you bump into a man in the woods thousands of times more than you do a bear, and are perfectly safe almost all of that time. On the other hand, you don't bump into many bears, and are perfectly safe almost all of the time... But once that math comes out in the wash, if there's 100 interactions with bears and 2 deaths, and 1,000,000 interactions with men and 2,500 deaths, That's a 2% kill ration on the bear and a 0.25% kill ration on the man.

End result - People think they are in more danger from a man because it happens numerically more, but that's because you spend a phenomenally huge amount of time around men, meaning the odds of meeting the one insane one go up. People think you're less likely to be killed by a shark, but that's because you don't spend anywhere near as much time around sharks. People think you won't get eaten by a bear because the attacks are rare, but the meetings are also rare. If the bear meetings were as common as the man meetings, alone, in the woods, at night, when the bear had been drinking?... Those stats wouldn't look as nice.

Then you have to take into account repeat offenders, bears and men, then you might want to take into account provocation - if you shot the bear, it's hard to call that a random, unprovoked bear attack, same with the dude... It gets complicated, but if we're just looking at bears and men alone in the woods, I'd say: Yeah, you're safer with a man.

... If that wasn't your point, boy, I'm sorry about all those words. :(

Being in the woods means that there's no help for the woman's if the man (or bear) is dangerous.

Yeah, that's why I assumed we were going that way. That being said, that's already a foregone conclusion with the bear. If the bear is going to attack you, they run faster than you, they are stronger than you, they have claws and teeth - It's really all up to the bear how that goes. With a fellow human you have agency: Maybe you can run faster, maybe you can fight him off, maybe you can ask him to leave, maybe you can bribe him, maybe you can act so crazy he just wants to go away...

Mind you! None of that would impact the nature of the question: Are you safer with a bear or a man, I think, as it requires that the man already be a danger that you need to negotiate. I would say, if you have to convince the man not to murder you, it should be counted under the More dangerous count. While it makes the bear strictly more dangerous, as in you can't stop it once it starts but you might be able to stop the man, it goes against the spirit of the question, I think.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Do I think bear attacks in the woods are as common as being attacked by men in the woods? It's a bit hard to measure those against each other.

Yeah, that's the thought experiment posed to women.

It's a bit hard to measure those against each other.

Sure.

"Okay, but only bears that came within 15 meters of you during mating season when they can smell other male bears around."

The advice is still announce yourself by yelling or with a whistle. So if they know you're there, even in mating season their most common behaviour is to leave you be.

That being said, that's already a foregone conclusion with the bear. If the bear is going to attack you, they run faster than you, they are stronger than you, they have claws and teeth - It's really all up to the bear how that goes.

Sure. The thing is that's unusual behaviour for a bear, and less usual for a man.

With a fellow human you have agency: Maybe you can run faster,

Unlikely as a woman.

maybe you can fight him off,

Unlikely as a woman

maybe you can ask him to leave,

This would be equivalent to yelling or whistling at the bear wouldn't it? You've put "If the bear is going to attack you," in the premise, but you're avoiding the premise "If the man is going to attack you," which isn't a fair comparison

maybe you can bribe him,

yeah. Feeding bears is illegal, because it creates a situation where a bear will approach people when its hungry which creates a bear that is unnaturally dangerous. But in a pinch you'd at least not pack up your lunch if you think your life is on the line.

I imagine that a bribe would at least slow them down.

maybe you can act so crazy he just wants to go away...

Analogous strategies can discourage a bear too. Hold your hands above your head to look big. Hold a big stick.

Are you safer with a bear or a man, I think, as it requires that the man already be a danger that you need to negotiate.

I think it's just which would you feel more in danger from if you encountered a lone one in the woods, before you know anything about them.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Sure. The thing is that's unusual behaviour for a bear, and less usual for a man.

No, see, here is where we've now gone back to square one. The figures show it's Very unusual behaviour for a man. Again, if we think about it, we interact with maybe hundreds of men each day, much closer and sometimes much more vulnerable and personal than we do with a bear, yet despite this, women aren't attacked 3-5 times a day. In fact, most women, despite being inches from men dozens of times a day, don't get attacked at all. This brings us back to the initial point where you pointed out statistics showing there are numerically more attacks by men and less by bears, but didn't take into account that women spend 24/7 surrounded by men, but not by bears, and when I mentioned that you said it wasn't about statistics.

You can't just say: "Men are more dangerous than bears", then have someone questions that logic, then say it's not about that logic, then come back to men being more dangerous than bears. The conversation becomes circular.

Unlikely as a woman. (x 3ish?)

But not as unlikely as it would be against bears. That's the point. You have agency against a man that you don't against a bear. Can a woman outrun a man? Often no... Can she outrun a bear? Far less likely. Bears get up to 48km/h, while Bolt is just under 44, and most men aren't Bolt.

Credit where it's due, though: If a man is planning to attack a woman, it's normally with the distinct purpose of doing something specifically to her, while a Bear might give up and look for easier prey if she's getting away or making life difficult. For the bear it's a case of: "Can I get more energy than I use by eating this pink ape?", for a man it's: "I've got to get her now. Can't have her getting back to town and telling people I tried to attack her!"

yeah. Feeding bears is illegal, because it creates a situation where a bear will approach people when its hungry which creates a bear that is unnaturally dangerous. But in a pinch you'd at least not pack up your lunch if you think your life is on the line.

I imagine that a bribe would at least slow them down.

I'm no bear expert, but I understand this changes from bear to bear. For example, I know a Polar Bear will stop and investigate literally anything you drop... So if one is chasing you, and you throw your hat, it'll stop chasing you to check out the hat, while, from what I'm told, a Brown Bear that has decided to kill you will run past anything you drop to kill you. Mind you, I don't think tossing off your clothes in an environment where you'd meet a Polar Bear is going to end much better. :( Just a different, slower way to die.

I think it's just which would you feel more in danger from if you encountered a lone one in the woods, before you know anything about them.

Sure, sure... Maybe it's just the ignorance of the average person as to how powerful and wild a bear can be? Maybe, because they are surrounded by men and can see evidence of men being frightening, their hind-brains focus on the danger that is present: Could I be killed by a box jellyfish? Maybe, but I'm not surrounded by box jellyfish at all times. Could I be killed by a car? Yes, and there's cars everywhere - Ergo, I'd rather be in a swimming pool with 10 box jellyfish than 10 cars!

Maybe we should get women to listen to that tape of that girl who called her mum while she was being eaten alive by a family of bears, or that dude who decided he was one with the bears and went to live with them. Maybe it would help link their minds to the potential danger of a bear, despite not personally seeing it very often.

Either way, this was cool, but that's enough bear for me. I've had all I can... Bear...

[–]DesertOfMirrors 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

How many men does a woman typically encounter during the day? Also, how many of those male offenders were known to the female victim, and actually selected by her?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

How many men does a woman typically encounter during the day?

I don't know. How many?

Also, how many of those male offenders were known to the female victim, and actually selected by her?

Choosing the bear over the man kind of represents that doesn't it?

[–]DesertOfMirrors 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Choosing the bear over the man kind of represents that doesn't it?

Statistics fail. The game, as it usually posed, is that a woman meets a random man or a random bear in the forest. A random man is likely to be harmless, or even helpful. The man that some women actually select over all other men can be a violent thug.

Feminists are brainwashed not to see the vast majority of helpful men, and instead focus only on the men who are harmful. Classic selection bias.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

A random man is likely to be harmless,

Likely.

The man that some women actually select over all other men can be a violent thug.

But also most likely to be harmless.

[–]TonyDiGerolamo[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Comparing bears in the woods with ALL MURDERS in North America is a little like comparing, say, meteor deaths to people who have been killed in car accidents. You have to be in a CAR to be killed in a car accident. In the hypothetical, you have to be IN THE WOODS. ALONE. Most murders happen between people that are known to each other and are in urban settings.

The bottom line is, a woman has a chance against a man. She has no chance against a bear.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

But she chooses the bear because she is a thunder cunt!

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The man or bear thing is about the perception of risk.

The bottom line is, a woman has a chance against a man. She has no chance against a bear.

She's got a good chance against either if they don't attack her.