@SergeantLynch
So you have no data. Okay.
So you have no data. Okay.
Statistically, we are just more likely to be killed by a man than a bear. Even if you adjusted for population – even if you put just as many bears as men in the country, we are still statistically more likely to be killed by men.
I'm not condoning or agreeing with RemyBrown's unhinged rants, nor the central thesis of this thread, but this notion (the idea that, were the encounter rate between men and bears equal, the number of dead women to either cause would be equal) is ridiculous on its face.
If humans were feral like bears or other animals, then sure. But the average person, male or female, has been subject to intensive social conditioning. The kind of person who would engage in unprovoked murder but for too many witnesses around has stripped his/her self of said conditioning to an extent that's statistically rare. In the United States, a country with 330,000,000 people, there's “only” around 20,000 murders a year, and a lot of these are probably in the heat of the moment as opposed to acts of truly senseless violence. It's true that a woman alone in the woods with a strange man has no way of knowing whether or not the man she's dealing with belongs to that anomalous group, but this uncertainty has no objective bearing on the statistical likelihood of being murdered. Her fear may be understandable but it's not commensurate to the facts.
Even if we're talking about rape (which, though horrible, is generally less bad than feeling your limbs ripped off and your guts spilled open by a bear as the life drains from your eyes), most of this is either at the hands of close relatives or under circumstances that, due to perverse social cues, the rapist has convinced his/her self that the act is justified and at least not entirely nonconsensual. For example, social cues which conflate going to a party with wanting to have sex with anyone available, of dates culminating in sex with the other subject of that date. None of these cues are present during a random encounter in the woods. Only the rare kind of person who would commit rape without any element of self-deception needed would do so. These people are a small minority of the population, so an average encounter in the woods with a strange man would have a lesser incidence of rape than the incidence of dying at the hands of a bear.
Now, on second glance of your post, you said “number of bears (versus) men in the country” as opposed to “encounter rate between men and bears”, and conflated the two, but obviously humans and bears don't tend to inhabit the same spaces (i.e. bears that get too close to human habitats risk being shot), meaning the encounter rate would not be equal even if the nominal bear population was equal to the nominal human population.
I'm sure the feeling is mutual; women hate you so it's only fair that you should hate women.
How did he post a photo tho? When I click on image, nothing happens.
→I'm sure the feeling is mutual; women hate you so it's only fair that you should hate women.
We not the same; they hate me because of my chromosomes/gender identity; I hate them for disparagement as worse than a dangerous animal. I had no hatred of women before Man vs Bear; I never sent them an unsolicited dic pic in my life; everytime I asked out a woman and she refused, I directly said, “Your denial is respected and I will treat you identically before this” (it's what women want). I would get the vasectomy before I had sex so she wouldn't have to deal with pregnancy.
2 years ago, if a woman said how life was unfair for her as a woman, I'd hear her out. Now, if she were to say that, I'd laugh my ass off. You don't get treated worse than a bear by anybody.
I used to think women were logical individuals when required to be (ex: politics) to roughly the same extent as a man; I was wrong.
They are herd followers; their opinions depend on their mood; a man's opinion depends on his logic.
Don't let anyone with an IQ under 120 vote; weed out emotional voters.
I wouldn't care if women have opinions like this if they don't get voting rights. 8 year old kids believe all sorts of stupid things; and that's fine (but only because we don't let them vote).
A minimum IQ of 120 should be required to vote in any election. If your IQ is lower, then build it up to 120 and THEN you can vote.
Since 2020 there have been 7 women killed by bears and 15 nonfatal bear attacks on women. Since 2020 there have been 8,000 fatal attacks on women by men and 1.6 million nonfatal attacks.
In a crazy hypothetical where we adjust for population, we crank up the bear population to 165 million bears. Basing it on the previous numbers, that would bring us up to a bit over 3,000 fatal bear attacks on women and a bit over 7,000 nonfatal bear attacks. So you're still more than twice as likely to be killed by a man and considerably more likely to be nonfatally attacked by a man.
If your point is that this is an impossible hypothetical, yeah it definitely is. At those numbers we would be competing with bears for resources and space way more, encountering them way more, and attack statistics would be different. But that's speculative and the data doesn't exist. Basing it on the real data we do have, you're less likely to be attacked by a bear.
Keeping in mind that bear attacks are pretty anomalous as well; the vast majority of bear encounters do not result in any violence. Of the ones that do, very few are a result of predatory violence. Usually it's the bear defending its cubs, food, what have you. If I encounter a bear in the woods, there's a good chance it's just going to take off.
Even if we're talking about rape (which, though horrible, is generally less bad than feeling your limbs ripped off and your guts spilled open by a bear as the life drains from your eyes), most of this is either at the hands of close relatives or under circumstances that, due to perverse social cues, the rapist has convinced his/her self that the act is justified and at least not entirely nonconsensual. For example, social cues which conflate going to a party with wanting to have sex with anyone available, of dates culminating in sex with the other subject of that date. None of these cues are present during a random encounter in the woods. Only the rare kind of person who would commit rape without any element of self-deception needed would do so. These people are a small minority of the population, so an average encounter in the woods with a strange man would have a lesser incidence of rape than the incidence of dying at the hands of a bear.
I'm sorry, Swag, but if I encounter a hostile bear I suffer for days, tops. If I encounter a malicious man, I could suffer for literally years, and in ways a bear could never imagine. There's nothing that could make me choose that, and I still don't get what's so hard to understand about this.
If you were lost somewhere and had nothing to eat for weeks, you would pray to God to run into some random man, and the first man you see, you would run to him desperately, because bear wont ever provide anything, and being hungry is horrible.
Nope, you're not in distress in the hypothetical. When the alternative is death, any amount of risk is preferable, so the entire question becomes moot.
Nope, you're not in distress in the hypothetical
Women depend on men, so choosing bear over men would actually result in similar distress, as bear isnt provider or protector while man is.
So you have no data. Okay.
This is a meaningless statement, unless you can somehow quantify it.
My consciousness affords me access to a plethora of onboard data, as well as access to extensive external data sources. I'm guessing that you function similarly.
So we have plenty of data. Okay.
My consciousness affords me access to a plethora of onboard data
So you dont even know what data is. Figured.
Since 2020 there have been 7 women killed by bears and 15 nonfatal bear attacks on women. Since 2020 there have been 8,000 fatal attacks on women by men and 1.6 million nonfatal attacks.
Sure, but the difference in encounter rate between men/women and bears/women is well into the millions, if not billions, to one. Even just counting 1 to 1 encounters between opposite sexed strangers with nobody else present, the numbers are still heavily lopsided in favor of encountering fellow humans over bears.
Also, 8,000 since 2020? Assuming your numbers counted the four years from 2020-2024, women make up less than 1 out of 8 if not less than 1 out of 10 murder victims. You are statistically far less likely to be murdered as a woman than as a man.
In a crazy hypothetical where we adjust for population, we crank up the bear population to 165 million bears.
Even if we did this, again, bears do not share human habitats and the encounter rate would still heavily favor humans. You would have to change this to have a meaningful comparison.
Keeping in mind that bear attacks are pretty anomalous as well; the vast majority of bear encounters do not result in any violence.
Yeah, because either one or the other will usually run away or at least keep a safe distance, and people visiting known bear habitats carry things like bear spray. You've probably gotten your hair cut by a male barber, but you wouldn't dare let a bear get that close to your head. Additionally, most bear encounters in the US are with black bears, rather than grizzlies or whatnot, which kind of skews the numbers.
I'm sorry, Swag, but if I encounter a hostile bear I suffer for days, tops. If I encounter a malicious man, I could suffer for literally years, and in ways a bear could never imagine. There's nothing that could make me choose that, and I still don't get what's so hard to understand about this.
I understand quite well that you're being hyperbolic about this. This might sound like an offensive thing for me to say, but I say it because it's the truth.
Yes, surviving rape, especially if conscious during it, would cause a person suffering for untold years, if not for the rest of their lives. However, this amounts to a subtraction of utility from a life which is still generally a net positive. This fact is evidenced by how relatively few rape survivors go on to kill themselves (for any reason whatsoever, not just that one), and if you're being honest, however much you might protest that such is a “fate worse than death”, you probably wouldn't kill yourself in the aftermath of becoming a victim of such either.
Even if the bear killed you instantly and painlessly, which is not a given, it would mean the deprivation of your remaining lifespan, a lifespan that probably would've been a net positive. When forced to choose between death or rape, the overwhelming majority of people will choose the latter. Were that not the case, no criminal would even try to rape somebody at gunpoint or knifepoint, because it'd be a self-evident exercise in futility. And yet, some 11 percent of rape/sexual assault attempts involve use of a weapon.
In economics and behavioral science this is a concept known as revealed preference: that when people's claimed preferences don't line up with what they actually do when given a choice, their actual behavior reflects their true preferences. Obviously no one wants to be raped and everyone tries to avoid it, but virtually no one chooses death over it or over continuing to live in the aftermath of it. Their revealed preference is one of death being the worse of the two evils, be that death at the hands of a human or a bear.
Yes, surviving rape, especially if conscious during it, would cause a person suffering for untold years, if not for the rest of their lives. However, this amounts to a subtraction of utility from a life which is still generally a net positive. This fact is evidenced by how relatively few rape survivors go on to kill themselves (for any reason whatsoever, not just that one), and if you're being honest, however much you might protest that such is a “fate worse than death”, you probably wouldn't kill yourself in the aftermath of becoming a victim of such either.
Even if the bear killed you instantly and painlessly, which is not a given, it would mean the deprivation of your remaining lifespan, a lifespan that probably would've been a net positive. When forced to choose between death or rape, the overwhelming majority of people will choose the latter. Were that not the case, no criminal would even try to rape somebody at gunpoint or knifepoint, because it'd be a self-evident exercise in futility. And yet, some 11 percent of rape/sexual assault attempts involve use of a weapon.
Oof, no. “Years of suffering” refers to being taken captive and held for years. Not PTSD. It sounds like you're assuming a psycho would just rape you once and then lose interest and leave, and you could return to civilization and begin your recovery process. My worst fear would be weeks or months of abuse followed by death, a Junko Furuta case or something like that.
My worst fear would be weeks or months of abuse followed by death
Seems extremely unlikely to happen. Not saying it doesnt happen, but probably like over 95% of rapists arent murderers. I dont know full data on it, but rape in some sense is much more common than murder. I read some data that about 25% of women suffered from rape or some form of sexual abuse. Murder rates arent even 0.5%. And murder plus rape is even less common, as not all murders involve rape.
Oof, no. “Years of suffering” refers to being taken captive and held for years. Not PTSD. It sounds like you're assuming a psycho would just rape you once and then lose interest and leave, and you could return to civilization and begin your recovery process. My worst fear would be weeks or months of abuse followed by death, a Junko Furuta case or something like that.
Ah, okay. Still quite unlikely, though.
I mean, let's say for the sake of argument that you were actually willing to do something like that. You'd need to live alone (somewhere with no neighbors preferably), have a basement or whatnot, never entertain guests or visitors to your home, and have enough home improvement skills to remove your basement door and replace it with one that locks from the outside. This hypothetical psycho would have to tick all of these boxes, which probably a small minority of people with that extremely rare mindset do.
There's a reason why these cases, where they do happen, make national headlines, why these cases have individual Wikipedia articles, and so on. And even then, Junko Furuta sounds like she was abused in a much more extreme fashion than what you typically see in these cases, where the only motivation is sex.
I'm not sure that you are speaking from experience.
What interaction do you have with women, other than with your Mom.
And you are probably more familiar with teddy bears than with real scary bears.
😆🤣😂 My take on this exactly!
The odds of a bear attack itself are extremely low, like 1 in 2 million. And ofc, of those the odds of a fatal bear attack are still lower.
There's no data I can find of the statistics of being attacked by a man in the woods.
A quick google found 2 cases of women being attacked by men in wooded areas this year and 1 case of a woman being attacked by a bear. That's not anywhere close to a full picture.
Oh god, don't judge the forum by this thread plz
If I'm attacked by a bear, people will believe that I was attacked by a bear. My trauma won't be compounded by skepticism or suspicions that I'm falsely accusing a good bear, ruining a good bear's reputation.
The bear isn't gonna film the attack and show it to his friends. I don't have to confront the bear in trial and then see him get a light sentence and released back out.
These were some more female perspectives on the matter from what I remember last year.
Women depend on men, so choosing bear over men would actually result in similar distress, as bear isnt provider or protector while man is.
What year are you from, 1950? Women and men are different, but generally equal. We both contribute financially, we both diaper the babies, we both have cars and we BOTH depend on each other.
And if someone breaks in and my child is in the house, I am MUCH more likely to kill that person/s the minute they put one foot on the bottom of the inside stairs!
Women and men are different, but generally equal
Alright, irrelevant. Try living without men to test your theory.
Oof, no. “Years of suffering” refers to being taken captive and held for years. Not PTSD. It sounds like you're assuming a psycho would just rape you once and then lose interest and leave, and you could return to civilization and begin your recovery process. My worst fear would be weeks or months of abuse followed by death, a Junko Furuta case or something like that.
I honestly wish I had not just looked the Junko Furuta case up. I think it is utterly horrible. That girl suffered and suffered and suffered!
But I think that SatanLucy and RemyBrown are missing the basic point. Women are not choosing a bear over a man. They are choosing a bear, who might run instead of attack, to the worst man and the worst thing they can imagine (as Wryly so aptly pointed out).
It isn't based on data, it is based on fear and the amount of play that true crimes get on almost every platform. And the minute you think, “this is unlikely to happen to me,” you stop safeguarding yourself and that is often unwise.
And ALL OF US HUMANS have fears, based on real things that have happened more than once, but that are statistically unlikely to actually happen to you.
We try to protect ourselves from as much as possible. We buy cameras and gadgets; we lock our homes and our cars; we buy bear spray if we're going to the woods; we buy Mace for muggings; we look everyone up online before letting them near our children and we even teach our children to NEVER talk to a stranger (even though kids are “statistically” much more likely to be taken by someone they already know!).
Most women will always say “bear” because we don't encounter them often and we know they dont usually attack unless cubs are around or they think you are being aggressive.
Men we encounter everywhere, and for the most, they are great! And women, too, are everywhere and for the most, are also great! But we fear the stories. We all do. And there are some pretty horrific ones where women are the monsters. We are just less likely to depend on brute strength for our misdeeds (hee, hee).
I'm just joking about the “hee, hee” dudes. 😆 But I do suspect the OP did not “just” begin to hate women, as he claims, with the bear vs man question. I believe he found a safe vehicle for his bitterness and hatred and pounced on it like a hungry wolf.
Great points.
Sorry about the Junko Furuta thing. It's a case that haunts me. The men who did it are alive and free today.
Both of you (even if this message is big) should read the whole thing, let me know that you received it if you have nothing else to say, and respond to it if you do have stuff to say. I notice so many people of both genders say, “TLDR”. It gets annoying for me because I don't do that with other people and it feels like I wasted a lot of time typing someone that people don't even end up reading.
→Women are not choosing a bear over a man. They are choosing a bear, who might run instead of attack, to the worst man and the worst thing they can imagine (as Wryly so aptly pointed out).
So then make the claim, “I'd rather be with a bear than a rapist”, not, “I'd rather be with a bear than a man I don't know”. Men might prefer getting raped to getting murdered, but virtually every man understands both are very evil and wouldn't complain nearly as hard about women that say they would rather get murdered than raped (and this is coming from me; me personally, I would rather get raped 100x than murdered). But if a woman disagrees, then it's their opinion. If it was not, “Man vs Bear” but instead, “Rapist vs Bear”, then I would not be making this post.
→It isn't based on data
If data doesn't matter, then a man could say, “I'd rather be with a bear than a strange woman; bears don't falsely accuse of SA”. Of course data should matter! If data doesn't matter, then don't get the vaccine, but instead, listen to the fear of RFK on vaccinees. But that would be loony.
→And the minute you think, “this is unlikely to happen to me,” you stop safeguarding yourself and that is often unwise.
It's unlikely that I get robbed, but I lock my door (aka safeguard). Women can have pepper spray and no decent man would hate them for it.
→And ALL OF US HUMANS have fears, based on real things that have happened more than once, but that are statistically unlikely to actually happen to you.
And I have had multiple black people beat the shit out of me up over trivial things (one because I defended desalination plants, the other because I threw a napkin in the trash bin, so it's not even race related in the slightest). I'd rather be with a black person I don't know than a bear. But I'd rather be with the bear than with either of those individual black people (I can mace the bear legally).
→we look everyone up online before letting them near our children and we even teach our children to NEVER talk to a stranger
If you have kids, then you would rather have them be with a stranger than a bear (
). Best case scenario, the bear leaves your kid alone (best case scenario for the humans is they adopt the kid). The alternative is murder/rape. We can disagree on which is worse, murder or rape. We better agree though that strangers adopting your child is better than having your child starve in the woods.
→Most women will always say “bear” because we don't encounter them often and we know they dont usually attack unless cubs are around or they think you are being aggressive.
Usually, the bear will not murder you (but like 85% chance of survival with no mace). For the man if he sees you, then it's 99.95%. The strange man is out in the woods because he likes nature and wanted to hike. Rape happens at parties where there is alcohoul.
→But I do suspect the OP did not “just” begin to hate women, as he claims, with the bear vs man question. I believe he found a safe vehicle for his bitterness and hatred and pounced on it like a hungry wolf.
Well, then how do I prove that my hatred for women literally began with “Men vs Bear”?
I'm a virgin (by choice; I'm young, and I didn't want women to get pregnant and have to pick between a poverty birth or abortion (they say both of these options suck)), I'm getting the vasectomy before I have sex, I'm pro choice anyway (I even did a recent debate on it here if you think I'm bluffing), I voted against Trump and would have preferred Harris to Trump (I was hoping Trump didn't rape because rape sucks, but if he did rape, then I would want him executed). I've made fun of men that rack up a high body count with women but then want a virgin woman to marry and I call on anti abortion men to get vasectomies before they have sex again.
I was no misogynist before “Man vs Bear” and if you want me to go back to that, then women en masse need to discard, “Man vs Bear” and admit they were incorrect similar to what they did with, “Believe women” (which I've toggled on that issue, I leaned against “Believe women” overall but there were times when I supported it I think, but I didn't hate women for supporting “Believe women” like I do now. I just didn't want to repeal the 5th amendment because it was a dangerous precedent). I don't hate women for wanting to close the wage gap. The wage gap between women and men is similar to the wage gap between whites and Indian Americans (Indian Americans earn more). Treat men the same way you would Indian Americans on this issue.
There are many hypocrites on the right. Replace, “Man” with, “Illegal immigrant” and the right selects bear. That's crazy too. I voted against Trump in 2024. “Fell for it again” doesn't apply to me.
we even teach our children to NEVER talk to a stranger (even though kids are “statistically” much more likely to be taken by someone they already know!).
Which exposes the dumb thinking. It was dumb 50 years ago when over 80% of rapists werent actually strangers and staying away from strangers achieved nothing when most rapists arent strangers but family members or someone family knows, and it is even dumber today when it is actually impossible not to talk to strangers, because everyone on internet is technically stranger and the only way not to talk to them is to not use internet. So I think stranger danger is a dumb thinking because there are many situations where the only one who can provide help is a stranger, lets say in case of dog attack which is common, or in case of family abuse where the only people person knows are those who abuse him.
Also, teens can tell some issues only to strangers these days. Look at teens on Tik Tok who talk about their suicide urges. They cant ever talk about that with their family or friends or anyone they know in real life, they can only talk about it on social media where their identity is hidden. So today you actually have opposite of stranger danger mentality. Today, online strangers are often the only people you can talk to openly. I dont think any of those teens could talk about self harm/suicide urges with people in real life, because they fear real life judgment.
Both of you need to publicly concede immediately or else you can't be taken seriously. I will report your comments of, "Men worse than bears" as hate speech; replace, "man" with, "blacks" and see why you would do the same.
The women here that say men are worse than bears committed hate speech. You should do something about it because you are a mod.
You seem like a troubled person whose issues stem from something beyond the matter at hand. Seems better to let it go.