If you are a woman alone in the woods, would you rather come across an unknown man, or a bear? It’s a thought experiment. As a human woman, which represents a greater immanent threat?
I’ve always thought this is such a generalist scenario, meant to deliberately portray all men as dangerous and categorically make them look bad. Imagine we swapped out “men” for another group of people.
If you actually listened to the reasoning that women gave (crazy, right?), they were very clear that with a bear, you know where you stand, but with men, you can’t tell right away whether they’re a danger or pretending to be nice only to be harmful later on.
Any men who get offended by this fact is part of the problem.
Because most people have a Disneyfied idea of what animals do. Most people think a bear in the woods wears a red t-shirt and carries around a honeypot.
Most species is bear don’t hunt people. You see one, you back away slowly, and you’re good. If there’s food in your, you drop it. They’d rather eat your granola bar than you.
Without wading into all the technicalities, could we perhaps agree that if you have to say, “what kind of bear tho’,” that we are already in troubling territory?
If the dangerous men were as easily distinguishable from the not dangerous ones as bear species, then the answer would be different. Because that’s women’s entire point - you often can’t tell until it’s too late
That’s not at all what is implied by the thought experiment. It’s not all men, it’s a random man. And it’s not that they are dangerous, it’s about what feels riskier from a woman’s perspective.
That’s why all the fretting over which kind of bear is missing the point. It’s not about arguing with women that they are wrong, it’s about listening to them and understanding that they have no idea whether the man is the sort that would kill them if they say or do or don’t do the right thing — but the odds are sufficient that all men must be treated like a potential threat.
It’s not all men, it’s a random man. And it’s not that they are dangerous, it’s about what feels riskier from a woman’s perspective.
How is that different? It’s still a prejudice based on somebody’s unalterable trait. The entire premise is a deliberate generalization to place men and wild animals into the same category.
Do polar bears occupy habitat that could realistically be called “the woods”?
I always assumed this question was referring to a brown bear - black bears are pussies and polar bears are instadeath. Pandas are adorable, obviously better than meeting a man. Other species are unlikely for most english speaking people to meet in the woods. Brown bears are the only species that make this question interesting.
It’s a stupid thought experiment, though, because I think that woman who chose the bear have not seriously considered the possibility that it might be a polar bear!
(Like, if it’s a regular bear then you are probably fine, but you have to think about the worst case scenario here!)
You didn’t correct it though. You added a random element to an existing thought experiment based on the way the world is as we currently know it. That’s like “correcting” the trolley problem by saying “but what if aliens appeared with a second switch that saved everyone!?”
The thought experiment already has a random element in it because the risk depends on exactly which man or bear you ran into in the woods, so it is intrinsically statistical. Thus, I am not fundamentally changing the nature of the thought experiment, only extending the distribution of bears to include polar bears.
This is, again, necessary to account for the fact that soon our forests will be invaded by polar bears due to the scourge of global warming. 🙁 Worse, although they rarely attack people now, the times when they do so are usually when they are nutritionally stressed, and that is likely to be increasingly the case as they migrate south in desperation.
All I am saying is that if polar bears were wandering around the forests then people might have responded differently.
But having said that, arguably the thought experiment is not meant to be taken too literally in the first place. It is really more like meme mean to be shared and responded to than a serious scientific assessment of the actual risk involved in running across a man versus a bear, especially since the risk posed by the bear depends on the region and what species live there.
But of course, all of this is besides the point, because what is important about the thought experiment is not that so many women choose the bear by that it expresses a collective sentiment of general severe distrust towards men, which came about because enough men have regularly abused their position of strength and power—which, unlike assessments of the relative risk of men versus bears, is definitely backed up by statistics—to impose themselves physically on women, and this is a big societal problem regardless of whether it actually literally makes more sense to prefer running into a bear over a man in the woods.
And just to be clear, I am not criticizing the thought experiment so much as that I love the image of polar bears wandering around in the woods.
If you are a woman alone in the woods, would you rather come across an unknown man, or a bear? It’s a thought experiment. As a human woman, which represents a greater immanent threat?
It’s not really a thought experiment, though. It’s a hyperbole, a funny way to say women are afraid of the toxic masculinity types.
I’ve always thought this is such a generalist scenario, meant to deliberately portray all men as dangerous and categorically make them look bad. Imagine we swapped out “men” for another group of people.
If you actually listened to the reasoning that women gave (crazy, right?), they were very clear that with a bear, you know where you stand, but with men, you can’t tell right away whether they’re a danger or pretending to be nice only to be harmful later on.
Any men who get offended by this fact is part of the problem.
Those are the two options?
If this were true, wouldn’t it be dead simple for women to just pick the man? It’s interesting that a lot don’t, right?
Swap the word “man” for another group of people based on generic traits and continue your sweeping generalizations.
Because most people have a Disneyfied idea of what animals do. Most people think a bear in the woods wears a red t-shirt and carries around a honeypot.
Most species is bear don’t hunt people. You see one, you back away slowly, and you’re good. If there’s food in your, you drop it. They’d rather eat your granola bar than you.
Well, if it’s a black bear, shouting and waving your arms will normally chase it off.
It’s not meant to be a realistic scenario. It’s satire.
So, how does choosing a bear with a honeypot make men look bad?
Uh, it doesn’t? It makes the person choosing the bear look like someone whose life consists of entertainment.
What are you even upset about? Do you even know?
Are there non human women?
See Pam Bondi.
Every other genus: “We don’t want her either.”
I would have given Kristi Noem as an example. Fun fact: her full name is Kristi Lynn Arnold Noem
KLAN
The question always struck me as dumb. Because it doesn’t make any attempt to clarify what geographic region this question takes place.
I don’t care what you’re afraid of a man doing, a polar bear is ALWAYS the worse choice.
But not all bears are as aggressive as polar bears. Some bears will run away from you if you chase them. Some bears will end you if you chase them.
Of coarse you can’t determine how dangerous a man is based on region. But you can likely determine which regions have dangerous bears.
Without wading into all the technicalities, could we perhaps agree that if you have to say, “what kind of bear tho’,” that we are already in troubling territory?
I would take “worse than a panda” as a compliment, but I understand your point.
It’s ironic we’re dissecting which kind of bear is dangerous, while implicitly accepting the premise that all men are dangerous.
If the dangerous men were as easily distinguishable from the not dangerous ones as bear species, then the answer would be different. Because that’s women’s entire point - you often can’t tell until it’s too late
Has anybody looked into the possibility that we put down all these dangerous creatures before more people get hurt? Better safe than sorry.
That’s not at all what is implied by the thought experiment. It’s not all men, it’s a random man. And it’s not that they are dangerous, it’s about what feels riskier from a woman’s perspective.
That’s why all the fretting over which kind of bear is missing the point. It’s not about arguing with women that they are wrong, it’s about listening to them and understanding that they have no idea whether the man is the sort that would kill them if they say or do or don’t do the right thing — but the odds are sufficient that all men must be treated like a potential threat.
How is that different? It’s still a prejudice based on somebody’s unalterable trait. The entire premise is a deliberate generalization to place men and wild animals into the same category.
Do polar bears occupy habitat that could realistically be called “the woods”?
I always assumed this question was referring to a brown bear - black bears are pussies and polar bears are instadeath. Pandas are adorable, obviously better than meeting a man. Other species are unlikely for most english speaking people to meet in the woods. Brown bears are the only species that make this question interesting.
Where I’m from, you’re just as likely to get a polar bear as a black or brown bear in the woods. So it’s all unrealistic.
A polar bear in the woods? They’re an aquatic mammal that lives on sea ice… Where are you from?
a black bear did drop on a hunter and killed it in the news last year.
Would you rather have a man drop on you in the woods or a black bear?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5aZJBLAu1E
You forgot the Dropbears. Want to reassess relative threat levels of the various species of alpha predator?
Yeah I’d pick a man of a dropbear any day 🐨🩸☠️
It presumes black bear. You’re over thinking it.
It’s a stupid thought experiment, though, because I think that woman who chose the bear have not seriously considered the possibility that it might be a polar bear!
(Like, if it’s a regular bear then you are probably fine, but you have to think about the worst case scenario here!)
Wow are you entirely missing the point.
Yeah bro. It’s obviously a grizzly because polar bears are going extinct soon.
My point is that global warming is going to drive them down south, and I don’t think that any of us are prepared for this.
I for one am trying to do my part by correcting one thought experiment at a time!
You didn’t correct it though. You added a random element to an existing thought experiment based on the way the world is as we currently know it. That’s like “correcting” the trolley problem by saying “but what if aliens appeared with a second switch that saved everyone!?”
The thought experiment already has a random element in it because the risk depends on exactly which man or bear you ran into in the woods, so it is intrinsically statistical. Thus, I am not fundamentally changing the nature of the thought experiment, only extending the distribution of bears to include polar bears.
This is, again, necessary to account for the fact that soon our forests will be invaded by polar bears due to the scourge of global warming. 🙁 Worse, although they rarely attack people now, the times when they do so are usually when they are nutritionally stressed, and that is likely to be increasingly the case as they migrate south in desperation.
This is what bots talking to each other looks like btw.
All I am saying is that if polar bears were wandering around the forests then people might have responded differently.
But having said that, arguably the thought experiment is not meant to be taken too literally in the first place. It is really more like meme mean to be shared and responded to than a serious scientific assessment of the actual risk involved in running across a man versus a bear, especially since the risk posed by the bear depends on the region and what species live there.
But of course, all of this is besides the point, because what is important about the thought experiment is not that so many women choose the bear by that it expresses a collective sentiment of general severe distrust towards men, which came about because enough men have regularly abused their position of strength and power—which, unlike assessments of the relative risk of men versus bears, is definitely backed up by statistics—to impose themselves physically on women, and this is a big societal problem regardless of whether it actually literally makes more sense to prefer running into a bear over a man in the woods.
And just to be clear, I am not criticizing the thought experiment so much as that I love the image of polar bears wandering around in the woods.
Polar bears do not live in the woods
Well then where the fuck do they shit?!?
They rip off your head and shit down your neck.
Only steers and bears?
I think those are the ones that shit on the pope?
Ah so the bears are catholic
I want to believe!