WOKE Man vs Bear Debate: The Dumbest Feminist Argument Yet?

Blacknarwhal

Let's Go Brandon!

I'd been hearing about this whole man vs. bear thing and wondered where it came from. It's good that it's merely the product of stupidity.

Fair use cited so on and so forth.

Man vs Bear Debate: The Dumbest Feminist Argument Yet?​

by Tyler Durden
Sunday, May 05, 2024 - 04:55 PM

When it comes to identifiable differences in female vs male psychology as well as differences in brain biology, as a general rule and as most studies show women focus far more on feelings than men do. Specifically, women tend to be more sensitive to negative emotions and negative imagery. Obviously, men and women are not the same, never have been the same and never will be the same, and this includes how they process information and come to conclusions.

This is the reason why many of women's perceptions on life tend to bewilder men; most women operate from a place of emotion and assumption (which they call "intuition") and come to conclusions based on feelings rather than facts. Intuition can be a powerful tool for identifying threats before they occur, and when women get it right they might appear to be clairvoyant. However, when they get it wrong they get it really wrong and the result is foolishness and disaster.

How one feels is not necessarily what is true.

Enter feminism, a movement which claims to be fighting for women's "equality" but is actually fighting for women's privilege. Legal equality for the sexes was achieved long ago and one would think that feminism would have faded away with its mission accomplished.

This has not been the case. Instead, feminists move the goalposts and the notion of equality has given way to desires for power. But unlike most political movements feminism does not chase power by applying direct force (in most cases). Rather, feminists chase power by magnifying and exaggerating their own weaknesses and victimhood.

In other words, they gain power by demanding reparations for perceived injustices. The more they feel oppressed or afraid or abused the more power society supposedly owes them. Feminism exploits the natural tendency of women to hyperfocus on negative emotions and promotes feelings over logic. If women feel like victims, that means they are victims.

This is where the "Man vs. Bear" narrative comes from. A bizarre thought experiment in which random women are asked if they were lost in the woods, would they rather run into a man or a bear? The question has created considerable controversy across social media, with a majority of women apparently choosing a bear over a man.

On the surface we can dismiss the thought experiment with the simple reality that women encounter men daily while most have never dealt with or seen a real bear in the wild in their entire lives. If they did run into a bear all of them would be screaming for help from the nearest man available to protect them.

It's perhaps the dumbest feminist mind-game so far in this respect. Life is not a Disney movie with friendly talking animals and there's a reason why men make up the vast majority of solo hunters - Female hunters don't want to go into the woods by themselves because they know predators like bears represent great potential injury or death.

To be fair, plenty of women have laughed off the question as ridiculous and pointed out the reality that with a man there's a good chance they will be helped out of the woods. With a bear there's no chance. But this hasn't stopped feminists from pretending as if the pro-bear response represents some kind of revelation about men and masculinity.

The issue has also revealed once again that math is the kryptonite of woke activists and critical thinking is their enemy.

Citing the predominance of men in crime stats, feminists argue that it's far more likely for a man to harm a woman than a bear to harm a woman. In fact, bear encounters are far more rare than encounters with men, and the percentage of men that commit violent crimes is tiny compared to the total male population in western countries.

By feminist logic, men are also actually safer with bears than with women. In 2021, 1,078 men were killed by women in the U.S. There have only been 180 fatal human/bear conflicts in North America since 1784. Again, this is about proximity.

In 2019, there were 283,467 violent crimes committed by men in the US, out of 161 million men. That's around 0.1% of the male population. The chances of a woman running into a violent man in the woods in this fantasy scenario is negligible. Feelings are being elevated over facts.

Most feminist narratives lean heavily on the fear dynamic. If women feel afraid of men then men and society must take them seriously and assuage those fears; the fears fabricated in women's minds are suddenly everyone's problem. In the past society used to laugh off female melodrama as an unfortunate bi-product of their nature; how can society fix a problem that doesn't exist in the tangible world?

But as the male commentator in the first video argues, it doesn't matter if women are actually in danger from men, it only matters that they believe they are in danger.

But who created that fear in women? Was it men? Or, was it feminist propaganda? The numbers suggest feminism has rotted women's minds with fear.
 

bw

Fringe Ranger
This is the reason why many of women's perceptions on life tend to bewilder men; most women operate from a place of emotion and assumption (which they call "intuition") and come to conclusions based on feelings rather than facts. Intuition can be a powerful tool for identifying threats before they occur, and when women get it right they might appear to be clairvoyant. However, when they get it wrong they get it really wrong and the result is foolishness and disaster.
Intuition has nothing to do with emotions and assumptions, but it is common to label emotions and assumptions as intuition. Intuition is listening to the subconscious which is always running, always processing inputs and generating tentative conclusions. Used properly, intuition is a powerful tool for picking useful signals out of the static. Used improperly, any person may state a position as the result of intuition when it's merely whim.
 

dioptase

Veteran Member
Well, I used to solo hike (currently not because of my knees), and I'd definitely prefer to run into a man (or two) on the trail, than a bear. I've been helped by men in a few tricky spots (or at least they were solicitous even if I didn't need any help - hikers in my experience are generally good people). I doubt that I could say the same about a bear.
 

Kathy in FL

Administrator
_______________
Yet one more stupid argument perpetuated by both genders because they are too stupid not to have a discussion that neither side will win or benefit from.

Both genders have a really bad habit of over analyzing something that is nothing more than a time waster.
 

Knoxville's Joker

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Well, I used to solo hike (currently not because of my knees), and I'd definitely prefer to run into a man (or two) on the trail, than a bear. I've been helped by men in a few tricky spots (or at least they were solicitous even if I didn't need any help - hikers in my experience are generally good people). I doubt that I could say the same about a bear.
Yeah, you are good in a bear's belly...
 

Bad Hand

Veteran Member
When I was younger I would spend 4 to 6 weeks at a time in the mountains alone trapping. I had some close calls anyl adventure you live through was a good one and the adventure you don't you don't have to worry about. My one rule was if it looks stupid don't do it a sprained ankle can be fatal.
 

TBonz

Veteran Member
I would assume, if I was in the woods a lot, I would have knowledge about the types of bears that frequent the woods in that area and how dangerous they could be and when they would be dangerous, and would know how to deal with it appropriately or be prepared for any circumstances (or stay the hell out of the woods).

With men, there is no telling who is dangerous. MOST men are fine. Some men are malignant and wouldn't hesitate to hurt a woman. Other men normally would not, but might assault a woman if a chance came up - an opportunistic thing. A woman can't know. Which is why some women are cautious regarding men, particularly if sexual assault or abuse is in their background.

So it's not quite a feminist silly thing. It's women saying that there are too many men who can't be trusted. And they're right, sad to say. It's definitely not all of you. But there are too many of these types for comfort. It's demoralizing how many women have been abused by people who one would think they would trust.

Which is why, properly prepared, meeting a bear is safer to some women than meeting a strange man in the woods. That's the point of the "dumb argument." YMMV.
 

ibetiny

Veteran Member
At first I was angry at being lumped up with all men and then being put down as worthless. AGAIN.
But then I had a thought. It actually makes sense. A bear is their ideal mate!!!!
Over 6', unemployed, heavily muscled, unpredictably violent, many baby mamas, takes care of neither mama nor baby. Usually brown or black in color.
 

Lone_Hawk

Resident Spook
I would assume, if I was in the woods a lot, I would have knowledge about the types of bears that frequent the woods in that area and how dangerous they could be and when they would be dangerous, and would know how to deal with it appropriately or be prepared for any circumstances (or stay the hell out of the woods).

With men, there is no telling who is dangerous. MOST men are fine. Some men are malignant and wouldn't hesitate to hurt a woman. Other men normally would not, but might assault a woman if a chance came up - an opportunistic thing. A woman can't know. Which is why some women are cautious regarding men, particularly if sexual assault or abuse is in their background.

So it's not quite a feminist silly thing. It's women saying that there are too many men who can't be trusted. And they're right, sad to say. It's definitely not all of you. But there are too many of these types for comfort. It's demoralizing how many women have been abused by people who one would think they would trust.

Which is why, properly prepared, meeting a bear is safer to some women than meeting a strange man in the woods. That's the point of the "dumb argument." YMMV.

TBonz, this isn't directed at you, but at the, I guess you could call it the result.

The problem I'm having is that the good men would happily put away, or down, the bad men depending on how bad they are. But the feminist have at the same time they are complaining about "men" have also whined when good men try to put down the bad men to protect everyone, including the women. They complain about the crime, but make it easy for the criminal and hard for the good men trying to deal with it.

To me that is where the disconnect is....
 

Hawke

Veteran Member
I would assume, if I was in the woods a lot, I would have knowledge about the types of bears that frequent the woods in that area and how dangerous they could be and when they would be dangerous, and would know how to deal with it appropriately or be prepared for any circumstances (or stay the hell out of the woods).

With men, there is no telling who is dangerous. MOST men are fine. Some men are malignant and wouldn't hesitate to hurt a woman. Other men normally would not, but might assault a woman if a chance came up - an opportunistic thing. A woman can't know. Which is why some women are cautious regarding men, particularly if sexual assault or abuse is in their background.

So it's not quite a feminist silly thing. It's women saying that there are too many men who can't be trusted. And they're right, sad to say. It's definitely not all of you. But there are too many of these types for comfort. It's demoralizing how many women have been abused by people who one would think they would trust.

Which is why, properly prepared, meeting a bear is safer to some women than meeting a strange man in the woods. That's the point of the "dumb argument." YMMV.
It's very much a feminist silly thing when many of these feminist women who profess a distrust and fear of men will support allowing the very same type of man they claim to fear, namely the sexual predator type, to have easy access to women by letting them in women's locker rooms and bathrooms.
 

WalknTrot

Veteran Member
Why I commented "Stupid" yesterday:

If women, or men for that matter, knew what truly being "lost" is all about, (and most of either sex don't these days), they would be flat out lying if they said they'd prefer meeting a bear.

The question is a ridiculous construct because 90% of the population we live in is totally ignorant of (at least) two of the three factors involved.

1-) Being lost in the woods
2-) Bears
3-) Men
 

Blacknarwhal

Let's Go Brandon!
Why I commented "Stupid" yesterday:

If women, or men for that matter, knew what truly being "lost" is all about, (and most of either sex don't these days), they would be flat out lying if they said they'd prefer meeting a bear.

The question is a ridiculous construct because 90% of the population we live in is totally ignorant of (at least) two of the three factors involved.

1-) Being lost in the woods
2-) Bears
3-) Men

Not necessarily. Last I knew, it kind of depends on the bear.

There's an old principle called threat calculus, last I knew. Basically it assesses how likely things are to happen. For instance, the following models might apply.

Meet a Bear

30% it runs away from you (especially true for black bears)
30% it doesn't much care
40% it attacks you and possibly kills and eats you.

Meet a Man

70% it is a good helpful human and wants to leave the woods, helping you get you out of the woods in the process
27% it mistakes you for a threat to itself and attacks you, possibly killing you
3% it is a monster and kidnaps you, taking you back to its lair to do terrible things to you for the rest of your life, however long that is, and possibly violates your corpse in similar fashion.

In a case like that, you can see where some might prefer the bear. There's a 60% chance you survive the bear in one way or another. Even if you are wrong, at least with the bear, your death will be quick. While there's a 70% chance you survive the man, there's also a trivial chance that meeting that man starts you on a terrible ordeal that will make the last few weeks, possibly months, of your life misery.
 

WalknTrot

Veteran Member
Lost toddlers might hide from the people out looking for them. Anybody else? No.

The reality of what "lost" means: Cold nights, wet and hungry in the woods. Quite possibly for days - dying of hypothermia or dehydration. But they'd rather meet a bear?
Not in the real world.
 

tech

Veteran Member
Works both ways :(

It's women saying that there are too many men who can't be trusted. And they're right, sad to say. It's definitely not all of you. But there are too many of these types for comfort. It's demoralizing how many women have been abused by people who one would think they would trust.
It's men saying that there are too many women who can't be trusted. And they're right, sad to say. It's definitely not all of you. But there are too many of these types for comfort. It's demoralizing how many men have been abused by people who one would think they would trust.
 

Kathy in FL

Administrator
_______________

The expression on that bear’s face is this guy better stop hugging me. It’s creeping me out. Just because we have the same fur color does not mean we are related. And it is freaking snowing. Where’s the rest of his fur?! Now I’m really getting creeped out. I wonder if he is one of those furry wannabe’s we’ve been hearing about around the den.
 

lisa

Veteran Member
It's a poor analogy....really has nothing to do with choosing between an actual bear and a random man. It's to show the situational awareness every woman has to live with on a daily basis because of men. (I know it isn't ALL men or even the majority of men.) Women aren't inventing the danger we face now and have faced throughout history as the 'weaker' sex. How many of you have had 'the talk' with your daughters ...telling them that if a man tries to grab them on the street to fight like crazy..even if it means getting shot, than to get dragged into a random vehicle and face that fate. Maybe it's just because I have lived so many years in big cities...but I always told my girls..if all they want is your purse or phone...don't argue and give it to them...if they want you then you fight to the death. I know that the world is doing it's best to demonize all men and the majority would rescue a woman in danger but I don't think men realize the constant alert women walk around in and sometimes men get offended when a woman is super cautious first instead of just trusting a guy. Still...it's a terrible analogy and does nothing to help men/women relationships which was the point of the original post I think as most inflammatory posts on social media are meant for harm.
 

Kayak

Adrenaline Junkie
Let's repose the question. In the Appalachians, should one of my daughters be out hiking alone in the wild without a weapon, would I rather they run into a bear or a man? It's a nonsense question because they wouldn't be in the woods without a gun, and I can't imagine them being out there alone, but whatever.

I've run into countless bears in the woods on this end of the country. Found myself between a mother and her cubs once, but I walked sideways and got out from in between them and avoided an incident. Only once has a bear been aggressive, and it wasn't that mother bear. So, less than one percent of the time, because I know I've seen WAY more than a hundred bears. I saw fourteen bears in my last trip alone, hiking near the base of Mount LeConte, and not a one of them paid me much mind at all.

So, if we specify this part of the country, it's possible my drop-dead-beautiful daughters would be safer with a bear than a man.

However, since they are unlikely to be in the woods without a gun, it comes down to legal fees needed to establish self-defense. If the man has a long rap sheet, it'll be easier to establish. It isn't likely the bear will have one.

However, between a grizzly and a man? I think their odds will be better with the human, no matter what. For a rape survivor, however, I can see the logic of preferring to be killed right off the bat, rather than raped, tortured, and then killed. Is it an emotional answer? Absolutely, but I can also see the logic.

I don't believe women are saying all men are rapists, though that's what men are hearing. Try to think of it in terms of your daughters, rather than yourselves, and see if that changes your perspective a little.
 

Blacknarwhal

Let's Go Brandon!
However, between a grizzly and a man? I think their odds will be better with the human, no matter what. For a rape survivor, however, I can see the logic of preferring to be killed right off the bat, rather than raped, tortured, and then killed. Is it an emotional answer? Absolutely, but I can also see the logic.

I don't believe women are saying all men are rapists, though that's what men are hearing. Try to think of it in terms of your daughters, rather than yourselves, and see if that changes your perspective a little.

Yeah. Threat calculus. It's tough to swallow, but there is a trivial, non-zero chance that every man a woman meets is a rapist. This is, of course, substantially offensive to most men, who do not practice such things and resent the implication that, somehow, they could be one, but it is a risk. A small risk. But a risk.
 

lisa

Veteran Member
Having commented on that analogy..I would like to point out that the feminist agenda is aimed at demasculating men. It is not just about making men understand how women feel and our reasons for feeling that way. The problem is that in demasculating men in society we are getting rid of our defenders. Men are men for a reason...they were created by God as protectors of society. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is..that role has been used and is being used( i.e. sharia law) as a weapon against the more vulnerable of society instead of as the protection it was meant to be. So some women, thinking they are making themselves more safe by demasculating the threat...instead are actually putting themselves in greater danger by the bad actors. Jesus gave women equality...we became co-heirs with Christ. When you look at the Hebrew word in Genesis the poorly translated word "help meet" is actually the same word used for strong ally...like when nations allied with other nations. We were to have each other's backs. Once again, outside of God's perfect plan...we twist things and as usual make society worse and abuse each other.
 

33dInd

Veteran Member
Having came across two young women lost in the woods in the winding stair mountains of SE Oklahoma in 1995
I can say emphatically they were super glad to see me
They had wondered off from their camp site. City girls for sure.
I asked them where they had camped They rendered they were by the stream and the old stone house. I knew exactly where they camped

I started giving them directions and they weren’t having it. I had to lead them back. Which I did
Now. It was early fall. No hunting yet and I was scouting for deer season. And had a rifle. They didn’t miss a kick in asking me to get them back

Had another time two pre teen girls. Robbers cave state park. Wife and I walking one the trails and we noticed these two girls watching us from the woods. Sun was going down. And yes they were scared but lost. Wife told them to come with us and we got them back no problem
When we arrived the rangers were already establishing a search party. They had been missing since early morning
 

Seeker22

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Not necessarily. Last I knew, it kind of depends on the bear.

There's an old principle called threat calculus, last I knew. Basically it assesses how likely things are to happen. For instance, the following models might apply.

Meet a Bear

30% it runs away from you (especially true for black bears)
30% it doesn't much care
40% it attacks you and possibly kills and eats you.

Meet a Man

70% it is a good helpful human and wants to leave the woods, helping you get you out of the woods in the process
27% it mistakes you for a threat to itself and attacks you, possibly killing you
3% it is a monster and kidnaps you, taking you back to its lair to do terrible things to you for the rest of your life, however long that is, and possibly violates your corpse in similar fashion.

In a case like that, you can see where some might prefer the bear. There's a 60% chance you survive the bear in one way or another. Even if you are wrong, at least with the bear, your death will be quick. While there's a 70% chance you survive the man, there's also a trivial chance that meeting that man starts you on a terrible ordeal that will make the last few weeks, possibly months, of your life misery.

I used to live 60 miles out West gate Yellowstone, on the Grizzly bear migration route. Any hiker who goes into deep timber without a weapon is TSTL*.

Your hypothetical feminist hiker stands a better chance against predators (man or bear) if she is packing heat.

*Too Stupid To Live
 

Blacknarwhal

Let's Go Brandon!
I used to live 60 miles out West gate Yellowstone, on the Grizzly bear migration route. Any hiker who goes into deep timber without a weapon is TSTL*.

Your hypothetical feminist hiker stands a better chance against predators (man or bear) if she is packing heat.

*Too Stupid To Live

I'm sure. But it really doesn't change the numbers any there. 30% chance it runs, 30% chance it doesn't care, 40% chance it attacks. The hypothetical firearm will only fragment the 40% into something like "30% chance it attacks and you kill it, 10% it attacks and the attack gets through." As for the 70 / 27 / 3 metric for the man, that's basically just randomizing it. You'd have to assume that you could reach your firearm in time and you weren't ambushed.
 
Top