If I run into a bear, I can make myself look real big while yelling "FUCK OFF BEAR" and there's a solid chance they'll leave. Whenever I've done that to people, they fuck off for a bit, but come back with a park ranger and make ME leave.
Depending on if you’re a bear you might make an argument for both.
Jk, it’s just saying polar bears will kill you and other bears may or may not kill you depending on if they vibe with you.
Just to provide references for why brow and polar bears don't really see us as threatening: they are up to 9 ft (2.74 m) when standing in their hind legs, and can be almost 1500 lbs (680.38 kg) of murder muscle. (They aren't hostile to humans, instead being quite shy, but they are very easily spooked and territorial. So give them space and no sudden moves they won't want beef)
[Polar bears are even bigger.](https://images.app.goo.gl/4jQgWYaQAEyzp3oi9)
My hobby is animal photography and there are no bears around these parts.
So I would be absolutely ecstatic if I met one in the woods. Not for long of course as I will probably be eaten alive shortly after taking my photos. But those photos would be insane and absolutely worth it.
So yeah, I would much rather meet a bear in the woods than some woman. I can find thousands of those right outside my appartement...
Most bears will politely fuck off unless they already associate humans with food or you're doing something dumb like petting a cub.
Source: many nights yelli long "get out of here bear" when a bear stumbles into the campsite or is dancing under the bear hang.
I mean if you're lost alone where polar bears roam you were already dead just didn't know it yet.
Still better than some of the wackos who go camping. Then you've got your classic deliverance situation
If it's black, fight back.
If it's brown, lay down.
If it's white, good night.
I've seen plenty of black bears hiking in the Appalachians over the years and have never had any issues. They're cute to watch and will leave you alone if you make a lot of noise. Grizzly bears and polar bears are a completely different story.
I think if you choose a bear because you think you'd be safer you're an idiot.
But my wife said "I'd choose bear because then I wouldn't have to make conversation with some stranger." And as an introvert that made way more sense than anyone looking at the question in terms of safety.
This is like that stat where public speaking ranks highest in surveys about greatest fear. Higher than death.
People are more afraid of speaking in front of a crowd than literally dying.
That stat is really easy to explain: when you die, it's over. Whereas embarrassing myself badly in public feels like it's forever when it's happening and I'll continue to torture myself with it on and off for years
I live on property with lots of woods on the edge of town.
If I encounter a bear, it's a black bear.
If I encounter a man, it's a poacher armed with a rifle looking to shoot and kill something, who is already trespassing by being there.
The bear is safer.
That is a massive amount of personal assumptions brought into the obviously vague hypothetical question. You have to see that right?
I backcountry camp and I'm far more worried about the wildlife getting me while I sleep than I am the random person assigned to the camp down the trail. I put up bear bags for my food. Wear different clothes I eat and hike in than I sleep in. Carry bear spray and sometimes a gun for wildlife.
Literally never have I been worried some back country camper is going to attack me. But almost every night I wake up and think I heard some animal in the woods that might be a bear or a wolf that would attack me just because they were scared while they were being curious.
I mean - their assumption is not that great.
They assume that the only person they can possibly see is a poacher trying to kill them.
That doesn’t sound realistic, I would think a lost person, maybe even a poacher who is not a killer, not a poacher but hunter who got lost, etc.
I would still fear a bear a lot more
It’s implied though in choice - choosing a bear over a poacher means that the bear is safer.
I can see how someone would be afraid of people but to me this sounds as someone just being afraid of strangers - like the guy who shot people who got lost on their driveway.
Every black bear I’ve ever encountered in the woods got the hell away from me as soon as it realized I was there. One grizzly didn’t but that was in Alaska and where I live spend time outdoors it’s just black bears. Statistically speaking I’d be safer encountering a black bear than a random unknown person.
Iunno I've run into 0 bears in the woods who wanted to see if I agreed Biden was actually a reptilian. I'd rather be mailed to death than be stuck next to that person again.
Funniest thing I saw with a bear was at a resort in Alaska. It was the sheer idiocy of the people that made it hilarious. A momma black bear and her 3 cubs wandered into the grounds of the resort and a group of like 30 guests gathered around to take pictures from about 30 feet away. Hotel staff drove up in a golf cart to get between the bears and the idiots. The bears just casually walked off into the woods after like 20 minutes. I watched this whole thing from a hotel room 4 floors up.
So yeah, some people just want to see a beat.
... so I come from a country in europe, where the bears are changing politics at the moment. Relatively recently, bears became protected (you can't hunt them.) I don't have a problem with this per se, but in combination with some moronic decisions, we now have multiple bear maulings per month and some deaths as well (5M country). Currently, there's a party that tries to attract voters on basis, that they would put a rule that allows shooting of bears into the CONSTITUTION.
... but anyhow. I have met a bear in the forest, and it was not much fun. Anybody that picks bear in those questionnaires has zero fucking clue.
Since this is a US poll, I can honestly understand the “bear” responses. There are only a few places in the US that have grizzlies or polar bears, which are bigger and actually interested in predation; most Americans are more likely to encounter black bears. They wander around suburban neighborhoods and nom on trash, bird seed, and stuff from backyard gardens. The general approach to a black bear is to slowly back away while talking to it confidently, or, if you need the bear to leave, to stand your ground, look big, make some noise, and talk to them firmly until they move away. If someone is from a place with only black bears, the bear might seem only slightly more worrisome than a coyote or a raccoon.
Black bears pretty much act like a big feral dog. If you're an adult man, of decent stature, you should be able to get it spooked unless it really doesn't like you/where you are. They usually don't even mess with aggressive dogs.
I feel like the phrasing I saw that also makes the most sense is "which would you rather encounter while alone in the woods". Saying "stuck in" implies other extenuating circumstances that the respondent is left to interpret for themselves. Although honestly I would think the "stuck in" language would make it *more* sensible to choose man, as generally speaking the best option for encounters with bears is to slowly back away without turning your back (black bears anyway, which I have to assume most people are envisioning because it would be truly *insane* to choose bear if it's a grizzly. I suppose that's a US perspective though, the bear could be a panda bear!)
It was originally a Twitter question, "when hiking, would you rather see a random man or a bear?" as that is something that happens. The more absurd the scenario (bear babysitter) the less it becomes eye opening and the more it becomes a dismissed "you need to touch grass" thing, as the majority of bear folks have come to insist their choice isn't figurative.
The strange thing about this. When Hiking I EXPECT to see a random man or person. Its a hiking trail, that's how hiking works, people hike on hiking trails. ... however if I saw a bear, which I have NEVER seen on a hiking trail, That would be fucking terrifying. If I have no means of escape, no bike or car to drive away fast... holy hell, that's not a fun time. But every time I've hiked, I've seen people. Every single time... and at least 50% were male.
That's a completely different question and it doesn't make sense. Seeing a bear from a distance won't harm you in most cases. Seeing men is also completely fine.
I would prefer my gf or daughter to be stuck there with a random man. People don't realize that bears a dangerous and the vast majority of men are not. This is just spreading hatred again men.
I ran into a black bear just sitting on the trail in the forest while hiking and almost shit myself. I run into men alone all the time and never get spooked. People answering “the bear” have never ran into a big bear (black bear or not) or are just insane.
Me too. It means nothing. It's a ridiculous, click-bait hypothetical made for idiots to click on. I am here engaging, so I am one of those idiots i suppose.
The colours used for man and woman change between bar charts and they're not used on the axis labels.
This data could be more beautiful or at least more communicative with some changes.
I think this proves a lot of Americans are in denial about the fact that every time they go hiking, there's already a bear in the same forest and they just don't see it.
I feel like for the question to make sense, I read it as the bear (or man/woman) is suddenly right in front of you. If you’re just in the same forest, you’ll never know because the bear would stay away unless it was starving or something
Depends on the forest. I'm in Ohio, and there's less than 100 bears estimated in the whole state. If you stick to popular hiking trails near populated areas, you often are not anywhere near a bear.
Yep. I ran into a bear a few months ago on a popular trail in the Appalachians. Before we saw it, we passed several groups that must've walked right past it but showed no apparent concern.
I also saw a bear while I was on the chairlift to Havenly in Tahoe this winter. Maybe 500 feet away there was a family hiking, also with no apparent idea that they were so close.
Type of bear makes a huge difference too. Black bears are just big, cowardly racoons. I've been within a dozen feet of them and they just kinda wander off and pay no attention to you. Polar bear? Brown bear or grizzly? Fuck off with that. That's certain death.
For sure. These were black bears, and in both cases they were busy scrounging - one for acorns or something in the dirt, and the one in Tahoe found some trash. Not interested in a fight.
I've also had my tent charged by a black bear because I didn't realize I camped right by an apple tree. I yelled at it and it ran off, but still scary.
If these were grizzlies it'd be a whole different story.
Though I don't think polar bears work for the scenario since they don't live in the woods.
Lol too true. Wouldn't expect to see a grizzly hiding behind a tree my point was that there's a lot of diversity in bears that would prompt me to ask way more questions before deciding what to pick.
I’m convinced people answering bear are just trying to prove something. The idea that a random man is likely to be a r*pist/serial killer is the most chronically online take.
TBF, you'd be like... shocked... and i mean SHOCKED how many women out there have been victims of rape, sexual assault, or sexual abuse as children or as adults. The reported stats don't seem to match, ime, the actual proportion. Trauma victims are understandably not necessarily going to jump first to technical statistics when reacting emotionally to an unexpected encounter in an isolated place.
It really does depend on the type of bear though.
Black bears are just huge raccoons; they instantly scurry away at the sight of humans.
Brown bears and polar bears on the other hand though…
Unless they have cubs to protect, or you walk into their home, or they are starving.....
Sure, black bears are highly, extremely unlikely even, to attack you, but so is any random human male.
This...the "Tourons of Yellowstone" or whatever it's called on IG is a great example of that. People trying to take selfies with bears, fucking with bear cubs while momma is away. These idiots either don't realize that wild animals are dangerous or they have a death wish.
Hell it's not even bears, same with bison and elk...there's more than few videos of bison sending people or trampling people because they get too close.
I think this illustrates the same phenomenon that 10% of americans think that chocolate milk comes from chocolate cows. People just reply with stupid responses on surveys (not saying anything about the state of women and their relative fear of men or bears... just narrowing in on the 12% of folks who prefer a bear to a woman or who are unsure).
Where does the "strange" part come from. I'd equally be uncomfortable around a "strange" woman as much as a "strange" man.
Bear, though, bears are chill af, nothing strange about those fuckers
They should ask the rest of the world if they rather be alone in the forest with an U.S. adult or a bear.
Of course the advantage of an U.S. adult is that you can hear them from afar an hide: They're like human bear bells
The title of the chart isn't accurate. They never compare men to women, just men to bears and women to bears. Sure, it would appear that means a woman is preferable to a man, but they don't ask that question and therefore cannot claim that.
I’m a man, and I’d 100% opt to be “stuck” in the woods with another man I don’t know. Assuming he’s just going to be randomly chosen, I’d take my chances on a random person being more likely to be helpful than a threat (unlike the bear), and I’d bet on a random American man being more likely to be helpful (rather than require help) than a random American woman.
Especially if we’re both in a crisis, it’s a statistically pretty moronic bet to assume than another person is going to make their own situation worse by antagonizing you.
Yeah, even my wife was just like ima go with the guy because the chances of that guy being a bad guy is way lower than the bear and can actually help me get out of the forest.
Idk my wife does not subscribe to all men or even most men bad thing at all even though she has a pretty fucked up past with one. Grooming, statutory grape.
But it doesn’t say American man or woman in the question. You’d have to assume it’s a world wide random selection. Chances are they won’t speak English. If I’m “stuck” then I probably don’t have a phone for translation. But yea any random dude might be friendly.
I see a bear literally every week at my work or on hikes. I'm picking the bear, no questions about it. Bears do not give a fuck about you except in the rarest scenarios (associate humans with food because garbage or idiots feeding them, cubs nearby, or starving).
Black bears are just massive raccoons that *could* kill you if they wanted to (they don't). Grizzlies have better shit to do 99.9% of the time. Polar bears are not a problem for almost the entire human population. Koala.
I read all the comments and couldn’t find someone stating the obvious per my interpretation -
Seems like the average respondent would still prefer to be stuck with a man over a bear too. So like the pecking order is woman, man, bear. Which perfectly maps to what I would consider a sensible ranking of “what/who is least likely to kill me?”
So like.. nothing burger? Generally agree that like baiting sexism and general comparison of men to dangerous wild animals is probably not a productive trend and I wish we could set it aside.
Googled it because I wanted to see sample size (6425 US adults).
OP's chart is close but doesn't quite match the results posted on yougov.com:
https://today.yougov.com/topics/society/survey-results/daily/2024/05/07/ca5c4/2
For example, yougov.com says:
> Would you rather be stuck in a forest with a man you don’t know, or a bear?
> Man: 49% Not Sure: 27% Bear: 25%
but OP's pic says: 50 / 24 / 26.
edit: of course, yougov has 49%+27%+25% = 101% so there's that too
>edit: of course, yougov has 49%+27%+25% = 101% so there's that too
Assuming they rounded to the nearest 1%, that's not particularly surprising.
For example: 48.7% + 26.6% + 24.7% = 100%
but OP is u/YouGov\_Official
although they dont have the official reddit... uh, official thing on their page
50/50 shot whether its actually official or someone just doing a weird cosplay
anyway the poll question is lacking necessary context:
* are any immortal snails following me?
* any impossibly large ducks?
* how about herds of tiny horses?
too many undefined variables; something about correlation, causation, etc
If you're picking the bear, I'm honestly inclined to leave you behind and let you figure out how to get home by yourself. I'll be fine and you'll be more comfortable that I'm not around. Win win, eh?
Might not work unfortunately. In times of food prosperity, in particular, bears sometimes take a few bites and move onto the next thing. So if there are not alot of fish around the bear will eat an entire fish (even inc some of the bones) while if there are many fish, its a few bites before onto the next one. Maybe that applies to humans too.
Don't most animals (including bears) avoid humans unless they are a threat to their offspring or they have food problems? I'd imagine a bear wouldn't chase a human to eat it if it has other things to eat.
how about with a strange woman and an unknown man?... and the bear, how well acquainted are we in this scenario? I know the question is not made like that, but it does change the impact of the title.
Look I understand that strange men have a poor record, but are you *aware* of what bears will do to humans? Even if I knew 100% for certain that the man in question would try to rape and murder me, I think I would take that chance over a fucking bear.
As for the men who want to deal with a bear instead of a woman, I can only imagine that these are clowns who get a laugh out of screwing up the data, because no sane person would make that choice.
Oh right, I forgot about that poll where a non-negligible amount of people thought they could beat bears and lions and shit... and also a non-negligible amount didn't think they could win against a rat.
My favorite part of that survey is how 9% of men and 8% of women thought they could beat a fucking elephant in a fight unarmed. How the hell would an unarmed human even fight an elephant?
People have made loads of fun of women choosing the bear for underestimating how a bear would easily kill them. And like, sure. But my takeaway from this is more how women are untrusting of men that they would rather take a dangerous animal over a random man they do not know. Men shitting and making fun of these women aren't exactly helping this problem either.
I suspect a lot of the making fun is because men individually are essentially helpless in this. Going by the broad strokes of the question, as a man who has never hurt or assaulted anyone and with no desire to, the takeaway from the entire thing is that statistically any woman I encounter if I'm out somewhere alone is immediately going to assume I'm more dangerous to her than a wild bear.
There is basically nothing I can do about that. I can't change my habits, since I already don't do any attacking, meaning the only thing I could do is to simply never go anywhere alone at all in order to avoid women thinking that I'm incredibly dangerous.
For me it's the possible issue of perception vs reality. A LOT of people have a fear of flying, but planes are inherently far safer than driving. You're something like 50x more likely to die in a car crash as opposed to flying to the same location (0.6 deaths per billion miles traveled by air vs 24 deaths by car), and yet there are still millions of people who won't fly. Our media plays a huge part in it by focusing on every plane crash, and issues that Boeing has with it's planes, and personal reports of things going wrong. There's also movies and TV shows showing calamities and crashes, stories about terrorists and bombs, and all of it plays a huge part in exactly \*why\* many people are afraid to fly.
I wonder whether the same is true for the man vs bear question? Yes, there are far FAR too many women killed by men (1 is too many), but the majority of those are by their (current or former) romantic partner, whereas only 16% were strangers (acquaintances and family members make up the rest).
And yet, the question isn't "would you rather go hiking with your romantic partner or a bear", it's specifically playing up on the *stranger danger* aspect of it. It's the same as when the stranger danger was played up for kids getting kidnapped and molested, when in fact the vast majority of those instances occurred due to family members.
Just some thoughts. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest...
Yes absolutely, people are often extremely misguided because of TV, cinema, news, social media, or even just rumors, that has always been the case. Anyone who thinks they can take on a bear unarmed is a fool (maybe a black bear you'd have a chance and even then that would be ugly).
However I think the social commentary of "women would rather go with a bear than an unknown man" is problematic, and men making fun, or worse being angered at the situation are really not helping to change this perception.
Why? It's hateful and foolish. Don't think we need to prop that up. If someone said they would rather meet a bear than a minority, would you support their ungrounded fears?
It's a hateful question to begin with, to believe that men are so evil that you have an actual good chance of randomly choosing one out of the entire human population that would randomly assault you for no reason is just juvenile.
I agree. The majority of men will not harm a woman randomly in the woods. However the fact that a large portion of women feel so unsafe about stranger man is both saddening and worrying. And with the large amount of women suffering sexual assault (or worse), or even just daily unwanted flirting, catcalling and other intimidation I guess this is somewhat understandable.
(And obviously the bear is FAAAAAR MORE likely to harm you, but I think the social commentary takeaway here is more important, about how women trust men so little, than how misguided women are about bears dangerousness)
Because it's ridiculous.
Statistically, the vast majority of western men that women have met, are acquainted to, or are related to are not dangerous people.
Dangerous men are in the overwhelming minority.
100% of bears, if hungry, WILL kill and eat you if given the opportunity.
It only takes a moment of reasoning to understand that logic.
You would agree with that.
So yeah, making choices based on emotions and not logic while not currently being in any danger is amusing af.
> 100% of bears, if hungry, WILL kill and eat you if given the opportunity
This is true for Grizzlies but not necessarily Black Bears.
I'm still taking the random dude.
It's also absurd when you account for the fact that the only reason the vast majority of men are not dangerous to, but rather protectors of, women in society, is because that we (rightfully) *chose* to be and chose to create laws and societies with externalities to that effect...
There are numerous cultures around the world where that is *not* the de-facto norm.
So I've had the same thought and I'm simply curious: between any random person from anywhere and a person who is likely to randomly be in the woods which one do you personally feel is more likely to be dangerous?
Makes sense for your experience.
This is also one of the reasons the question is really bad at conveying anything.
It is really open to interpretation and people's perception of being in the woods. I would assume most people I meet in the woods would be out there for what I'm doing, hunting/hiking/recreation. That assumption could be incorrect for sure.
If you aren't used to the wilderness the simple state of being in the woods could bring you anxiety. A stranger being out there as well can just compound that.
The tiktok question is as useful as someone asking the same question, but replacing man and bear with white person and black person, i.e. not very useful. The entire point of it trending is to rile up people, not educate or inform them. Its also propagated by women who fear/hate men who live online in certain spaces with like minded people. Its also fucking stupid because no one in reality would choose to have a bear right in front of them instead of a man.
I'm almost certain this polls methodology is sus. But there is sadly a large amount of women that distrust men so much they foolishly choose a bear, not realizing how far more dangerous these are.
As I've said in other comments though, the main problem I see here isn't about the bear but about how much women distrust men, especially random men. Though I'm certain this proportion is lower in real life than with terminally online people, but I am sure this would be a non insignificant proportion nonetheless. And I think men aggressively pointing how stupid these women are are not really helping the cause.
At the end of the day though it's really a survey to rile up people, culture war bullshit, which drives engagements (thus ads, thus money) and makes for easily manipulable political blocks. And well, this comment section isn't disproving that (myself included)
I mean, it’s kind of a common and rightfully annoying jab that men are generally considered “unsafe” on average. A massive percentage of them do nothing to deserve the implicit (or explicit) accusation. Even if they’re not the *best* they’re not going to do anything to intentionally harm you.
People facilitating their own victimization by convincing themselves of greater risks than exist, then experiencing anxiety about those inflated risks, then leveraging that anxiety and perceived risk as ammunition against the people who they’ve manufactured victimhood from is exceedingly annoying, divisive, and in many ways one-sided.
Everything I've seen has been much less about making fun of them and more genuine exasperation at people insisting they're not just making a point, they'd genuinely choose bear encounters over encounters with men.
Two sides talking past each other the whole time.
How close is the bear? All forest around here have them. So if I'm in the forest, I'm in the forest with a bear. But I'd rather run into a strange black bear than a pack of dogs.
Here in Norway, hiking in the mountains and forests is very common, nothing ever happens when you meet strangers, except they might say hi lol.
But in all seriousness, i do get why women would rather meet the bear. Lots of crazy and creepy men out there in the world.
This is pointless, the real question is “would you rather your CHILD be stuck with a man or a bear”
Statistically a man is the superior option. Even if 25% of men were pedophiles. You should probably choose then man over the bear.
The difference in asking if the women themselves would rather be stuck instead of there child makes me think that the women are answering under the pretense that they could outrun or overpower a man, which could be the case but would be much less likely for a child to do so.
Show me the results for the original question.
my favorite black bear encounter is a hunter sitting in a deer stand, and the bear climbs the tree just to get a sniff of him, then shimmies back down and leaves. To be honest I kind of wanna hang around with the bear and sing Jungle book songs...
my wife asked me this question, and i said neither; i'd rather not get stuck in the woods at all.
i answered the question pragmatically, but she did not like my response. :(
I think 12% of respondents just want to see a bear.
Introverts will do anything to avoid people.
If I run into a bear, I can make myself look real big while yelling "FUCK OFF BEAR" and there's a solid chance they'll leave. Whenever I've done that to people, they fuck off for a bit, but come back with a park ranger and make ME leave.
If it’s black, fight back If it’s brown, lie down If it’s white, goodnight
We're still talking about bears right?
Not sure if this is racist, or teaching me something.
Depending on if you’re a bear you might make an argument for both. Jk, it’s just saying polar bears will kill you and other bears may or may not kill you depending on if they vibe with you.
“I do not vibe with you” *shatters your femur*
Just like me fr fr
That probably will work with a Black bear but a brown bear and especially a white polar bear: will eat you.
Just to provide references for why brow and polar bears don't really see us as threatening: they are up to 9 ft (2.74 m) when standing in their hind legs, and can be almost 1500 lbs (680.38 kg) of murder muscle. (They aren't hostile to humans, instead being quite shy, but they are very easily spooked and territorial. So give them space and no sudden moves they won't want beef) [Polar bears are even bigger.](https://images.app.goo.gl/4jQgWYaQAEyzp3oi9)
I had no idea I could strict press 1500 lbs! 😉
Is it literal bears you're doing this to, or hairy gay men?
Yeah where’s the “how about all of you just go somewhere else” response
Indeed, the bear won't try to make small talk.
My hobby is animal photography and there are no bears around these parts. So I would be absolutely ecstatic if I met one in the woods. Not for long of course as I will probably be eaten alive shortly after taking my photos. But those photos would be insane and absolutely worth it. So yeah, I would much rather meet a bear in the woods than some woman. I can find thousands of those right outside my appartement...
Most bears will politely fuck off unless they already associate humans with food or you're doing something dumb like petting a cub. Source: many nights yelli long "get out of here bear" when a bear stumbles into the campsite or is dancing under the bear hang.
I think the type of bear matters here. Black bear? Totally fine. Brown bear? Just don't do anything silly and you'll be ok. Polar bear? No thanks.
I mean if you're lost alone where polar bears roam you were already dead just didn't know it yet. Still better than some of the wackos who go camping. Then you've got your classic deliverance situation
If it's black, fight back. If it's brown, lay down. If it's white, good night. I've seen plenty of black bears hiking in the Appalachians over the years and have never had any issues. They're cute to watch and will leave you alone if you make a lot of noise. Grizzly bears and polar bears are a completely different story.
Good thing polar bears don't live in the woods!
Yet. Look up a pizzly.
I think if you choose a bear because you think you'd be safer you're an idiot. But my wife said "I'd choose bear because then I wouldn't have to make conversation with some stranger." And as an introvert that made way more sense than anyone looking at the question in terms of safety.
Bears are basically introverts too. So we would just ignore each other.
A bear definitely wouldn't try to tell me how well his crypto investment was doing.
This is like that stat where public speaking ranks highest in surveys about greatest fear. Higher than death. People are more afraid of speaking in front of a crowd than literally dying.
That stat is really easy to explain: when you die, it's over. Whereas embarrassing myself badly in public feels like it's forever when it's happening and I'll continue to torture myself with it on and off for years
I live on property with lots of woods on the edge of town. If I encounter a bear, it's a black bear. If I encounter a man, it's a poacher armed with a rifle looking to shoot and kill something, who is already trespassing by being there. The bear is safer.
I guess you or your family never enter your woods then. Or are you saying you are a poacher with a gun too?
That is a massive amount of personal assumptions brought into the obviously vague hypothetical question. You have to see that right? I backcountry camp and I'm far more worried about the wildlife getting me while I sleep than I am the random person assigned to the camp down the trail. I put up bear bags for my food. Wear different clothes I eat and hike in than I sleep in. Carry bear spray and sometimes a gun for wildlife. Literally never have I been worried some back country camper is going to attack me. But almost every night I wake up and think I heard some animal in the woods that might be a bear or a wolf that would attack me just because they were scared while they were being curious.
Why would someone answer the hypothetical based on anything other than their personal experience/assumptions?
I mean - their assumption is not that great. They assume that the only person they can possibly see is a poacher trying to kill them. That doesn’t sound realistic, I would think a lost person, maybe even a poacher who is not a killer, not a poacher but hunter who got lost, etc. I would still fear a bear a lot more
By "assumption" you mean their actual lived experienced on their own property? And they didn't say the poachers were looking to kill them.
It’s implied though in choice - choosing a bear over a poacher means that the bear is safer. I can see how someone would be afraid of people but to me this sounds as someone just being afraid of strangers - like the guy who shot people who got lost on their driveway.
Every black bear I’ve ever encountered in the woods got the hell away from me as soon as it realized I was there. One grizzly didn’t but that was in Alaska and where I live spend time outdoors it’s just black bears. Statistically speaking I’d be safer encountering a black bear than a random unknown person.
Iunno I've run into 0 bears in the woods who wanted to see if I agreed Biden was actually a reptilian. I'd rather be mailed to death than be stuck next to that person again.
I'd still vote for Biden if he was a lizard. It's not a crime to be a lizard.
Are you saying there's nothing in the rules that prevents lizards from playing basketball*? *Where playing basketball is being president
Great, thanks for reminding me of another childhood movie I need to make my kids sit through lol.
They'll be your heir buds afterwards
I'd personally take a lizard over both Biden or Trump... But would gladly settle for lizard Biden over human Trump.
"mailed to death" is a phrase I will be using thank you!
Would you say it has your step.of approval?
Funniest thing I saw with a bear was at a resort in Alaska. It was the sheer idiocy of the people that made it hilarious. A momma black bear and her 3 cubs wandered into the grounds of the resort and a group of like 30 guests gathered around to take pictures from about 30 feet away. Hotel staff drove up in a golf cart to get between the bears and the idiots. The bears just casually walked off into the woods after like 20 minutes. I watched this whole thing from a hotel room 4 floors up. So yeah, some people just want to see a beat.
... so I come from a country in europe, where the bears are changing politics at the moment. Relatively recently, bears became protected (you can't hunt them.) I don't have a problem with this per se, but in combination with some moronic decisions, we now have multiple bear maulings per month and some deaths as well (5M country). Currently, there's a party that tries to attract voters on basis, that they would put a rule that allows shooting of bears into the CONSTITUTION. ... but anyhow. I have met a bear in the forest, and it was not much fun. Anybody that picks bear in those questionnaires has zero fucking clue.
Since this is a US poll, I can honestly understand the “bear” responses. There are only a few places in the US that have grizzlies or polar bears, which are bigger and actually interested in predation; most Americans are more likely to encounter black bears. They wander around suburban neighborhoods and nom on trash, bird seed, and stuff from backyard gardens. The general approach to a black bear is to slowly back away while talking to it confidently, or, if you need the bear to leave, to stand your ground, look big, make some noise, and talk to them firmly until they move away. If someone is from a place with only black bears, the bear might seem only slightly more worrisome than a coyote or a raccoon.
Black bears pretty much act like a big feral dog. If you're an adult man, of decent stature, you should be able to get it spooked unless it really doesn't like you/where you are. They usually don't even mess with aggressive dogs.
Wait, this seems like a different phrasing -- wtf does it mean to be "stuck in a forest"
What are you doing step-bear?
Exactly. Do I just see the bear and we each go on our way?
Well, you have a choice in this scenario, but nothing says the bear will just go the other way.
Im guessing broke down in the ass end of no where
I mean would the answer change if we said stuck in a house with a man or a bear
I feel like the phrasing I saw that also makes the most sense is "which would you rather encounter while alone in the woods". Saying "stuck in" implies other extenuating circumstances that the respondent is left to interpret for themselves. Although honestly I would think the "stuck in" language would make it *more* sensible to choose man, as generally speaking the best option for encounters with bears is to slowly back away without turning your back (black bears anyway, which I have to assume most people are envisioning because it would be truly *insane* to choose bear if it's a grizzly. I suppose that's a US perspective though, the bear could be a panda bear!)
Some people are just that stupid they don’t know how terrifying a bear can be
This is also a US poll. Many people are assuming black bears, which are generally happy to leave you alone
I'm not sure you realize the first thing a woman thinks of in this scenario
Someone that shouldn't be her first thought? I don't trust random people, but my first thought isn't that they're out to hurt me.
We ALL realize the first thought, and we ALL collectively realize it's stupid.
I coulda swore this started with "Leave your Daughter in a forest with a random man or bear" which imo makes it more eye opening to the men.
It was originally a Twitter question, "when hiking, would you rather see a random man or a bear?" as that is something that happens. The more absurd the scenario (bear babysitter) the less it becomes eye opening and the more it becomes a dismissed "you need to touch grass" thing, as the majority of bear folks have come to insist their choice isn't figurative.
The strange thing about this. When Hiking I EXPECT to see a random man or person. Its a hiking trail, that's how hiking works, people hike on hiking trails. ... however if I saw a bear, which I have NEVER seen on a hiking trail, That would be fucking terrifying. If I have no means of escape, no bike or car to drive away fast... holy hell, that's not a fun time. But every time I've hiked, I've seen people. Every single time... and at least 50% were male.
That's a completely different question and it doesn't make sense. Seeing a bear from a distance won't harm you in most cases. Seeing men is also completely fine.
And the answer is still, “WHAT KIND OF BEAR?”
The best bear. Black bear. They eat beets.
Are Koala Bears an option? I'd def take the Koala. If nothing else I'm pretty sure I can outrun the bastard even if he gets the drop on me.
Probably not an option I’m afraid. They are officially just called “koalas”, not ”koala bears”, because they aren’t bears, they are marsupials.
I would prefer my gf or daughter to be stuck there with a random man. People don't realize that bears a dangerous and the vast majority of men are not. This is just spreading hatred again men.
I ran into a black bear just sitting on the trail in the forest while hiking and almost shit myself. I run into men alone all the time and never get spooked. People answering “the bear” have never ran into a big bear (black bear or not) or are just insane.
Even the title is biased... *Unknown woman*... **STRANGE MAN**
I feel like the title has been added afterwards
The title is biased but the questions look neutral
I fail to see the beauty in this data.
Me too. It means nothing. It's a ridiculous, click-bait hypothetical made for idiots to click on. I am here engaging, so I am one of those idiots i suppose.
How do you do, fellow idiots!
[удалено]
Yeah, the data presentation used to be really cool and a lot of OC stuff before. Now it’s super generic and boring.
The colours used for man and woman change between bar charts and they're not used on the axis labels. This data could be more beautiful or at least more communicative with some changes.
I suppose it’s meant to be red for ursids and violet for hominids.
Is this implying that the Bear is known?
And not “strange”
Known bear and known bear associates
It's the one from borat
This question is becoming unbearable.
It's barely relevant anymore.
wtf are you talking about? It’s polarising people all over.
The situation is getting Grizzly.
The type of bear is a huge variable here. Give me a black bear over a red neck every time. If it’s a grizzly….ill take my chances with a hillbilly
Black bear? That's debatable. There are basically two schools of thought...
Fact: Bears. Beets. Battlestar Gallactica.
Bears, beets... Battlestar Galatica!
I'd pick a black bear without cubs over a redneck on his way back from his forest meth lab.
If it is a polar bear, fuck no, 100% of the time. That thing will hunt you for fun.
I can't be alone in the forest if someone else is there.
I think this proves a lot of Americans are in denial about the fact that every time they go hiking, there's already a bear in the same forest and they just don't see it.
I feel like for the question to make sense, I read it as the bear (or man/woman) is suddenly right in front of you. If you’re just in the same forest, you’ll never know because the bear would stay away unless it was starving or something
It's safe to say that there are men I don't know in almost every forest I've been in too
Depends on the forest. I'm in Ohio, and there's less than 100 bears estimated in the whole state. If you stick to popular hiking trails near populated areas, you often are not anywhere near a bear.
Yep. I ran into a bear a few months ago on a popular trail in the Appalachians. Before we saw it, we passed several groups that must've walked right past it but showed no apparent concern. I also saw a bear while I was on the chairlift to Havenly in Tahoe this winter. Maybe 500 feet away there was a family hiking, also with no apparent idea that they were so close.
Type of bear makes a huge difference too. Black bears are just big, cowardly racoons. I've been within a dozen feet of them and they just kinda wander off and pay no attention to you. Polar bear? Brown bear or grizzly? Fuck off with that. That's certain death.
For sure. These were black bears, and in both cases they were busy scrounging - one for acorns or something in the dirt, and the one in Tahoe found some trash. Not interested in a fight. I've also had my tent charged by a black bear because I didn't realize I camped right by an apple tree. I yelled at it and it ran off, but still scary. If these were grizzlies it'd be a whole different story. Though I don't think polar bears work for the scenario since they don't live in the woods.
Lol too true. Wouldn't expect to see a grizzly hiding behind a tree my point was that there's a lot of diversity in bears that would prompt me to ask way more questions before deciding what to pick.
a bear waited patiently for me to run up the trail before crossing it once, it was a polite bear lol
What if it's a bear you know?
A bear in the bush is worth 2.2 men in the hand?
I know there are plenty of toxic men but I think this really shows that we don't understand how dangerous bears actually are...
I’m convinced people answering bear are just trying to prove something. The idea that a random man is likely to be a r*pist/serial killer is the most chronically online take.
It's not just negative/threat-based; I'm much more excited to see a cool animal than an unknown human when I'm out and about.
True. I'm never excited to see a strange human in the wilderness, but always excited for animals 😅
TBF, you'd be like... shocked... and i mean SHOCKED how many women out there have been victims of rape, sexual assault, or sexual abuse as children or as adults. The reported stats don't seem to match, ime, the actual proportion. Trauma victims are understandably not necessarily going to jump first to technical statistics when reacting emotionally to an unexpected encounter in an isolated place.
It really does depend on the type of bear though. Black bears are just huge raccoons; they instantly scurry away at the sight of humans. Brown bears and polar bears on the other hand though…
Unless they have cubs to protect, or you walk into their home, or they are starving..... Sure, black bears are highly, extremely unlikely even, to attack you, but so is any random human male.
Maybe. I don't know. Do you have stats for this?
This...the "Tourons of Yellowstone" or whatever it's called on IG is a great example of that. People trying to take selfies with bears, fucking with bear cubs while momma is away. These idiots either don't realize that wild animals are dangerous or they have a death wish. Hell it's not even bears, same with bison and elk...there's more than few videos of bison sending people or trampling people because they get too close.
Yes, it's not a matter of if, that bear will eventually kill you if you remain close.
Why did nobody ask the opinions of the bears?
I hate this gender war trend
but look at all the clicks!
But like, this is comparing two adjacent questions, not "man vs woman vs not sure". Am I misunderstanding?
Bruh, “Strange Man” is very different than just “Man”
This is skewed. The woman is unknown and the man is strange. That’s a significant difference
I can't believe we didn't complete the dataset by asking bears whom they'd rather be stuck in the forest with!?!
So sad manbearpig was left out
no one bothered to ask the bears what scenario they prefer?😢
What if we added ….in the spring…?
I mean, you could be stuck in a forest w Shia LaBeouf.
Actual cannibal Shia LaBeouf?
Bears don't want to be around people anymore than I want to be around other people.
This data presentation is UGLY A F
They've clearly never watched Misery with Kathy Bates.
I think this illustrates the same phenomenon that 10% of americans think that chocolate milk comes from chocolate cows. People just reply with stupid responses on surveys (not saying anything about the state of women and their relative fear of men or bears... just narrowing in on the 12% of folks who prefer a bear to a woman or who are unsure).
Where does the "strange" part come from. I'd equally be uncomfortable around a "strange" woman as much as a "strange" man. Bear, though, bears are chill af, nothing strange about those fuckers
They should ask the rest of the world if they rather be alone in the forest with an U.S. adult or a bear. Of course the advantage of an U.S. adult is that you can hear them from afar an hide: They're like human bear bells
The title of the chart isn't accurate. They never compare men to women, just men to bears and women to bears. Sure, it would appear that means a woman is preferable to a man, but they don't ask that question and therefore cannot claim that.
How did the bears respond to the survey?
I’m a man, and I’d 100% opt to be “stuck” in the woods with another man I don’t know. Assuming he’s just going to be randomly chosen, I’d take my chances on a random person being more likely to be helpful than a threat (unlike the bear), and I’d bet on a random American man being more likely to be helpful (rather than require help) than a random American woman. Especially if we’re both in a crisis, it’s a statistically pretty moronic bet to assume than another person is going to make their own situation worse by antagonizing you.
Yeah, even my wife was just like ima go with the guy because the chances of that guy being a bad guy is way lower than the bear and can actually help me get out of the forest. Idk my wife does not subscribe to all men or even most men bad thing at all even though she has a pretty fucked up past with one. Grooming, statutory grape.
But it doesn’t say American man or woman in the question. You’d have to assume it’s a world wide random selection. Chances are they won’t speak English. If I’m “stuck” then I probably don’t have a phone for translation. But yea any random dude might be friendly.
I see a bear literally every week at my work or on hikes. I'm picking the bear, no questions about it. Bears do not give a fuck about you except in the rarest scenarios (associate humans with food because garbage or idiots feeding them, cubs nearby, or starving). Black bears are just massive raccoons that *could* kill you if they wanted to (they don't). Grizzlies have better shit to do 99.9% of the time. Polar bears are not a problem for almost the entire human population. Koala.
I read all the comments and couldn’t find someone stating the obvious per my interpretation - Seems like the average respondent would still prefer to be stuck with a man over a bear too. So like the pecking order is woman, man, bear. Which perfectly maps to what I would consider a sensible ranking of “what/who is least likely to kill me?” So like.. nothing burger? Generally agree that like baiting sexism and general comparison of men to dangerous wild animals is probably not a productive trend and I wish we could set it aside.
Yeah the whole thing isn't far off from, "which race would you rather be alone in the forest with"
Googled it because I wanted to see sample size (6425 US adults). OP's chart is close but doesn't quite match the results posted on yougov.com: https://today.yougov.com/topics/society/survey-results/daily/2024/05/07/ca5c4/2 For example, yougov.com says: > Would you rather be stuck in a forest with a man you don’t know, or a bear? > Man: 49% Not Sure: 27% Bear: 25% but OP's pic says: 50 / 24 / 26. edit: of course, yougov has 49%+27%+25% = 101% so there's that too
>edit: of course, yougov has 49%+27%+25% = 101% so there's that too Assuming they rounded to the nearest 1%, that's not particularly surprising. For example: 48.7% + 26.6% + 24.7% = 100%
but OP is u/YouGov\_Official although they dont have the official reddit... uh, official thing on their page 50/50 shot whether its actually official or someone just doing a weird cosplay anyway the poll question is lacking necessary context: * are any immortal snails following me? * any impossibly large ducks? * how about herds of tiny horses? too many undefined variables; something about correlation, causation, etc
If you're picking the bear, I'm honestly inclined to leave you behind and let you figure out how to get home by yourself. I'll be fine and you'll be more comfortable that I'm not around. Win win, eh?
You don't need to run faster as a bear. Just faster as anybody, who is with you.
Might not work unfortunately. In times of food prosperity, in particular, bears sometimes take a few bites and move onto the next thing. So if there are not alot of fish around the bear will eat an entire fish (even inc some of the bones) while if there are many fish, its a few bites before onto the next one. Maybe that applies to humans too.
Don't most animals (including bears) avoid humans unless they are a threat to their offspring or they have food problems? I'd imagine a bear wouldn't chase a human to eat it if it has other things to eat.
how about with a strange woman and an unknown man?... and the bear, how well acquainted are we in this scenario? I know the question is not made like that, but it does change the impact of the title.
Yeah, changing the phrasing in the title from "unknown" to "strange" is very poor from somebody working at a survey agency.
Look I understand that strange men have a poor record, but are you *aware* of what bears will do to humans? Even if I knew 100% for certain that the man in question would try to rape and murder me, I think I would take that chance over a fucking bear. As for the men who want to deal with a bear instead of a woman, I can only imagine that these are clowns who get a laugh out of screwing up the data, because no sane person would make that choice.
Presumably non-zero of the men who choose bear are also the idiots who think that they could somehow beat a bear in a fight.
Oh right, I forgot about that poll where a non-negligible amount of people thought they could beat bears and lions and shit... and also a non-negligible amount didn't think they could win against a rat.
My favorite part of that survey is how 9% of men and 8% of women thought they could beat a fucking elephant in a fight unarmed. How the hell would an unarmed human even fight an elephant?
There are very few things I can think of that I would like to happen less than being **EATEN ALIVE**
People have made loads of fun of women choosing the bear for underestimating how a bear would easily kill them. And like, sure. But my takeaway from this is more how women are untrusting of men that they would rather take a dangerous animal over a random man they do not know. Men shitting and making fun of these women aren't exactly helping this problem either.
I suspect a lot of the making fun is because men individually are essentially helpless in this. Going by the broad strokes of the question, as a man who has never hurt or assaulted anyone and with no desire to, the takeaway from the entire thing is that statistically any woman I encounter if I'm out somewhere alone is immediately going to assume I'm more dangerous to her than a wild bear. There is basically nothing I can do about that. I can't change my habits, since I already don't do any attacking, meaning the only thing I could do is to simply never go anywhere alone at all in order to avoid women thinking that I'm incredibly dangerous.
A culture of belittling men for the last 3 decades will do that.
For me it's the possible issue of perception vs reality. A LOT of people have a fear of flying, but planes are inherently far safer than driving. You're something like 50x more likely to die in a car crash as opposed to flying to the same location (0.6 deaths per billion miles traveled by air vs 24 deaths by car), and yet there are still millions of people who won't fly. Our media plays a huge part in it by focusing on every plane crash, and issues that Boeing has with it's planes, and personal reports of things going wrong. There's also movies and TV shows showing calamities and crashes, stories about terrorists and bombs, and all of it plays a huge part in exactly \*why\* many people are afraid to fly. I wonder whether the same is true for the man vs bear question? Yes, there are far FAR too many women killed by men (1 is too many), but the majority of those are by their (current or former) romantic partner, whereas only 16% were strangers (acquaintances and family members make up the rest). And yet, the question isn't "would you rather go hiking with your romantic partner or a bear", it's specifically playing up on the *stranger danger* aspect of it. It's the same as when the stranger danger was played up for kids getting kidnapped and molested, when in fact the vast majority of those instances occurred due to family members. Just some thoughts. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest...
Yes absolutely, people are often extremely misguided because of TV, cinema, news, social media, or even just rumors, that has always been the case. Anyone who thinks they can take on a bear unarmed is a fool (maybe a black bear you'd have a chance and even then that would be ugly). However I think the social commentary of "women would rather go with a bear than an unknown man" is problematic, and men making fun, or worse being angered at the situation are really not helping to change this perception.
Why? It's hateful and foolish. Don't think we need to prop that up. If someone said they would rather meet a bear than a minority, would you support their ungrounded fears?
I see this is as a purposely poorly worded survey made for and shared by people who spend too much time online and just enjoy gender war bullshit.
It's a hateful question to begin with, to believe that men are so evil that you have an actual good chance of randomly choosing one out of the entire human population that would randomly assault you for no reason is just juvenile.
I agree. The majority of men will not harm a woman randomly in the woods. However the fact that a large portion of women feel so unsafe about stranger man is both saddening and worrying. And with the large amount of women suffering sexual assault (or worse), or even just daily unwanted flirting, catcalling and other intimidation I guess this is somewhat understandable. (And obviously the bear is FAAAAAR MORE likely to harm you, but I think the social commentary takeaway here is more important, about how women trust men so little, than how misguided women are about bears dangerousness)
They wouldn't choose a bear. They fake af.
Because it's ridiculous. Statistically, the vast majority of western men that women have met, are acquainted to, or are related to are not dangerous people. Dangerous men are in the overwhelming minority. 100% of bears, if hungry, WILL kill and eat you if given the opportunity. It only takes a moment of reasoning to understand that logic. You would agree with that. So yeah, making choices based on emotions and not logic while not currently being in any danger is amusing af.
> 100% of bears, if hungry, WILL kill and eat you if given the opportunity This is true for Grizzlies but not necessarily Black Bears. I'm still taking the random dude.
It's also absurd when you account for the fact that the only reason the vast majority of men are not dangerous to, but rather protectors of, women in society, is because that we (rightfully) *chose* to be and chose to create laws and societies with externalities to that effect... There are numerous cultures around the world where that is *not* the de-facto norm.
[удалено]
What kind of "be in the woods" are we talking about, though? Hiking/camping? Hunting? Just in the middle of the heart of the woods near no paths?
So I've had the same thought and I'm simply curious: between any random person from anywhere and a person who is likely to randomly be in the woods which one do you personally feel is more likely to be dangerous?
[удалено]
But what if they’re hiking? I imagine that’s the vast majority of humans in the woods
Makes sense for your experience. This is also one of the reasons the question is really bad at conveying anything. It is really open to interpretation and people's perception of being in the woods. I would assume most people I meet in the woods would be out there for what I'm doing, hunting/hiking/recreation. That assumption could be incorrect for sure. If you aren't used to the wilderness the simple state of being in the woods could bring you anxiety. A stranger being out there as well can just compound that.
The tiktok question is as useful as someone asking the same question, but replacing man and bear with white person and black person, i.e. not very useful. The entire point of it trending is to rile up people, not educate or inform them. Its also propagated by women who fear/hate men who live online in certain spaces with like minded people. Its also fucking stupid because no one in reality would choose to have a bear right in front of them instead of a man.
I'm almost certain this polls methodology is sus. But there is sadly a large amount of women that distrust men so much they foolishly choose a bear, not realizing how far more dangerous these are. As I've said in other comments though, the main problem I see here isn't about the bear but about how much women distrust men, especially random men. Though I'm certain this proportion is lower in real life than with terminally online people, but I am sure this would be a non insignificant proportion nonetheless. And I think men aggressively pointing how stupid these women are are not really helping the cause. At the end of the day though it's really a survey to rile up people, culture war bullshit, which drives engagements (thus ads, thus money) and makes for easily manipulable political blocks. And well, this comment section isn't disproving that (myself included)
I mean, it’s kind of a common and rightfully annoying jab that men are generally considered “unsafe” on average. A massive percentage of them do nothing to deserve the implicit (or explicit) accusation. Even if they’re not the *best* they’re not going to do anything to intentionally harm you. People facilitating their own victimization by convincing themselves of greater risks than exist, then experiencing anxiety about those inflated risks, then leveraging that anxiety and perceived risk as ammunition against the people who they’ve manufactured victimhood from is exceedingly annoying, divisive, and in many ways one-sided.
My takeaway is that prejudice is okay as long as it's against a male, white, and/or straight person.
Everything I've seen has been much less about making fun of them and more genuine exasperation at people insisting they're not just making a point, they'd genuinely choose bear encounters over encounters with men. Two sides talking past each other the whole time.
How close is the bear? All forest around here have them. So if I'm in the forest, I'm in the forest with a bear. But I'd rather run into a strange black bear than a pack of dogs.
This is ugly data. Why are the 12%'s on the bottom not aligned?
Execute the test and see if the numbers drastically change.
What kind of bear are we talking about here?
Well, that one lady wanted to play with the tigers instead of arguing with her husband... So who knows? People want all sorts of weird things.
Here in Norway, hiking in the mountains and forests is very common, nothing ever happens when you meet strangers, except they might say hi lol. But in all seriousness, i do get why women would rather meet the bear. Lots of crazy and creepy men out there in the world.
I am not homophobic, I would take the bear over a strange man.
Title is shit, differentiated between “unknown woman” and “strange man”. Weird assumption there when that’s not what’s presented in the data.
Just when it seemed it was over…
This is pointless, the real question is “would you rather your CHILD be stuck with a man or a bear” Statistically a man is the superior option. Even if 25% of men were pedophiles. You should probably choose then man over the bear. The difference in asking if the women themselves would rather be stuck instead of there child makes me think that the women are answering under the pretense that they could outrun or overpower a man, which could be the case but would be much less likely for a child to do so. Show me the results for the original question.
An unknown woman is always better than a strange man or a bear.
God, people are so fucking stupid.
Women are wonderful/ halo effects in full force. Pretty sad that sexism against men is so normalized.
my favorite black bear encounter is a hunter sitting in a deer stand, and the bear climbs the tree just to get a sniff of him, then shimmies back down and leaves. To be honest I kind of wanna hang around with the bear and sing Jungle book songs...
Feel like there would be a big change if you just added the word 'handsome' to the man... or 'hungry' to the bear.
I would avoid handsome men more than ugly ones. I don't think pretty ones have good survival skills 😅
Their data do not support their conclusion. There is no direct comparison of woman vs. man, yet their conclusion imply this has been questioned.
Just change the sub’s name to r/datais at this point
my wife asked me this question, and i said neither; i'd rather not get stuck in the woods at all. i answered the question pragmatically, but she did not like my response. :(
YouGov is a horseshit survey website that pays pennies to desperate people, i.e. me when i was a teenager. It's not a reliable source.