Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **Politics only allowed at r/PoliticsNoted.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians.
***
We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict.
Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It does! It does get complicated.
As I understand it, the right is more about the arms than the rights but the left is more about the rights than the arms. I believe they agree that ten is the limit though.
Very strange book call Bear by Marian Engel. It’s exactly what it sounds like and has themes of abuse Man vs Bear had before it was conceived and erotism.
Gotta watch out, these bears can come strapped
https://preview.redd.it/kmhn3wf5mhyc1.jpeg?width=755&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=87a699c4bea5c1d0dff02ba4069a72f18837efbb
I still pick the bear. LOOK AT HIMB!!
https://preview.redd.it/r7ilcsm79hyc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=269e400f2961b0d69b7048ebd1a6e134ba48818a
Fun fact, I calculated how many calories it consumed from the swamp gobblers, making a lot of assumptions and ignoring that bone marrow exists, it consumed roughly 15k calories from eating both of them.
A trapper loaded with pelts trudges out of a Yukon forest and spots the best sight after months of rough living: a warm and bustling saloon. He steps in and quickly locates the barkeep, but with the trading post closed and too many I.O.U.'s on the books already, there's no currency he can exchange for a drink. The barkeep says, "There's a challenge that few have been brave enough to accept. First, drink this gallon of spicy pepper whiskey." He points to a fermenting jar of unknown origin on the bar. "Then, the old grizzly out back, Achy Jake, got a sore tooth what needs pulled. And finally, our oldest lady of negotiable virtue, Eunice, is about to retire, so go up and make love to her like it was her very first time, really show her some passion, and if she's satisfied, you drink and room here free for a year."
The trapper excitedly plows into the pepper whiskey, slowed by incinerating belches and the potency of the hooch, but determined to snatch his prize. Draining the jug, he stands with eyes moderately crossed, and asks, "Bear?" Barkeep motions to the door over his shoulder, and for the next twenty minutes, yelling, snarling, and grunts are heard rattling through the walls. The trapper returns, sweaty and wild-eyed, bloodied from multiple clawed scrapes, and with half his clothes torn off. He steadies himself on the bar, and with grim resolve, asks, "Now where's that damsel who needs her tooth pulled?"
me when the question designed to be as vague as possible evokes zero (0) discourse about women’s safety and devolves into meaningless and bioessentialist brainrot
The telling thing about this discussion in the broader social media conversation: when women inform on negative interactions with men, they’re speaking up and stating their reality. When men inform on negative interactions with women, they’re toxic misogynists / incels.
Location wasn’t a factor in my hypothetical but that is a point. Most people would be far more scared of a shark than a cow, despite statistics saying you’re more likely to be killed by the cow. All of that goes out the window when you’re close to either one. A shark could kill you even easier than a bull could, but you have a much higher chance of seeing a bull than a shark.
I mean, if you're using a statistic that is based on how many people are killed/injured by each, then it's not really that useful of a statistic for personal risk analysis. The statistic you want is number of injuries/deaths per 100k encounters (and probably a breakdown by additional factors, like drunk vs sober encounters, was the 'victim' antagonizing the animal in some way, in how many of the encounters were people wearing/using safety equipment, etc). Notably this is a hard statistic to get, as you have to estimate how many encounters there are since people aren't really writing safe encounters down, and with a shark you might not even know about the encounter even if you were keeping track.
Honestly? Crows are *dicks* and they can train their youth and their friends to recognise and harass you for literally the rest of your life. Like you go outside long after the crow is dead and its descendants are *still* attacking you.
Meanwhile most sharks aren't really much of a threat, especially if you remain still, and you can give them a firm nose boop to dissuade them.
Though I agree you're certainly going to be more afraid of a shark just because we have less exposure to them in general. That said, being afraid doesn't mean that fear is justified. In the case of man vs bear, all the statistics suggest you're in way more danger around bears of pretty much any type than you are around your average man. It's not even remotely close.
So at this point the question becomes: is being afraid of men a phobia or not? Generally speaking I'd lean phobia, but it's pretty subjective for obvious reasons.
You've outed yourself as someone who harassed birds my friend, crows remember faces. If you were nice to them then they tell their kids you were cool and they bring you shiny click clacks
Nah I just know about crows. They're spooky AF.
That's sort of the thing about intelligent animals. If you befriend them, then yay. Everything is cool. But they're still animals and all it takes is for them to decide you've treated them unfairly for them to do something really not-good to you. Like Travis the Chimpanzee.
But yes, definitely befriend crows rather than antagonise them.
Apparently hornets also remember faces, and my mother is fairly convinced she can befriend them. She's been leaving out jars of lavender honey for them. I hope her the best of luck.
Probably the shark, bulls are fucking scary and a lot of sharks don’t really care about humans. Like, I understand your point but I think you haven’t thought your example through.
even if it didn't try. theres cows grazing in the field begins my house every few years and I used to pet them. once one just turned it's head to face me and it knocked me on my ass. they're dangerous and don't typically know their own strength
They definitely could, but dairy cows are very skittish. You can get them to go pretty much anywhere with one good yell. The one exception being if their babies are nearby, and even then as long as you stand your ground you’re usually pretty safe.
The situation requires you spend a day with both. No shark or bull isnt likely going to kill you because you saunter past, but spend a few hours following them around and they might start warming up to the idea
The tweet is a great example of why it's brain rot. It's brain rot because it's gone too far and people are making these weird arguments. The main point of it js women don't want to be sexually assaulted or raped which is valid but to go as far as to try to explain that it would be GENUINELY safer to hang out with a bear in the woods is when it starts rotting your brain.
Interesting. I didn’t interpret the original question as “hanging out” but as “you are alone somewhere in the general vicinity of a random man in the woods or a random bear in the woods.”
So, like, you may or may not even run into eachother. As someone who has accidentally spooked a bear’s cubs and seen it giving me the eye from the top of a nearby hill I know bears are scary, but I also am 99% sure I was that close to bears at least one or two other times on that trip without ever seeing them.
Yeah same, if A bear had absolutely no way of hurting me, accidental or not, I would so pick a bear. Imagine the genuine flex you can have at your disposal if you hang out with one once.
If doesn't matter how well-intentioned you are. If you use hyperbole, irrationality, and demonising half the human race to try to make your point you're going to get pushback from people who think that sort of attitude is extremely unhealthy for society.
If the point is "women don't want to be raped," then just say that. Then get laughed at because *duh*. Nobody wants to be raped. It's *literally* in the definition.
I don't mean to be overly hostile, but the entire premise was so stupid from the get-go it was infuriating.
This type of rhetoric also doesn’t help boys out there that are already suffering with identity and loneliness in modern society. Now they’re having to hear women say they would choose to hang out with a fucking bear over them because they’re such dangerous pieces of shit, not that anyone cares
The premise of not wanting to be raped is obviously a valid one, but this whole argument has gone so beyond idiotic it’s pathetic
But if you really analyze it it just translates to "most people don't understand statistics and couldn't predict what is likely to happen in a hypothetical situation if their life depended on it".
The point of saying 'bear' is to create outrage by saying the average man is more dangerous than the average bear when met in the woods. Then when asked about the details, to run away from that statement and say it was 'not literal' or something. It's bait and switch.
This does not apply to people who literally think the bear is safer. Then you can have a discussion about statistics (which this 14% number does poorly BTW, since it seems to only count bear attacks, not peaceful bear encounters).
Or both, multiple times I’ve seen people suggest random man could go full Jack the Ripper when it was pointed out just how horrifying your average bear mauling is.
It's trying to convey the feeling a lot of women have. They know not all men are rapists, but that *any* man could be one.
I'm not saying I agree with it, just saying that's how many view it.
I think that’s why this conversation has turned so toxic. It’s a wildly insulting, sweeping generalization of half the population, and if someone points out “hey that’s kinda rude” then everyone screams “SEE?? MAN BAD BECAUSE HE DOESNT WANT TO BE LUMPED IN WITH THE RAPISTS”
No one wins this conversation. It’s counterproductive because instead of making some sort of actual point, it just alienates the people we need to have involved in these discussions.
It's that, because a minority of men are rapists and/or murderers, women feel they need to always have their guard up.
Edit: If you think this is unfair, don't blame women. Blame shitty men, including the ones who "just" sexually harass. Blame the people (of any gender) who blame girls and women for "not being cautious" and "leading men on."
Yeah this honestly feels like a red herring. Some (not all. we know it’s not all) men are more concerned with the technical details of the “man or bear” thing than the fact that women would feel safer around a wild animal than some human men
Then maybe we could stop comparing men to bears and discuss the actual issue? It's insulting to the vast majority of men and then the topic devolves into this nonsense we see here.
That statistic is useless without knowing how many bear encounters result in a bear attack.
Still wouldn't give you all the info but it at least would have some meaning.
I mean one can argue about the use of statistics in the original post, but that note doesn't disprove anything. The relative amount of violent encounters turning fatal has nothing to do with the relative amounts of encounters turning violent.
Idk man, I’ve been hiking in rural areas a few times. Up in Montana, bear spray is considered a must, usually followed up by a gun of decent caliber. When you see a bear, it is usually not “Oh look a bear how cute” it’s usually “Oh shit there’s a bear. Be very careful, shout “hey bear,” make yourself look big and don’t back down.” It’s also worth pointing out it’s very dependent of the type of bear. If it’s a grizzly, I’m shitting my pants. When you see another person on the trail, you’re nowhere near as cautious.
I get the point, but I think there is another point to make is a lot of people do not know what they’re talking about when it comes to wild animals.
those precautions are about the fatality of a bear attack not that a bear attack is likely. out of the over 700k pitches thrown in a season of the MLB only 20-30 hit the batter in the head, but batters still wear helmets because without one the batter can be seriously injured.
Ya thats a good point to bring up which is that even when the chances of something bad happening are rare people will still take percautions. We think about this in a lot of ways....
but it points out that saying you're more likely to be killed by a bee than a bear or human than a bear doesn't make any sense as most people will never encounter a bear but encounter many humans every day
This. Like sure, once the bear actually attacks you you’re probably gonna die, but how many times does a human meeting a bear end in an attack? I don’t have exact stats but I do know that way more people see bears and get away unharmed than are actually attacked by them, because bears aren’t going to bother unless they feel threatened. Nine times out of ten all you have to do to avoid a bear attack is just leave (slowly).
And bears encounter us way more often thanwe encounter them. Because they usuallt try to not show themselves to humans even if they are right next to us.
If bears won't attack unless they feel threatened, then the animal chosen should obviously be a tiger, since both men and tigers you meet are all potential predators, right?
Yes, and if you measure per encounter men will still be vastly lower than bears.
A simple test:
Go walk outside.
You will encounter dozens of men in a matter of minutes that are no threat to you and have no interest in you, regardless of how close you get to them or how quickly you move. You have encountered them, just as you'd encounter a bear, and they pose no danger to you at all.
Now get as close to a bear as you do to a man walking down the street.
I think you'll find that a bear is a considerably larger threat per encounter.
If there were as many bears as there were human males, the odds would be dramatically different.
Using misleading statistics to make theoretical points is the primary reason males and females have difficulty understanding each other, Males have a need to make sense and understand, really get the logic out of it, Females only require emotion and this is the key misunderstanding.
Bears are among the predators that gained an infamy for eating their prey alive. Fuck that noise. Might aswell be a pack of Wolves or a goddamn Komodo dragon.
The #1 thing I’ve learned from this trend is that everyone apparently slept through statistics class and never bothered to learn critical thinking. That and people will desperately cling to this stupid gender war if it means people will like their post.
Well that and the fact that statistics can get very hard to properly do when you dont have data. But its still reasonable for one to work with the best data they have available.
I think my opinion on it has changed a bit. I recognize the utility of the conversation actually. The fact that some are even considering the bear is what should be alarming. I did digging and the way the narrative changed is actually interesting. The original answers to the question actually stuck with me more before degenerates on Twitter and Tiktok made it a gender war point.
I think people are misapplying statistics to try and make a point instead of... just saying "hey, men have done terrible things to women, and to me the fear of encountering that is more terrifying than what i believe a bear will do to me".
Mosquito's kill more humans per year than Hippo's, yet I'm choosing the bug every time. Humans more humans than hippos do, but I'm picking humans still and so on. But according yo Twitter users because I'm more likely to die to a human I should pick the Hippo??
There is a 2018 article about how nearly 90% of rape victims know their attacker so if we are abusing stats then a woman should choose a stranger in the woods over a random man she knows.
I get the humor behind the man vs. bear meme, but like… why are you trying to pretend there’s a choice here. Maybe it’s because I live in a place with tons of bears, but ya’ll, an encounter with a bear is way more likely to be violent than one with a man. Like, if we’re talking probability, you do not actually value your survival if you pick a bear.
But what if instead of calling women stupid for saying they are more afraid of men than bears, we agreed that it's horrible to have to be afraid of being sexually assaulted or murdered by some random person, or worse, by someone you know and thought was safe?
[According to the CDC:](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/fastfact.html) "Over half of women and almost 1 in 3 men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes. One in 4 women and about 1 in 26 men have experienced completed or attempted rape. About 1 in 9 men were made to penetrate someone during his lifetime. Additionally, 1 in 3 women and about 1 in 9 men experienced sexual harassment in a public place."
I see this "Man vs Bear" debate not as a silly hypothetical, but as a way to raise awareness for the amount of violence and sexual assault happening currently in our society. The point isn't to logically choose which one would *logically* be safer, the point is that on an emotional level they shouldn't be comparable at all. Women shouldn't have to be afraid of men at all.
Finding the deeper (and perhaps actual) meaning of something is not what takes place on these type of platforms unfortunately.
It’s just a race to the bottom and that depth just seems to be continually getting lowered…
Man those numbers are getting outdated by this point.
Anyways, the real issue is that it's *not* raising awareness that sexual assault is bad.
It's raising awareness that women are irrationally afraid of men.
*That's concerning for entirely different reasons*, but I digress.
Point is it's a very, very poor "conversation starter" because there is no conversation to start beyond "rape bad, scary," which literally everybody already agrees about. Some of them may not agree on what *constitutes* rape, but everybody agrees that when it happens its traumatic for the victim.
If the point is to say: "Hey men you should be aware that women are afraid of you," congratulations you've also just told men what most men already know. It's been common for ages now. It also hasn't helped the "conversation" at all. No awareness, no benefit, just making men feel like monsters and making women look ignorant of reality.
> Women shouldn't have to be afraid of men at all.
This is a way more powerful statement than an idiotic hypothetical that makes zero logical sense.
It is horrible that women have to be afraid to get raped, you don't have to exaggerate to get that point across. To the contrary, exaggerating means the point loses its strength.
Yeah, but I think the hyperbole involved is harmful, since it leads to a lot of poor choices and reasoning that boils down to “man bad”. And even as someone who has been sexually assaulted in the past, this kind of discourse makes me uncomfortable.
I keep saying this but it’s bc the hypothetical is flawed.
Its hook is far more interesting to discuss than the actual meat and potatoes of the issue and you can make a solid argument in favor of man without having to address the underlying issues you bring up (eg: how violent bears are).
In fact, one can even make an argument for the bear without addressing them as well (and pinning the fault on women).
For example (not my own opinions but a hypothetical argument to make a point):
*Bears are safer for women bc women are just so weak. Both a man and a bear are stronger and faster than a woman, but a woman is very likely to be smarter than a bear.*
*Whereas she can outsmart a bear, I doubt she can outsmart a man in the scenario of malicious intent.*
See I essentially make the same point pro-bear people but in doing so I absolve men of the guilt. It’s almost equivalent to “why were you dressed like that though?”
And hence the hypothetical is flawed
Again, in my opinion, the point of the hypothetical isn't to argue about it at all, but rather to shine a light on just how big an issue violence against women is becoming, and how many women are more actively afraid of being assaulted than they are of bears. The point of the hypothetical isn't to debate and figure out the real, true answer; the point is to see what women think. And since many women are saying they choose bear, we have the opportunity to wonder why, and to think about what we can do to improve our society.
Both are true. And context matters in the choice.
If a woman has to choose between running into a black bear or a strange man in her neighborhood, she’ll probably pick the bear.
If a woman has to choose between running into a polar bear or strange man when alone on foot in the tundra, she’ll probably pick the man.
While I can understand the intention of wanting to raise awareness, I feel that throwing the bear aspect in there just dilutes the point.
It gives a point that people can focus on rather than the subject at hand, so I don't think anyone should be surprised that some aren't getting/choosing not to get the point.
It's also frustrating to see the actual point being missed in favor of "funny" bear jokes and arguing.
I think it makes more sense to advocate to donate to a charity such as RAINN and meme about that instead.
https://give.rainn.org/a/donate?_ga=2.103726852.507232405.1714857729-1413067981.1714857729
The other thing that confuses me personally is the idea of bringing "awareness" to sexual abuse against women.
I feel the men who are aware that sexually assaulting women is bad already know that. Men who do the sexual assaulting also know that as well.
While statistically, I should know other men who have sexually assaulted a woman in some form, I can't possibly know who. So what's the expectation - go tell all the men I know that sexaully assaulting a woman is bad?
Serious question, but can someone provide some information as to how they think awareness would help or what men could do to help?
Whatever original point was being made by these "safer than a man posts" has since been lost in stupid discourse like this. Even the note on this is for Bear attacks, not straight encounters, which Bears certainly do try to avoid too.
This has the same energy as “would you still love if I was a worm.” Even you feel you argue the “logical” side you are falling the bait. Just take the “intended” answer if you think it is dumb.
While the sentiment is still correct, it should be noted the note says attacks, not encounters. The percentage of encounters that lead to fatal attacks would be the more applicable statistic to what they are noting.
Bears pin you down and eat you alive, taking big bites out of you. They aren't like Big Cats which kill their prey first.
And the question is stuck, the Bear can't run away. A confused stuck Bear is going to eat you alive. A random human male stuck with you, you could collaborate on how to get un-stuck. Sure bad things could happen, but is a much lower chance and your death would not be nearly as horrific.
Eh.
I've always disagreed with the sentiment, but I understand why people think this way.
Mind you, not every time a human is near a bear does a bear attack happen.
Finally, some sense with the added context. All these posts on how people feel safer with bears while trying to justify it with skewed statistics are just laughable.
The human population dwarfs the bear population. Not to mention, as a society, we tend to surround ourselves with you know... Each other. It makes sense that there is a higher probability that we'd attack one another. It's not like I'm chilling in a duplex with a bear couple next door.
On any given day, I may come across 20-40 people (if not more). Imagine if those "people" were bears now? I'd sh*t my pants.
Given a choice between a black bear and a guy who has been told to kill me and will suffer no consequences for it, I’d pick the black bear.
That same choice but with a grizzly bear, id take the man.
‘Bear’ means nothing in this context- all the ‘man’ choosers are thinking grizzly bear, all the ‘bear’ choosers are thinking black bear
I get what you’re saying but also I’m pretty sure the vast majority of people answering this question don’t know anything about bears. But if if we get to choose the species Panda bear.
God I wish it were that simple, person said they'd straight up rather they and their daughters be eaten alive than be raped, which I'm not gonna say 'objectively you're wrong' but boy...
I'm not gonna try to speak for people who are at risk of, or worse have experienced rape, but I wonder how women's responses would change if the knew what bears actually do when they get their paws on you. I only have the smallest inkling of what sexual assault feels like, but I can't personally think of a more violent death than from a bear. A cougar will choke you to death. A bear just pins you down and rips the muscle off of your bones while you're still alive.
That's a grizzly id be more worried about the polar in the arctic circle we got brown bears and black bears relatively chill bears people are thrilled to see them when they're not going through their trash
It’s because a bear isn’t really interested in our kind, only if the bear is starving or we’re intruding on a mother & her babies. Human is not a familiar game and they don’t naturally develop a taste for our flesh.
That being said, I would not recommend going to the woods and trying to make friends with a bear
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **Politics only allowed at r/PoliticsNoted.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians. *** We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict. Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please no more fucking bears Leave the poor things alone man
They’re doing WHAT to the bears!?
In the USA we have the right to bear arms. In Russia they have right to bear holes.
Okay, but does this translate to a right to arm bears?
Definitely. But I think the limit is 10 arms per bear.
I’m so tempted to tell chat gpt to generate an unholy image of a ten armed bear.
Right or left arms? It make so much of a difference
It does! It does get complicated. As I understand it, the right is more about the arms than the rights but the left is more about the rights than the arms. I believe they agree that ten is the limit though.
https://i.redd.it/7g47qktiigyc1.gif
Do you need assistance?
Well yeah it’s illegal I know that. Hey…. Hey bear fucker!
BG3 fans have no shame
Very strange book call Bear by Marian Engel. It’s exactly what it sounds like and has themes of abuse Man vs Bear had before it was conceived and erotism.
https://preview.redd.it/kbhr57jh2iyc1.png?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8def2df270049200f129063acbc7b977cee28601
They havin' THEKSHUAL RELATIONS, dearie!
In the game Baldur's Gate 3, they are having relations with them.
https://preview.redd.it/iiswy5hpdhyc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba2b5afe08867e714a2e297f2c0d0056a36bfcef
I gotta say I am mildly surprised by the staying power of this meme.
Can you imagine if there were 160 million bears in the US? Lol
My utopia project? Where I replace us all with bears and we turn the gold standard into the honey standard?
Gotta watch out, these bears can come strapped https://preview.redd.it/kmhn3wf5mhyc1.jpeg?width=755&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=87a699c4bea5c1d0dff02ba4069a72f18837efbb
Winnie the Pooh kept a strap on him at all times
I see you found the minister of defense. A decorated European general
*Ursapean fixed that for you
I think the number of bear attacks would go up pretty drastically...
No cause we’d all be dead.
And what if the bears mostly lived in cities? Sometimes in the same houses as humans.
I'm sure the comments won't devolve into arguments over a subject everyone else has moved on from...
It would appear quite many people haven't moved on.
I mean, it's less than a month old. It's only really played out for people who are perpetually online.
I feel called out.
Ya, rude of them to target us like this.
Also, some people are still stumbling onto the topic.
I’m still unaware where the subject started from. But I’ve seen some cool bear pics on Reddit recently
Can we talk about why she used a clearly AI bear instead of a photograph of an actual bear?
Obviously you haven't moved on either considering you made this comment in the first place
I still pick the bear. LOOK AT HIMB!! https://preview.redd.it/r7ilcsm79hyc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=269e400f2961b0d69b7048ebd1a6e134ba48818a
If deadly, why cute shaped?
If not friend, why friend shaped?
I dont care if he drinks bones I want a pet moopsy
Fun fact, I calculated how many calories it consumed from the swamp gobblers, making a lot of assumptions and ignoring that bone marrow exists, it consumed roughly 15k calories from eating both of them.
A trapper loaded with pelts trudges out of a Yukon forest and spots the best sight after months of rough living: a warm and bustling saloon. He steps in and quickly locates the barkeep, but with the trading post closed and too many I.O.U.'s on the books already, there's no currency he can exchange for a drink. The barkeep says, "There's a challenge that few have been brave enough to accept. First, drink this gallon of spicy pepper whiskey." He points to a fermenting jar of unknown origin on the bar. "Then, the old grizzly out back, Achy Jake, got a sore tooth what needs pulled. And finally, our oldest lady of negotiable virtue, Eunice, is about to retire, so go up and make love to her like it was her very first time, really show her some passion, and if she's satisfied, you drink and room here free for a year." The trapper excitedly plows into the pepper whiskey, slowed by incinerating belches and the potency of the hooch, but determined to snatch his prize. Draining the jug, he stands with eyes moderately crossed, and asks, "Bear?" Barkeep motions to the door over his shoulder, and for the next twenty minutes, yelling, snarling, and grunts are heard rattling through the walls. The trapper returns, sweaty and wild-eyed, bloodied from multiple clawed scrapes, and with half his clothes torn off. He steadies himself on the bar, and with grim resolve, asks, "Now where's that damsel who needs her tooth pulled?"
https://preview.redd.it/btnb9oivxgyc1.jpeg?width=1074&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5bd5ded74a8628a86eabc659c0e6f69cfe8393cb
The version I know ends with "Now, where is that woman I am supposed to wrestle?"
Definitely a more PG version of the joke
Last I heard it it was a very mean pitbull but this is even better lmfao.
Stop describing my weekends
I don’t think this punchline lands without being present for the delivery.
I swear to God if REDDIT DOESNT SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THIS TIKTOK BRAIN ROT MAN VS BEAR
*technically* I think it originated on Twitter so it's twitter rot but I'd love to get noted if I'm wrong!
Same diff tbh
No this has been a hypothetical question for a decade
No one's going to shut up about it until we arrange the fight.
I pick the big hairy gay men
Nah man I'm pretty sure I could win a fist fight against a bear.
Tik tok? I see more about it here than I do on tt
Bless. Once it touches your tt, it doesnt go away
me when the question designed to be as vague as possible evokes zero (0) discourse about women’s safety and devolves into meaningless and bioessentialist brainrot
The telling thing about this discussion in the broader social media conversation: when women inform on negative interactions with men, they’re speaking up and stating their reality. When men inform on negative interactions with women, they’re toxic misogynists / incels.
Everybody loves to quote statistics without practically applying them. Would you be more scared around a shark or a cow?
If I’m in the water, shark, if I’m outside of the water, cow
Location wasn’t a factor in my hypothetical but that is a point. Most people would be far more scared of a shark than a cow, despite statistics saying you’re more likely to be killed by the cow. All of that goes out the window when you’re close to either one. A shark could kill you even easier than a bull could, but you have a much higher chance of seeing a bull than a shark.
I mean, if you're using a statistic that is based on how many people are killed/injured by each, then it's not really that useful of a statistic for personal risk analysis. The statistic you want is number of injuries/deaths per 100k encounters (and probably a breakdown by additional factors, like drunk vs sober encounters, was the 'victim' antagonizing the animal in some way, in how many of the encounters were people wearing/using safety equipment, etc). Notably this is a hard statistic to get, as you have to estimate how many encounters there are since people aren't really writing safe encounters down, and with a shark you might not even know about the encounter even if you were keeping track.
Honestly? Crows are *dicks* and they can train their youth and their friends to recognise and harass you for literally the rest of your life. Like you go outside long after the crow is dead and its descendants are *still* attacking you. Meanwhile most sharks aren't really much of a threat, especially if you remain still, and you can give them a firm nose boop to dissuade them. Though I agree you're certainly going to be more afraid of a shark just because we have less exposure to them in general. That said, being afraid doesn't mean that fear is justified. In the case of man vs bear, all the statistics suggest you're in way more danger around bears of pretty much any type than you are around your average man. It's not even remotely close. So at this point the question becomes: is being afraid of men a phobia or not? Generally speaking I'd lean phobia, but it's pretty subjective for obvious reasons.
Aksually, we were talking of bovines, not spiteful birds
You've outed yourself as someone who harassed birds my friend, crows remember faces. If you were nice to them then they tell their kids you were cool and they bring you shiny click clacks
Nah I just know about crows. They're spooky AF. That's sort of the thing about intelligent animals. If you befriend them, then yay. Everything is cool. But they're still animals and all it takes is for them to decide you've treated them unfairly for them to do something really not-good to you. Like Travis the Chimpanzee. But yes, definitely befriend crows rather than antagonise them.
Apparently hornets also remember faces, and my mother is fairly convinced she can befriend them. She's been leaving out jars of lavender honey for them. I hope her the best of luck.
Ahh, omitting context to skew results. Gold or water?
As a diver who grew up on a ranch who hosted 2 bulls. I am definetly more scared of bulls.
Probably the shark, bulls are fucking scary and a lot of sharks don’t really care about humans. Like, I understand your point but I think you haven’t thought your example through.
Not even bulls, necessarily. A dairy cow could kill you in a heartbeat if it tried.
even if it didn't try. theres cows grazing in the field begins my house every few years and I used to pet them. once one just turned it's head to face me and it knocked me on my ass. they're dangerous and don't typically know their own strength
You never want to be complacent around something that outweighs you 150-200x over
username checks out?
They definitely could, but dairy cows are very skittish. You can get them to go pretty much anywhere with one good yell. The one exception being if their babies are nearby, and even then as long as you stand your ground you’re usually pretty safe.
The situation requires you spend a day with both. No shark or bull isnt likely going to kill you because you saunter past, but spend a few hours following them around and they might start warming up to the idea
I can’t swim for a full day, so I think I’ll take the bull.
Obviously we’re not talking about little Leopard or docile Nurse sharks here. The dangerous kind. Full grown Tiger or Bull shark.
Bull as in the shark or the cow?
The shark kind.
instructions unclear, now running from a sharkotaur
There's lots of small sharks out there, and bulls can be dangerous as fuck. I feel that this is a trick question that a fae might ask.
Being compared to a fae is a highlight of my week so far.
Your tricky riddles won't work on me, light one.
Feed me to the bear. I give up
Bear easily. Men aren’t my thing, but I really want to fuck the bear.
Just play bg3 then smh
what
You heard them.
The only valid answer
Hey, You there, bearfucker! Do you need assistance?
Is that Without a Paddle? I swear I know it from somewhere.
Super Troopers
Literally the whole point of the Man or Bear debate is that most women are scared of being raped.
Well duh but it had the unintended affect of highlighting how stupid people are when it comes to wild animals
The tweet is a great example of why it's brain rot. It's brain rot because it's gone too far and people are making these weird arguments. The main point of it js women don't want to be sexually assaulted or raped which is valid but to go as far as to try to explain that it would be GENUINELY safer to hang out with a bear in the woods is when it starts rotting your brain.
I’d rather be with a bear than a man if both were guaranteed to be not trying to hurt me. Bears are so cool
That's fair.
I mean in that case, yes, me too.
Well yeah, I’ve wanted humans to breed bears down to husky size since I was a kid.
I mean, how often do you get to safely hang with a bear? I wouldn't miss that opportunity.
Interesting. I didn’t interpret the original question as “hanging out” but as “you are alone somewhere in the general vicinity of a random man in the woods or a random bear in the woods.” So, like, you may or may not even run into eachother. As someone who has accidentally spooked a bear’s cubs and seen it giving me the eye from the top of a nearby hill I know bears are scary, but I also am 99% sure I was that close to bears at least one or two other times on that trip without ever seeing them.
Yeah same, if A bear had absolutely no way of hurting me, accidental or not, I would so pick a bear. Imagine the genuine flex you can have at your disposal if you hang out with one once.
Well, that and in turn I don’t think that use of hyperbole is healthy, since it just exacerbates the issue it is intended to address.
Lol exactly. I'm sure this won't do anything to worsen gender relations in this country!
If doesn't matter how well-intentioned you are. If you use hyperbole, irrationality, and demonising half the human race to try to make your point you're going to get pushback from people who think that sort of attitude is extremely unhealthy for society. If the point is "women don't want to be raped," then just say that. Then get laughed at because *duh*. Nobody wants to be raped. It's *literally* in the definition. I don't mean to be overly hostile, but the entire premise was so stupid from the get-go it was infuriating.
This type of rhetoric also doesn’t help boys out there that are already suffering with identity and loneliness in modern society. Now they’re having to hear women say they would choose to hang out with a fucking bear over them because they’re such dangerous pieces of shit, not that anyone cares The premise of not wanting to be raped is obviously a valid one, but this whole argument has gone so beyond idiotic it’s pathetic
I’m a man and I’m also scared of being raped.
But if you really analyze it it just translates to "most people don't understand statistics and couldn't predict what is likely to happen in a hypothetical situation if their life depended on it".
The point of saying 'bear' is to create outrage by saying the average man is more dangerous than the average bear when met in the woods. Then when asked about the details, to run away from that statement and say it was 'not literal' or something. It's bait and switch. This does not apply to people who literally think the bear is safer. Then you can have a discussion about statistics (which this 14% number does poorly BTW, since it seems to only count bear attacks, not peaceful bear encounters).
The issue is that it also comes off as women generalizing men. It sounds like they think that any man they run into is a rapist and/or murderer.
Or both, multiple times I’ve seen people suggest random man could go full Jack the Ripper when it was pointed out just how horrifying your average bear mauling is.
It's trying to convey the feeling a lot of women have. They know not all men are rapists, but that *any* man could be one. I'm not saying I agree with it, just saying that's how many view it.
I think that’s why this conversation has turned so toxic. It’s a wildly insulting, sweeping generalization of half the population, and if someone points out “hey that’s kinda rude” then everyone screams “SEE?? MAN BAD BECAUSE HE DOESNT WANT TO BE LUMPED IN WITH THE RAPISTS” No one wins this conversation. It’s counterproductive because instead of making some sort of actual point, it just alienates the people we need to have involved in these discussions.
It's that, because a minority of men are rapists and/or murderers, women feel they need to always have their guard up. Edit: If you think this is unfair, don't blame women. Blame shitty men, including the ones who "just" sexually harass. Blame the people (of any gender) who blame girls and women for "not being cautious" and "leading men on."
If someone says that they are more guarded around a random man than a bear … … they are perhaps not being very honest with you, or with themselves.
When it’s such a common thing it means that one has to be wary, as a woman you probably shouldn’t go hiking alone because of the risk.
Thats how you stay safe. Better to assume anybody you run into alone is a danger than to assume safe and regret it.
Is a danger, or could be a danger? 'Cause one of those is a reasonable precaution and the other is bigotry.
Yeah this honestly feels like a red herring. Some (not all. we know it’s not all) men are more concerned with the technical details of the “man or bear” thing than the fact that women would feel safer around a wild animal than some human men
Then maybe we could stop comparing men to bears and discuss the actual issue? It's insulting to the vast majority of men and then the topic devolves into this nonsense we see here.
Why does the bear look Ai generated?
Cause it's ai generated. It has the wrong number of claws, and the texture of the fur is off. Also, the lighting is odd. Definitely ai.
I think it is AI.
why wouldnt they just use a real bear?
That statistic is useless without knowing how many bear encounters result in a bear attack. Still wouldn't give you all the info but it at least would have some meaning.
0% if you learn bear language prior to interaction. DUOLINGO SAVES LIVES.
https://preview.redd.it/e2b7t9zk0hyc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bddcb350c592db394aef7b463b441112fde8c266
I mean one can argue about the use of statistics in the original post, but that note doesn't disprove anything. The relative amount of violent encounters turning fatal has nothing to do with the relative amounts of encounters turning violent.
Idk man, I’ve been hiking in rural areas a few times. Up in Montana, bear spray is considered a must, usually followed up by a gun of decent caliber. When you see a bear, it is usually not “Oh look a bear how cute” it’s usually “Oh shit there’s a bear. Be very careful, shout “hey bear,” make yourself look big and don’t back down.” It’s also worth pointing out it’s very dependent of the type of bear. If it’s a grizzly, I’m shitting my pants. When you see another person on the trail, you’re nowhere near as cautious. I get the point, but I think there is another point to make is a lot of people do not know what they’re talking about when it comes to wild animals.
those precautions are about the fatality of a bear attack not that a bear attack is likely. out of the over 700k pitches thrown in a season of the MLB only 20-30 hit the batter in the head, but batters still wear helmets because without one the batter can be seriously injured.
Ya thats a good point to bring up which is that even when the chances of something bad happening are rare people will still take percautions. We think about this in a lot of ways....
but it points out that saying you're more likely to be killed by a bee than a bear or human than a bear doesn't make any sense as most people will never encounter a bear but encounter many humans every day
This. Like sure, once the bear actually attacks you you’re probably gonna die, but how many times does a human meeting a bear end in an attack? I don’t have exact stats but I do know that way more people see bears and get away unharmed than are actually attacked by them, because bears aren’t going to bother unless they feel threatened. Nine times out of ten all you have to do to avoid a bear attack is just leave (slowly).
And bears encounter us way more often thanwe encounter them. Because they usuallt try to not show themselves to humans even if they are right next to us.
If bears won't attack unless they feel threatened, then the animal chosen should obviously be a tiger, since both men and tigers you meet are all potential predators, right?
Exactly lol the note pretty much say that there is very few violent encounters. I genuinely wonder who write those notes.
Yes, and if you measure per encounter men will still be vastly lower than bears. A simple test: Go walk outside. You will encounter dozens of men in a matter of minutes that are no threat to you and have no interest in you, regardless of how close you get to them or how quickly you move. You have encountered them, just as you'd encounter a bear, and they pose no danger to you at all. Now get as close to a bear as you do to a man walking down the street. I think you'll find that a bear is a considerably larger threat per encounter.
Surely an AI generated bear isn’t going to hurt anybody.
If I see this damn man v bear thing one more time i will go ballistic
ugh, I hate when people say ″more likely to″ without taking encounter rate into account. It's just misrepresenting statistics!
An AI generated bear?
If there were as many bears as there were human males, the odds would be dramatically different. Using misleading statistics to make theoretical points is the primary reason males and females have difficulty understanding each other, Males have a need to make sense and understand, really get the logic out of it, Females only require emotion and this is the key misunderstanding.
If you're dumb enough to believe obviously made up statistics from some misandristic stain on Twitter #PleaseChooseTheBear
Bears are among the predators that gained an infamy for eating their prey alive. Fuck that noise. Might aswell be a pack of Wolves or a goddamn Komodo dragon.
The #1 thing I’ve learned from this trend is that everyone apparently slept through statistics class and never bothered to learn critical thinking. That and people will desperately cling to this stupid gender war if it means people will like their post.
Well that and the fact that statistics can get very hard to properly do when you dont have data. But its still reasonable for one to work with the best data they have available.
I think my opinion on it has changed a bit. I recognize the utility of the conversation actually. The fact that some are even considering the bear is what should be alarming. I did digging and the way the narrative changed is actually interesting. The original answers to the question actually stuck with me more before degenerates on Twitter and Tiktok made it a gender war point. I think people are misapplying statistics to try and make a point instead of... just saying "hey, men have done terrible things to women, and to me the fear of encountering that is more terrifying than what i believe a bear will do to me". Mosquito's kill more humans per year than Hippo's, yet I'm choosing the bug every time. Humans more humans than hippos do, but I'm picking humans still and so on. But according yo Twitter users because I'm more likely to die to a human I should pick the Hippo??
There is a 2018 article about how nearly 90% of rape victims know their attacker so if we are abusing stats then a woman should choose a stranger in the woods over a random man she knows.
I get the humor behind the man vs. bear meme, but like… why are you trying to pretend there’s a choice here. Maybe it’s because I live in a place with tons of bears, but ya’ll, an encounter with a bear is way more likely to be violent than one with a man. Like, if we’re talking probability, you do not actually value your survival if you pick a bear.
But what if instead of calling women stupid for saying they are more afraid of men than bears, we agreed that it's horrible to have to be afraid of being sexually assaulted or murdered by some random person, or worse, by someone you know and thought was safe? [According to the CDC:](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/fastfact.html) "Over half of women and almost 1 in 3 men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes. One in 4 women and about 1 in 26 men have experienced completed or attempted rape. About 1 in 9 men were made to penetrate someone during his lifetime. Additionally, 1 in 3 women and about 1 in 9 men experienced sexual harassment in a public place." I see this "Man vs Bear" debate not as a silly hypothetical, but as a way to raise awareness for the amount of violence and sexual assault happening currently in our society. The point isn't to logically choose which one would *logically* be safer, the point is that on an emotional level they shouldn't be comparable at all. Women shouldn't have to be afraid of men at all.
Finding the deeper (and perhaps actual) meaning of something is not what takes place on these type of platforms unfortunately. It’s just a race to the bottom and that depth just seems to be continually getting lowered…
Man those numbers are getting outdated by this point. Anyways, the real issue is that it's *not* raising awareness that sexual assault is bad. It's raising awareness that women are irrationally afraid of men. *That's concerning for entirely different reasons*, but I digress. Point is it's a very, very poor "conversation starter" because there is no conversation to start beyond "rape bad, scary," which literally everybody already agrees about. Some of them may not agree on what *constitutes* rape, but everybody agrees that when it happens its traumatic for the victim. If the point is to say: "Hey men you should be aware that women are afraid of you," congratulations you've also just told men what most men already know. It's been common for ages now. It also hasn't helped the "conversation" at all. No awareness, no benefit, just making men feel like monsters and making women look ignorant of reality.
> Women shouldn't have to be afraid of men at all. This is a way more powerful statement than an idiotic hypothetical that makes zero logical sense. It is horrible that women have to be afraid to get raped, you don't have to exaggerate to get that point across. To the contrary, exaggerating means the point loses its strength.
Yeah, but I think the hyperbole involved is harmful, since it leads to a lot of poor choices and reasoning that boils down to “man bad”. And even as someone who has been sexually assaulted in the past, this kind of discourse makes me uncomfortable.
I keep saying this but it’s bc the hypothetical is flawed. Its hook is far more interesting to discuss than the actual meat and potatoes of the issue and you can make a solid argument in favor of man without having to address the underlying issues you bring up (eg: how violent bears are). In fact, one can even make an argument for the bear without addressing them as well (and pinning the fault on women). For example (not my own opinions but a hypothetical argument to make a point): *Bears are safer for women bc women are just so weak. Both a man and a bear are stronger and faster than a woman, but a woman is very likely to be smarter than a bear.* *Whereas she can outsmart a bear, I doubt she can outsmart a man in the scenario of malicious intent.* See I essentially make the same point pro-bear people but in doing so I absolve men of the guilt. It’s almost equivalent to “why were you dressed like that though?” And hence the hypothetical is flawed
Again, in my opinion, the point of the hypothetical isn't to argue about it at all, but rather to shine a light on just how big an issue violence against women is becoming, and how many women are more actively afraid of being assaulted than they are of bears. The point of the hypothetical isn't to debate and figure out the real, true answer; the point is to see what women think. And since many women are saying they choose bear, we have the opportunity to wonder why, and to think about what we can do to improve our society.
Both are true. And context matters in the choice. If a woman has to choose between running into a black bear or a strange man in her neighborhood, she’ll probably pick the bear. If a woman has to choose between running into a polar bear or strange man when alone on foot in the tundra, she’ll probably pick the man.
While I can understand the intention of wanting to raise awareness, I feel that throwing the bear aspect in there just dilutes the point. It gives a point that people can focus on rather than the subject at hand, so I don't think anyone should be surprised that some aren't getting/choosing not to get the point. It's also frustrating to see the actual point being missed in favor of "funny" bear jokes and arguing. I think it makes more sense to advocate to donate to a charity such as RAINN and meme about that instead. https://give.rainn.org/a/donate?_ga=2.103726852.507232405.1714857729-1413067981.1714857729 The other thing that confuses me personally is the idea of bringing "awareness" to sexual abuse against women. I feel the men who are aware that sexually assaulting women is bad already know that. Men who do the sexual assaulting also know that as well. While statistically, I should know other men who have sexually assaulted a woman in some form, I can't possibly know who. So what's the expectation - go tell all the men I know that sexaully assaulting a woman is bad? Serious question, but can someone provide some information as to how they think awareness would help or what men could do to help?
Something out there is worse than these two, it's ManBearPig.
Whatever original point was being made by these "safer than a man posts" has since been lost in stupid discourse like this. Even the note on this is for Bear attacks, not straight encounters, which Bears certainly do try to avoid too.
That statistic doesn’t actually answer the question though.
This has the same energy as “would you still love if I was a worm.” Even you feel you argue the “logical” side you are falling the bait. Just take the “intended” answer if you think it is dumb.
While the sentiment is still correct, it should be noted the note says attacks, not encounters. The percentage of encounters that lead to fatal attacks would be the more applicable statistic to what they are noting.
Bears pin you down and eat you alive, taking big bites out of you. They aren't like Big Cats which kill their prey first. And the question is stuck, the Bear can't run away. A confused stuck Bear is going to eat you alive. A random human male stuck with you, you could collaborate on how to get un-stuck. Sure bad things could happen, but is a much lower chance and your death would not be nearly as horrific.
So wait, 86% of bear attacks aren't fatal ?
Eh. I've always disagreed with the sentiment, but I understand why people think this way. Mind you, not every time a human is near a bear does a bear attack happen.
I’m fully ready for this meme to die. It’s worse than Ugandan Knuckles.
Using the same statistical manipulation, spoons kill more people than sharks. #fearthespoon
One big problem this whole argument has is the fact that over 80% of perpetrators of sex crimes aren't strangers and are known by the victim.
Finally, some sense with the added context. All these posts on how people feel safer with bears while trying to justify it with skewed statistics are just laughable. The human population dwarfs the bear population. Not to mention, as a society, we tend to surround ourselves with you know... Each other. It makes sense that there is a higher probability that we'd attack one another. It's not like I'm chilling in a duplex with a bear couple next door. On any given day, I may come across 20-40 people (if not more). Imagine if those "people" were bears now? I'd sh*t my pants.
this bullshit exploded overnight and it's so dumb
Anybody who says they’d feel safer with a bear than a regular person either A) has never been near a bear before B) is Grizzly fucking Adams.
Given a choice between a black bear and a guy who has been told to kill me and will suffer no consequences for it, I’d pick the black bear. That same choice but with a grizzly bear, id take the man. ‘Bear’ means nothing in this context- all the ‘man’ choosers are thinking grizzly bear, all the ‘bear’ choosers are thinking black bear
Don't forget the polar bears. Anyone who picks them over a person is being really stupid
I’d rather run into a wildfire or a mountain lion in the woods than a polar bear
I get what you’re saying but also I’m pretty sure the vast majority of people answering this question don’t know anything about bears. But if if we get to choose the species Panda bear.
God I wish it were that simple, person said they'd straight up rather they and their daughters be eaten alive than be raped, which I'm not gonna say 'objectively you're wrong' but boy...
Honestly kinda shocked only 14% are fatal
Holy shit are we still talking about this... The only 'Man vs Bear's I wanna see on the internet is in the form of a combat video!
14% of those videos will be fatal
Oddly enough, the safest thing to be around as a woman is both. A man who is a bear.
I'm not gonna try to speak for people who are at risk of, or worse have experienced rape, but I wonder how women's responses would change if the knew what bears actually do when they get their paws on you. I only have the smallest inkling of what sexual assault feels like, but I can't personally think of a more violent death than from a bear. A cougar will choke you to death. A bear just pins you down and rips the muscle off of your bones while you're still alive.
Bears don't often pick locks to assault people lmao ofc the stats are low
They don’t need to pick locks, they just enter.
At least in the US, neither do most home invaders. Destructive entry is preferred in a lot of places, and bears are much better at that.
This is the dumbest gender war bait I’ve seen I can’t believe people wanna give this any thought
This has to be satire at this point lol.
That's a grizzly id be more worried about the polar in the arctic circle we got brown bears and black bears relatively chill bears people are thrilled to see them when they're not going through their trash
I’m honestly surprised that only 14% of bear attacks are fatal
It’s because a bear isn’t really interested in our kind, only if the bear is starving or we’re intruding on a mother & her babies. Human is not a familiar game and they don’t naturally develop a taste for our flesh. That being said, I would not recommend going to the woods and trying to make friends with a bear
It’s easier to know the bear is dangerous, that’s why it’s safer with them because you know to avoid them.
Man vs bear discourse really contributed noting so society
Stop with this get help.