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.
 
what is the purpose of the question, after all?
To generate outrage clicks and sow discord among people. In my opinion, if the original asker of this question was honest then they would have substituted "bear" with "man eating bloodthirsty tiger" which would simplify the question to "would you rather be killed, or be raped and then possibly killed". I don't think it's any more complex than that.
Or maybe it's like you said and it was intended to have many variables such as species of bear (and human) but I get the feeling it was supposed to be simple.
 
Mfw I'm in the woods and there's a woman
3syrzref8kyb1 (1).jpg
 
The problem with anyone arguing the bear in any form of this hypothetical is it never assumes what happens if something goes wrong.

What if you are stranded in the wild, what if you are sick in the wild, what if you badly injured in the wild, what if you are starving, what if you lack certain survival skills, are disabled, etc. Too many build the pretense "The bear better because niggers" ignores if you are in a disadvantaged state you'd prefer someone that can potentially render you aid.

The bear more than likely will not or can not even if it's a Black bear, render you those outcomes. You can argue "But not all men would help/yata yata." The problem with a hypothetical is it's always about potential, and a bear can do nothing of the sort generally in those situations.

Simple way to put it:

If you're a woman and about to fall out of a tree, or fall off a ledge who is likely to catch your hand and stop you from falling? The bear or the man?

If you need to conserve food due to being stranded, who is more likely to conserve that food instead of indulge, the bear or the man?

In the case of being sick or injured who is more likely to see to your well being in that time of need, the bear or the man.

Any other concepts are pure cope to bash on men, quite frankly.
 
Y'all just don't get the idea of it being anyone.

It could be Daniel Larson. It could be Jason Momoa. It could be King Cobra. It could be Timothy Chamalet. It could be Nick Bates. It could be Sam Sulek. It could be Ted Bundy. It could be R Kelly. It could be Tom Cruise. It could be Brad Pitt. It could be Pee Wee Gaskins. It could be Donald Trump. It could be Richard Ramirez. It could be Hulk Hogan.

Do you want to meet any and all of these men alone in a forest for no discernible reason? The bear lives in the fucking forest. I know why the bear is there. Why the fuck is Daniel Larson there? Why is Hulk Hogan there? Why is Ted Bundy there? Why is Tom Cruise there?

I don't know, but if you want to fantasize about meeting men in a forest it just sounds kind of gay to me. Like why are y'all in the forest preferring to meet men over the animals that live in the forest?
 
It could be Daniel Larson. It could be Jason Momoa. It could be King Cobra. It could be Timothy Chamalet. It could be Nick Bates. It could be Sam Sulek. It could be Ted Bundy. It could be R Kelly. It could be Tom Cruise. It could be Brad Pitt. It could be Pee Wee Gaskins. It could be Donald Trump. It could be Richard Ramirez. It could be Hulk Hogan.

Do you want to meet any and all of these men alone in a forest for no discernible reason?
Hell yeah, brother :hulk:
 
Do you want to meet any and all of these men alone in a forest for no discernible reason? The bear lives in the fucking forest. I know why the bear is there. Why the fuck is Daniel Larson there? Why is Hulk Hogan there? Why is Ted Bundy there? Why is Tom Cruise there?
I could defeat all of them and the bear too but it's more interesting to put Tom Cruise in a chokehold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sexual Chocolate
Why does this keep popping up everywhere? Did KF really need 8 pages of comments for this absurdly stupid meme?
In all fairness, it is sparking attention across the web. Women are talking about their experiences in how dangerous men can really be, to the point where hypothetical bears might actually be preferred and men are incredibly angry that women just won't shut up and keep quiet.
 
I mean statistically your man in this situation isn't likely to be white and your bear isn't statistically likely to be a grizzly. Bears a safer bet if you're just in the woods and there's no small text about being lost or injured or shit.

It's a boring question either way, a more fun version is would you rather come across a pack of niggers or a pack of shitbulls.
 
and people on this thread failing to understand the concept that some of us actually do deal with bears pretty regularly because we go the fuck outside explains the weird hysterical faggotry
Anecdotes aren't data. You're not going to be able to argue away the very well established data showing bears are dangerous. Quit being retarded.

Goddamn, lead poisoning is a bitch, isn't it?
 
In all fairness, it is sparking attention across the web. Women are talking about their experiences in how dangerous men can really be, to the point where hypothetical bears might actually be preferred and men are incredibly angry that women just won't shut up and keep quiet.
Tbf you won't survive long in the woods if you don't stop nagging the bears. :suffering:
 
This is just cope at this point.
If you think people are reasonable on average, this is the conclusion you will draw.
The reality is these people really are just really really really really really stupid.
I don't disagree there, I just don't think it's mutually exclusive with their reasoning.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: God of Nothing
I don't disagree there, I just don't think it's mutually exclusive with their reasoning.
this is what you want to believe
in your rational mind, it has to be this way
you'll go on some rant about muh theory of mind like supreme feeder rather than acknowledge the far simpler and bitter truth
 
this is what you want to believe
in your rational mind, it has to be this way
you'll go on some rant about muh theory of mind like supreme feeder rather than acknowledge the far simpler and bitter truth
That most people are sub-70 IQ at best with their thinking process?

My personal belief is merely: Most people rarely think when considering a hypothetical because most people are borderline retarded when applying data. The women who agree with the bear, just hate men, and the men agreeing are either brainwashed self-hating tards, and not too critical in thought either.

No long rant required for my conclusions on their thought process tbh.
 
Back