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?
as a human woman, which represents a greater imminent threat?
No. This is NOT the takeaway. The bear is clearly the statistically-imminent threat (let’s say a brown bear to ensure it’s hostile and deadly). The point is that you know exactly what the bear will try to do: kill you. You don’t have to greet it, you don’t have to worry about it’s intentions, you don’t have to worry that your social interaction may push the bear over the edge, you don’t have to worry about hurting it’s feelings and risk making it a threat, you don’t have to worry about sending mixed signals, you don’t have to worry about your clothing choice, and you certainly, certainly don’t have to worry about it raping you without witnesses. It simply is a violent threat. You use bear spray and hope you can run far enough, fast enough. You don’t get to make that immediate reaction to a man, between compassion for the innocent, societal pressure to not ostracize men, and legal repercussions if you get it wrong.
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.
Do you think it would be wrong for a black person to be a little bit nervous about wandering through some small, predominantly white town in middle America? 'Cause I’m gonna be real, I think that’s probably a valid fear.
That’s an excellent analogy. Zooming out from that scenario, should we welcome the notion of being afraid of being afraid of somebody based on their skin color, because there’s an inherent prejudice of them being dangerous? If so, should we be encouraging each other to vocalize these kinds of prejudices? And by extension, is it acceptable to draw sweeping conclusions about a group of people based on their generic traits?
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?
Me bringing polar bears into the thought experiment was intended as a (really stupid) joke, but I had nonetheless taking seriously that technically it should matter what kind of bear we are talking about. You’ve demolished that angle with your comment, though!
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.
Let me try again: You’re adding a nonsensical element to a thought experiment that doesn’t fit the context of the world we currently live in. Polar bears aren’t likely to become forest dwelling animals in our lifetime, if ever (they’ll probably go extinct first), so that part is irrelevant, and you’re still missing the whole point of the thought experiment. You’re trying to warp something in a stupid way and you seem to believe that you sound really smart while doing it. Check yourself. Your ego is making a fool of you.
Not trying to be mean. Just pointing out that you have some egg on your face.
I think that you are reading way too much into my whimsical injection of polar bears into the picture. 😆
Having said that, there was an element of my position that was sincere, which was that it should technically matter what bear you run into. However, MagicShel has changed my mind on this with the following comment above:
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?
Of course, all of this to some extent is beside the point because the important thing is not whether the thought experiment is technically valid or not but why women respond to it the way that they do, because if they feel that a random man is likely to be dangerous enough that they would prefer a random bear—and unfortunately violence against women is prevalent enough that this is not such an unreasonable reaction—then that reveals a societal problem that needs to be addressed.
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?
No. This is NOT the takeaway. The bear is clearly the statistically-imminent threat (let’s say a brown bear to ensure it’s hostile and deadly). The point is that you know exactly what the bear will try to do: kill you. You don’t have to greet it, you don’t have to worry about it’s intentions, you don’t have to worry that your social interaction may push the bear over the edge, you don’t have to worry about hurting it’s feelings and risk making it a threat, you don’t have to worry about sending mixed signals, you don’t have to worry about your clothing choice, and you certainly, certainly don’t have to worry about it raping you without witnesses. It simply is a violent threat. You use bear spray and hope you can run far enough, fast enough. You don’t get to make that immediate reaction to a man, between compassion for the innocent, societal pressure to not ostracize men, and legal repercussions if you get it wrong.
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.
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
Krusty Gnome.
KLAN
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.
It’s kind of a shit take though isn’t it? Animals are potentially dangerous and humans are also potentially dangerous.
The bear will most likely leave you alone if you don’t bother it and so will most humans. No need to bring sexism into it.
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.
Oh, race! I love race.
Do you think it would be wrong for a black person to be a little bit nervous about wandering through some small, predominantly white town in middle America? 'Cause I’m gonna be real, I think that’s probably a valid fear.
That’s an excellent analogy. Zooming out from that scenario, should we welcome the notion of being afraid of being afraid of somebody based on their skin color, because there’s an inherent prejudice of them being dangerous? If so, should we be encouraging each other to vocalize these kinds of prejudices? And by extension, is it acceptable to draw sweeping conclusions about a group of people based on their generic traits?
If you’re black and presently in confederate country, maybe a little?
The sweeping conclusion, by the way, is “it seems risky,” and I know you know that it is.
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.
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?
It’s not meant to be a realistic scenario. It’s satire.
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?
Oh, wow, that is actually a really good point!
Me bringing polar bears into the thought experiment was intended as a (really stupid) joke, but I had nonetheless taking seriously that technically it should matter what kind of bear we are talking about. You’ve demolished that angle with your comment, though!
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?
Australia mate. We have no black bears and no polar bears.
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.
Then say a black bear. It presumes nothing.
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.
Let me try again: You’re adding a nonsensical element to a thought experiment that doesn’t fit the context of the world we currently live in. Polar bears aren’t likely to become forest dwelling animals in our lifetime, if ever (they’ll probably go extinct first), so that part is irrelevant, and you’re still missing the whole point of the thought experiment. You’re trying to warp something in a stupid way and you seem to believe that you sound really smart while doing it. Check yourself. Your ego is making a fool of you.
Not trying to be mean. Just pointing out that you have some egg on your face.
I think that you are reading way too much into my whimsical injection of polar bears into the picture. 😆
Having said that, there was an element of my position that was sincere, which was that it should technically matter what bear you run into. However, MagicShel has changed my mind on this with the following comment above:
Of course, all of this to some extent is beside the point because the important thing is not whether the thought experiment is technically valid or not but why women respond to it the way that they do, because if they feel that a random man is likely to be dangerous enough that they would prefer a random bear—and unfortunately violence against women is prevalent enough that this is not such an unreasonable reaction—then that reveals a societal problem that needs to be addressed.
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?!?
I think those are the ones that shit on the pope?
Ah so the bears are catholic
They rip off your head and shit down your neck.
Only steers and bears?
I want to believe!