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.
 
I responded to the post on this matter in Mass Debates. In it, I stated that men are violent, but that does not mean men are categorically violent. I also stated bears are actually not known to be man eaters/killers. Apparently there is a distinction between black and brown bears. But even grizzlies, although dangerous, rarely attack humans. They attack humans if someone does something stupid, like do something that a mother bear reads as a threat to her cubs or you startle them. In this way, they are like great white sharks in that both rarely attack humans but it would be unwise to comingle with them.

The problem I have with this question is that feminists use this to convey the message that men are the problem. Men writ large are part of the problem insofar as men are, on the whole, more violent, more apt to rape, more apt to commit crime. The same disparity between men and women with this propensity for violence exists to an even greater degree between whites and blacks.(The difference is that most blacks are violent and most won't touch that hard truth despite how blindingly obvious it is). That stated, despite male propensity for violence. men, at least white men, are also the solution to a much larger degree than being part of the problem, that is until society has gone completely tits up a la Mad Max or The Road. This is because humans are sexually dimorphic and women are, on the whole, weaker and smaller than men. Men and women also need each other for procreation, the institution of marriage as the term is properly understood, and really for the betterment and continuation of civilization.

Whether a man or bear is the better choice depends largely on race, socio-economic background, region, and whether it is a low or high trust society. The problem presented by the prospect of being alone in the woods with a man (whose character, intentions are behind the veil) cannot be addressed by society on a societal level without other men.

For the record, I would probably choose bear but that answer would change if I were born in a different time or place where those variables I mentioned are much more favorable. In Bismarck's Germany in the late 19th Century or before Scandinavia went multi-culti, the prospect of a man is much less harrowing.
 
Last edited:
This is just the next move played by women in the current tiktok gender war. They started with sprinkle sprinkle which we countered with drizzle drizzle. How do we counter this one? Gentleman, I ask you: would you rather be alone in the woods with a woman or a paranoid schizophrenic? Which one is more likely to accuse you of rape if you glance at them for more than two seconds?
 
In it, I stated that men are violent, but that does not mean men are categorically violent. I also stated bears are actually not known to be man eaters/killers.

This is just the next move played by women in the current tiktok gender war. They started with sprinkle sprinkle which we countered with drizzle drizzle. How do we counter this one?
Just remind them that we categorically deny that women are violent or capable of violence, when they are the most selfish and evil being to exist. If we stopped pretending that abortion wasn't a violent nor murderous act, then statistically you'd upend everything. The lists of mass murderers and serial killers would all be women with multiple abortions. Who not only commit violence against themselves but against their own progeny. This argument will also them furious which is its own reward.
 
Lets be honest. The women who answered "bear" couldn't even navigate their way to the kitchen, let alone out of the woods.
Thats how they ended up here in the first place
At least if they were with a man there might be someone there to fix their problems.
 
Just remind them that we categorically deny that women are violent or capable of violence, when they are the most selfish and evil being to exist. If we stopped pretending that abortion wasn't a violent nor murderous act, then statistically you'd upend everything. The lists of mass murderers and serial killers would all be women with multiple abortions. Who not only commit violence against themselves but against their own progeny. This argument will also them furious which is its own reward.
You don't even have to do that; most partnerships with domestic violence is reciprocal. The difference is, the average man has a good 30 or more pounds and greater muscle mass than your average woman; girls will have to you hit you a lot or go for weak points to get damage in minimal hits, where your average dude can hit an average woman in the side of the head and drop her. So when the police come and break shit up; you get a dude who may have reddened skin and scratch marks from a couple dozen swipes, but homegirl is on the ground with a goose egg on her dome. Don't be fooled, women are just as vicious as men (even more so in some ways); their only problem is they're not capable of the same amount of destruction when you compare them to men.

The epitome of this I always think of there was some sportsballer and his girlfriend in an elevator and he drops her, straight knocks her ass out with a single hit and the outcry is "How dare a man do this to a woman!" Nevermind she spent like a good minute hitting him, him dropping her was the problem; for some reason, dudes are expected to just stand there and take it because "woman." Absolutely zero responsibility about "maybe you shouldn't attack someone who is very obviously physically bigger, strong, and capable of much more violence than you." If I went up to Mike Tyson, slapped him in the face and called him a nigger faggot, even the most ardent racist would tell me I should've known what was going to happen... but no, women are retarded and must be protected from their own retardation.

Unironic Sean Connery interview, where he says some women need to be smacked.
 
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.
You think? This is blatantly obvious if you look at it. The saddest part is how most women seem to fall for it hook line and sinker.
 
You don't even have to do that; most partnerships with domestic violence is reciprocal.
nah, man
all abusive relationships are traps you can't get out of
you have to respond, stay in the proximity of, and engage with your abusers
and there is no way a victim could ever contribute to their own suffering because they're a victim :(

THIS IS WHAT LEFTISTS/TERFS ACTUALLY BELIEVE
 
Copy paste from other thread:
European bears are mid.

Dangerous, but nowhere near grizzly levels. But they, brown US coast bear kodiak and grizzly are the same species. Grizzly subspecies name is horribilis.

They are more a bit more like black bears. After some reading, Grizzlies are the niggers/pitbulls of bears.

There is no record of a Panda bear killing a human I googled. So safest option is Number Wan, Panda. Just don't bother or corner it, it can kill you if it is in fear of its life.

Are we talking worldwide? If it is worldwide random man, you can be stuck with a buntu buntu cannibal, but likely will get a chink or jeet. So likely safe like a panda.

If it is any random bear not a panda, I would choose the chink/jeet.

If the man is american but you can choose panda, Number Wan bear is safer. Remember there is 13% of getting a jogger.

If it is an american bear, you have a good chance of pulling a black bear.
The chance of getting a grizzly or nigger is roughly the same.

But lets say the human is chosen and its a nigger. You'll have better chances with a bear. If we add Africans it goes back to around the same risk.

So the only scenario where you want the bear is if the bear is a panda or the man is a nigger.
 
This is just the next move played by women in the current tiktok gender war. They started with sprinkle sprinkle which we countered with drizzle drizzle. How do we counter this one? Gentleman, I ask you: would you rather be alone in the woods with a woman or a paranoid schizophrenic? Which one is more likely to accuse you of rape if you glance at them for more than two seconds?
I think the best way to counter the women going "I choose bear" is to call them out on why they think it's somehow hard to judge a guy outside of the social context and with class signifiers.

Since the reason they're choosing bear is they're rage quitting the hypothetical where they have to judge a guy without a way for society to tell them the guy is ok (money, job, friends opinions, and so on). Guys don't have the same problem with trying to get a read on people so you can't really flip the question around and aim it at men, for instance how often does a guy decide a woman isn't worth interacting with because she doesn't earn enough? A guy that did that would be viewed as mentally ill, while a woman may get sympathy for doing the same.

Part of why women have a hard time with this hypothetical is they don't have a good way of explaining why they find it so hard to imagine judging a guy without stuff like class signifiers without just sounding like a huge asshole. If they're honest about it, it reveals they're extremely superficial. Feels similar to the tradwife discourse, where guys talking of tradwives often just wanted a woman that cared about them while women often saw it as just an aesthetic or opportunity to not work.
 
Somehow social media has convinced women that the average man is a deranged rapist and murderer who would gladly torture her for fun if given the chance.
 
Pandas are pretty stupid, but they're heavy. If they decided to 'play' with you, and hit you, you would die. In general I don't want to fuck with bears or wildlife in general. I was a Boy Scout. You ever see a moose up close? They are mean and those horns are sharp. Piss them off and the only thing that will save you is a rifle. That's wild animals in general. They aren't pets, they see us as food or something to chew on, play with.
 

75 kilograms is like 150 pounds. The Panda was just feeling threatened, he was a good mayo bear. I like how it walks up slowly and just pulls the jacket off. A regular bear is at least three times bigger.
 
The bear might eat me. It probably will eat me. I cannot outrun a bear. I cannot hide from a bear well since it has more acute senses than a human. If I am carrying supplies bear will steal them and then I'll die eating poison berries or water filled with brain parasites. It's easier for me to hide my supplies from another human instead of an animal with a keen sense of smell. I have a much better chance getting away from a man than a bear. I'll pick the man.

That said, being followed by creepy guys is indeed terrifying. I'd like to note that most of the guys who have followed or harassed me were foreigners who barely spoke English. I know "But not all immigrants" is what the author of this article would say to me even though she is not too keen on the "Not all men" excuse. I'm more worried about unvetted immigrants than the average guy down the street.

Also bears eat people.



You can't have an open discussion with someone if you come in guns a blazin'. That's why men get mad about these articles. They are automatically accusatory. "Not all men" can be used in a similar way to "I'm not racist but..." in order to try to shut down a discussion with a valid point. But I think a lot of times it's just used by guys who feel attacked for no reason because of the language of these articles.

No, you just sound crazy if you'd rather have an apex predator than someone you can reasonably handle...

Yeah and then shit actually hits the fan and she's texting every guy she knows to immediately come and bail her out.

This. Literally gotten those calls. Allot.
 
Any sane person would prefer to be lost in the woods with another human and anyone saying otherwise is lying.

Bring alone in an unfamiliar environment triggers a primal fear in humans. Being around large predators does the same. Men can generally cope with that. Women generally can't.

Your average girl, dumped in the woods with a bear nearby, would probably go into a complete panic, run (Possibly triggering the bear), and injure herself.
 
Back