Opinion Why women would prefer to be alone in the woods with a bear than a man

Link (Archive)

Why women would prefer to be alone in the woods with a bear than a man​

Would you rather find yourself alone in the woods with a bear or a man? This is the question currently dividing social media. Based on the responses online, it looks like most women answering the question say they would choose the bear, a decision that is shocking many men.

The reactions show some men don’t understand women’s experiences. The assertion that women would prefer to encounter a bear is based on evidence about the rate of male violence against women, and on a lifetime of learning to fear and anticipate this violence. This is especially true of sexual violence, something which would not be associated with encountering a bear.

According to the World Health Organization, one in three women – around 736 million globally – will have experienced sexual or physical violence by an intimate partner or sexual violence from a non-partner in their lifetime. This figure has largely remained unchanged over the past decade.

Being attacked by a bear is much less common, with only 664 attacks worldwideover 15 years, and very few fatal attacks. And bears tend to avoid humans, attacking only when provoked or protecting their young.


This is not about generalising or fearing all men. Women know that not all men are dangerous. But women don’t know which men they should fear, only that male violence and male entitlement to women’s bodies is something that they have to be on guard for.

Women are commonly victims of sexualised violence, and men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators (including against other men). There are enough men who have hurt or are capable of hurting women, and women have no way of knowing which ones these are. While much violence against women comes from men they know, the risk of danger from men they don’t know is something that informs their day-to-day lives.

For example, research shows that women change their behaviour – making certain decisions about the routes they take or what they wear – to avoid harassment or abuse from men in public. Scholars such as Fiona Vera-Gray refer to this as safety work.

Women’s view of men is also coloured by their non-violent actions that harm women. Clearly, bears also do not contribute to or uphold systemic sexism and misogyny, but most men do.

My research on misogynistic online groups has explored how men engage in acts against women that reinforce gender inequality.

Writer Emma Pitman has described this phenomenon using the analogy of a human pyramid. The choices of some men to stay silent about abuse is the base of the pyramid, holding up other men who engage in misogynistic jokes or commit violence.

The overall effect, whether deliberate or via ignorance or indifference, is to normalise and support the actions of male sexual predators and domestic abuse perpetrators.

This culture props up the men who are silent bystanders, observing sexism, harassment or abuse but doing nothing, the men who make or laugh along with the sexist or rape jokes, those who are rape apologists and blame women for their sexual victimisation, those who become aggressive when women turn them down, those who stalk, control and abuse women, and those who are rapists, sexual harassers and murderers. This continuum of misogyny is women’s everyday reality – and at no point do bears feature.

Men on the defensive​

Men are generally surprised, defensive even, when the subject of male violence against women is discussed. This is often where people invoke the response “not all men”.

When women took to social media to express their anger and devastation following the murder of Sarah Everard by a police officer in 2021, #NotAllMen trended online. Meanwhile, police advised womennot to walk alone at night, placing the burden of avoiding violence on women.

This conversation is about privilege, and not recognising it. Many men are able to move through their daily lives not being worried that they are going to be attacked or raped, can walk alone late at night without taking any safety precautions or even not having such thoughts cross their minds, and do not feel their hearts beat faster if they hear footsteps behind them. It may not be all men, but it is all women, who live smaller lives because of the threat of some men’s violence.

These discussions are an opportunity for men to understand women’s genuine fears and to be part of the solution rather than the problem.
 
it's wild comparing the reactions on this thread to the prissy nerds on the mint butterfield thread. a dumb 16yo party girl goes off with her gross druggie boyfriend and there's pages of dudes freaking out that a 16yo missing for a few days means... well, what? why is that even remotely a big deal? if you're sane you know she's spend that time getting high with the dude and as soon as they poke their heads up they'll get found, which is in fact exactly what happened. But it's a whole thread of weirdo shutins obviously imagining her brutal rape and murder *because they think men are dangerous.*

I don't think most men OR bears are dangerous based on a long life dealing with both (def fewer bears but it's been some bears here and there) but you people are being disingenous hypocrites here. You know perfectly well that the biggest danger to ANYONE, male OR female, is a human male. And if the question had been "would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a negro" none of you would be making fun.
 
Meanwhile, men have a storied history of abandoning society and going innawoods, following the examples of men like Daniel Boone and Theodore John Kaczynski.
Your average college girl couldn't start a fire in the woods, Uncle Ted managed to build functional pipebombs. I rest my case.
I think "The Cult of Progress" has been trying to condition women to think of guys as being inherently potential rapists -- and straight male sexuality as being inherently "misogyny" -- as part of the overall push to deem some as "marginalized groups" and others as "oppressors", to keep people divided. Like how divisive "race relations" got.
And the saddest/silliest thing? There was no greater goal/plan in all of this.

No, there wasn't.....

Whoever you're about to blame? I think you're wrong.

I refuse to believe the WEF or "Da Jooz" or anyone had a hand in it.

It was all just activists whipping each other into a self-reinforcing frenzy with nothing but ignorant self-assuredness that all of this communal rage would do.......... SOMETHING that would make their lives and world better.

It hasn't, it never will, but they'll keep on doubling-down until they're in their coffins, sure that just a little more finger-wagging, a little more girrrrlllll powahhhhhhh, a little more women in government... and it all would've turned out fine...... they are fundamentally children who would rather (and will) die before admitting Mom and Dad were, if not right, then not exactly wrong when it came to how to make a stable and rewarding life in society.

You know perfectly well that the biggest danger to ANYONE, male OR female, is a human male.
Said danger is also vastly overrated. In terms of actual harm per random encounter, Bears vs Human Males? Bears probably come out on top. And just like how you can reduce the bear risk to almost zero by staying out of the woods, you can reduce the human risk to almost zero by not getting out of your car in the ghetto or being anywhere but your own bed at 3am.

And if the question had been "would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a negro" none of you would be making fun.
The world is also not a logic puzzle, there's bears in the woods IRL, no matter if I go in there or not, so the whole question is moot and silly. If you're in the woods? You're in with bears by definition. (and we know there's no negroes, because camping is white supremacy.)
 
Last edited:
I refuse to believe the WEF or "Da Jooz" or anyone had a hand in it.

It was all just activists whipping each other into a self-reinforcing frenzy with nothing but ignorant self-assuredness that all of this communal rage would do.......... SOMETHING that would make their lives better.

It hasn't, it never will, but they'll keep on doubling-down until they're in their coffins, sure that just a little more finger-wagging, a little more girrrrlllll powahhhhhhh, a little more women in government... and it all would've turned out fine......

no dummy the KGB archives have been open for years. This was deliberate.
 
Same reason why I would prefer to be alone in a room with Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer and Harold Shipman than a bunch of niggaz.

That sounds like a great fucking time.

Manson brings the psychedelics, Dahmer brings the booze, Shipman brings the narcotics. What a party you could have. I'm not Dahmer's type so I wouldn't have to worry about any of them.
 
not to NLOG in a thread full of retards but I'd choose the man
it's unknown who the man in question is and what are his morals so there's a big chance he might not be a rapist. a bear on the other hand is 100% going to attack you because it's a carnivorous animal. plus both you and the man are going to be stuck in the forest so he'll likely be too preoccupied with surviving in the wilderness and finding a way out to try and rape you. even if he does try, you still have a better chance escaping him than escaping a bear. maybe i'm looking too deep into it
 
"would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a negro"

One nigger on his own is fine, three or more is crossing the road time.

Yet by changing the question to three or more niggers vs one bear, you introduce an element of absurdity that three or more niggers could find their way into the forest.

So now we have to move the bear into an urban setting, yet maintain the isolated element of the question. Okay...

Whilst urban exploring alone, would you rather encounter three or more niggers in an abandoned hospital bordering on a forest, or a bear that wandered inside?

See... I reckon in this new scenario I could outwit both entities in a confined space, yet both would facilitate my quick exit from the premises.
 
omfg the bear is not going to attack you, it is a vanishingly remote chance, why are there all these bear haters

also is everyone on this thread from europe or something? bears in cities is not that unusual in the US

anyway I actually do for real believe there was (is?) an actual communist conspiracy to poison relations between the sexes in the West, and certainly part of that is spooking the ladies about normal male behavior, but hey you einsteins why exactly do you think you're immune?

the idea that some males are extremely dangerous, and you need to be wary, especially when you're young, is hardly a 20th century creation.

for example


this article fails to mention the fact that while female killers are usually after an inheritance or covering up a pregnancy, male killers usually *have no motive.* they just get a vulnerable young woman away from her family and shove her in the river or stab her or something.

this is a very, very old trope that shows up all over the world in folk culture. you need to ask yourself who has caused you to look at women's natural, ancient wariness of males and get your feefees hurt over it.
 
Last edited:
it's wild comparing the reactions on this thread to the prissy nerds on the mint butterfield thread. a dumb 16yo party girl goes off with her gross druggie boyfriend and there's pages of dudes freaking out that a 16yo missing for a few days means... well, what? why is that even remotely a big deal? if you're sane you know she's spend that time getting high with the dude and as soon as they poke their heads up they'll get found, which is in fact exactly what happened. But it's a whole thread of weirdo shutins obviously imagining her brutal rape and murder *because they think men are dangerous.*

I don't think most men OR bears are dangerous based on a long life dealing with both (def fewer bears but it's been some bears here and there) but you people are being disingenous hypocrites here. You know perfectly well that the biggest danger to ANYONE, male OR female, is a human male. And if the question had been "would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a negro" none of you would be making fun.
I wish every single "ummm isn't it weird how people in thread X think..." would just go die. Either reference the instances of retards being retarded or shut the fuck up and shove the vague posting up you fat fucking ass.
 
I don't think they are stupid, they are simply using this opportunity for advertising their support for feminism, this naturally implies ignoring basic reasoning for the sake of berating men. If you think about it, it is a very mechanical process, and while this example is obviously insignificant, different versions of this have been happening everywhere since the 80's, this is one of the reasons the discourse on almost all topics has been moving leftward.
 
I wish these feminists would stop trying to make me think women are retarded. Even the "a bear would just eat you" reasoning is stupid. A bear can/will devour you alive. It's pretty much being tortured to death.
And if the question had been "would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a negro" none of you would be making fun.
Lol nope. I'm transphobic, not racist. Okay, maybe I'm a little racist against pajeets and Jews, but not nearly enough to pick the bear.
 
According to the World Health Organization, one in three women – around 736 million globally – will have experienced sexual or physical violence by an intimate partner or sexual violence from a non-partner in their lifetime. This figure has largely remained unchanged over the past decade.
Know that this thread will go the way these always do in A&N but for the voices of sanity I heard these figures getting challenged on the eternally complaint BBC in a discussion on Radio 4 both in terms of how the data was presented and the degree to which the WHO overlooked certain areas of the world driving the figures. Anyone got a decent analysis of the underlying data?
 
Back