correct. a man on the other side of a clearing is a more dangerous threat to you, a hiker, regardless of your gender, than a bear. nothing about this ever said that the bear or the man was directly in your close personal space. it was always just “you encounter a bear outside”
that’s what people keep saying. i don’t know why you’re so hung up on these details you added to the scenario that were never there in the first place
women saying they don’t by default feel safe around men and feel more equipped to deal with a bear is a reflection of rape culture and bears being predictable, not a preference for being attacked by a bear
Well that’s…information I didn’t have before. Okay. I can see it more easily now. Still a dumb question but less of a dumb answer. I can admit when I’m wrong.
The question seems weird at face value, precisely because maybe 100 years ago anyone would agree with the saying “the most dangerous animal you can come across in the wild is a man”, but the fact that a lot of women immediately would give the same response completely naturally, and a lot of men get stumped on “how dare they insult me” even if they do understand that it’s just “spot a bear in the wild” and not “he’s sneaking right behind you”, and some even say “you deserve what happens to you, you chose this”, is very interesting in what it tells about this existing problem that few people would admit outside of a question like this.
Well a lot of men are blatant misogynists I never questioned that part of it. A lot of men are fucking assholes. Have the unfortunate privilege of having known some of them. It’s just a really dumb question is all. It still irks me even knowing more now. But yes people are assholes in general. Every one.
No, he may be hunderds of meters away from you. You’re certainly not getting stabbed this second, but the point is that you won’t know what he’ll do until it’s too late to avoid it. The bear is much easier to handle at a distance, especially since the bear is much less likely to move toward you than the man. The man isn’t very likely to move toward you either, but still more than the bear, which is almost guaranteed to avoid you.
If you suddenly realize that there’s a bear not too far from you (still hundreds of meters away), it’s not a nice feeling, but you still know what to do. If you sudenly realize that there’s a man not too far, it’s probably okay, but your risk meter goes up the closer he comes toward you and you don’t react, whereas if the bear even turns toward you, you just leave and you’re safe again.
You can also turn away from the man the moment he turns toward you, obviously. But the whole point of the danger assessment is that you don’t know how to react, and the risk only goes up for a woman alone in the woods. The man is an unknown variable, the bear is not. That is the entire message of the answer.
Entirely different situation when you’re not up in each other’s face. I thought that was the whole deal. If that isn’t the deal, I get the bear choice.
Then the question isn’t about having a man directly in your face either!
correct. a man on the other side of a clearing is a more dangerous threat to you, a hiker, regardless of your gender, than a bear. nothing about this ever said that the bear or the man was directly in your close personal space. it was always just “you encounter a bear outside”
that’s what people keep saying. i don’t know why you’re so hung up on these details you added to the scenario that were never there in the first place
women saying they don’t by default feel safe around men and feel more equipped to deal with a bear is a reflection of rape culture and bears being predictable, not a preference for being attacked by a bear
Well that’s…information I didn’t have before. Okay. I can see it more easily now. Still a dumb question but less of a dumb answer. I can admit when I’m wrong.
The question seems weird at face value, precisely because maybe 100 years ago anyone would agree with the saying “the most dangerous animal you can come across in the wild is a man”, but the fact that a lot of women immediately would give the same response completely naturally, and a lot of men get stumped on “how dare they insult me” even if they do understand that it’s just “spot a bear in the wild” and not “he’s sneaking right behind you”, and some even say “you deserve what happens to you, you chose this”, is very interesting in what it tells about this existing problem that few people would admit outside of a question like this.
Well a lot of men are blatant misogynists I never questioned that part of it. A lot of men are fucking assholes. Have the unfortunate privilege of having known some of them. It’s just a really dumb question is all. It still irks me even knowing more now. But yes people are assholes in general. Every one.
No, he may be hunderds of meters away from you. You’re certainly not getting stabbed this second, but the point is that you won’t know what he’ll do until it’s too late to avoid it. The bear is much easier to handle at a distance, especially since the bear is much less likely to move toward you than the man. The man isn’t very likely to move toward you either, but still more than the bear, which is almost guaranteed to avoid you.
If you suddenly realize that there’s a bear not too far from you (still hundreds of meters away), it’s not a nice feeling, but you still know what to do. If you sudenly realize that there’s a man not too far, it’s probably okay, but your risk meter goes up the closer he comes toward you and you don’t react, whereas if the bear even turns toward you, you just leave and you’re safe again.
You can also turn away from the man the moment he turns toward you, obviously. But the whole point of the danger assessment is that you don’t know how to react, and the risk only goes up for a woman alone in the woods. The man is an unknown variable, the bear is not. That is the entire message of the answer.
Entirely different situation when you’re not up in each other’s face. I thought that was the whole deal. If that isn’t the deal, I get the bear choice.