The "Choosing a Bear vs a Man" videos opens up a can of worms about Modern Women

[FeverPitch2]

Women really popped their collars with this shyt although it is logically unsound.
Then they added the guilt trip caveat "well if I get attacked by a bear, I'll be believed!"
There are facts that people are going to have to normalize before a conversation can be had in good faith.

1) Women lie about sexual assault far more frequently than society would be comfortable with. You can't just point and someone gets carted off to prison.

2) Any allegation bears investigation. No matter what you report to the cops, the victim is the first line of questioning.
Why? Because the victim most likely will give the most valuable information because they were a first hand witness.
If I say my lawnmower was stolen, the cops will ask me questions.
If I say I lost my dog, the cops will ask me questions
If I say I was in a car accident, the cops will ask me questions
Hell, if I go to the hospital and say that my head hurts, the doctors will ask me questions.

Women read investigative questions as "not being believed".
Some women's extreme emotional sensitivity, need to be coddled, and lack of logical thinking put them in more danger than they can even imagine.
That's how you end up lost in the forest with a bear thinking that the odds are in your favor.

EDIT: A lot of you nikkas are creeps, weirdos, and demons.
The flaw of this "bear" logic does not absolve your behavior.
But realistically, somewhat normal men far outnumber you.
It's just the fact that a lot of you live your demonic creepiness out loud make it seems like there's more of you then there actually are.

 

[WIA20XX]

2) Any allegation bears investigation.

I see what you did there..

 

[Umoja]

In that very thread, when you finally "admitted" that you got it wrong, you reeled off a long list of excuses and basically blamed Meg for tricking you.

Instead of realizing that you have a long history of getting emotional in threads you perceive as "gender wars" and reflexively defending men who attack women.

I explained why I didn't believe Meg and I take no shame in that. Should I? The fact of the matter is drunk liars are not reliable witnesses.

I addressed your entire response point-by-point already, including the name-calling that you can't help throwing into every one of our ininteractions.

I missed it because you put in a separate post.

As if it's just "some people".

What gets more daps on here - demeaning posts about women in general, or posts that praise women in general?

If you say something sexist about all women, even severely, will moderators flag your post?

Am I saying this place isn't toxic? Or am I saying that you're relying on the toxic nature of this place to allow bad faith arguments to float.

Picture for a moment being around more moderate people, where you couldn't just laugh at them for being misogynistic when pointing out the holes in your position. Where would you go from there?

The scenario had nothing to do with being in a room full of bears or in a bear's den, it was about being in the woods where 99.9999% of bears mind there own business.

And yeah, I'd argue that most women feel safer in a room full of guys than alone with one strange guy, because in a room full of guys the random solo guy is less likely to try something.

Extrapolation. The specific scenario was encountering a stranger in the woods or encountering a bear. Picking a bear is a statement that you think the average man is more dangerous than the average bear.

If someone believes that the average man is more dangerous than a bear, there's a lot of behaviours you see day to day that just wouldn't exist. Going back to a strangers apartment after speaking to them for a couple of hours, getting wasted in an unfamiliar environment around strangers, staying out after certain hours.

That is the crux of the matter. If a man was walking down a path, most women would get on with their day even if their heart raced a bit. If a bear was on that path, they, like everyone else, would find a new path to walk.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

1. Apologies for the au study. I'll link to a justice department report.

Most violent crimes by strangers (70 percent) were committed against males,

That's a better source, not just because it's American but because it actually makes the right comparison, which your previous study's numbers did not.

So 70% of stranger crimes are against men, and 30% of stranger crimes are against women. How much of that do you believe is because men are at higher risk of being targeted, and how much do you believe is because women spend their entire lives being told to avoid situations where they might be vulnerable to strange men?


If you doubt that, then I'll ask you this. If you had a 15yo daughter who was going to walk her dog alone in the park at night, would you worry about her safety more or less than you would worry about your 15yo son doing the same thing?

2. The "case" for male victimhood in domestic violence was not related to the linked study. It is an academic discussion that is pretty well known, I thought you had already come across it. Didn't expect you to mistake a study about REPORTED victimization with a statement about UNREPORTED victimization

I can't tell from your flippant language whether you are purposely conflating crime report #'s with victimization surveys, or just straight confusing them.

The discussion of unreported victimization is usually in reference to crime reports. Crime victimizations surveys are considered far more accurate, because few people have motivation to lie about any serious crime in anonymous crime victimization surveys. That's why crime victimization surveys are considered to more fully cover the # of crime victims than crime reports are. And the #'s I quoted from your earlier link were from a crime victimization survey, not crime reports.

But I'm interested because you're pushing this point so hard. Do you seriously believe that men are the victims of any serious domestic violence more than women are? In terms of actually dangerous attacks, in terms of something they would have a legitimate reason to fear, do you really believe that occurs to men more often than women?

So men should choose the bear too right?

As I said before, I think the average man in the woods is far more likely to be attacked by another man than be attacked by a bear. But, as I also pointed out, the average man assumes he can hold his own against another man better than he can hold his own against a bear. Whereas the average woman assumes she's going to be overpowered either way, whether it is a man or a bear.

 

[br82186]

You wanna see fcckery, change the question to Man vs you staying on Snake/North Sentiel Island

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Am I saying this place isn't toxic? Or am I saying that you're relying on the toxic nature of this place to allow bad faith arguments to float.

I'm saying that even if you were totally unaware of how many women are given real-life reasons to fear men, then at very least you would have this forum to read and see why women have reason to fear.

You, personally, get far more angry and emotional when you're defending men who hate women than I've ever seen you defend women.

Picking a bear is a statement that you think the average man is more dangerous than the average bear.

Technically, the average man is FAR more dangerous than the average bear, which is why Americans kill ~50,000 bears a year but bears kill less than 1 American a year. So claiming that a bear is more dangerous than a man is kinda odd.

But one part you keep missing is that women don't fear the "average" man. Women don't think every man is out to get them. What they fear is not knowing whether that strange man is an "average" man, or whether he's one of the violent ones.

Let's say that only 1 in 100 men has a chance of being violent, sexual, or aggressive in some manner when alone in a secluded place with a woman. Even if 99% of men would not be that way, women would definitely still fear that 1% chance. Because even if the first man they run into is fine, and the second man they run into is fine, if they go about their lives with total disregard for what that 1 in 100 man might do, then sooner or later they're going to run into him.

I don't know if the real number is 1 in 100, or 1 in 50, or 1 in 200, or what. But the odds are closer to 1 in a million for being attacked by a random bear. So whatever the odds are with men, the odds with bears are better.

 

[Savvir]

That's a better source, not just because it's American but because it actually makes the right comparison, which your previous study's numbers did not.

So 70% of stranger crimes are against men, and 30% of stranger crimes are against women. How much of that do you believe is because men are at higher risk of being targeted, and how much do you believe is because women spend their entire lives being told to avoid situations where they might be vulnerable to strange men?

I mean we can go into how many men will pass up a potential assault on a woman because it will be more likely to be taken serious by authorities and lead to harsher sentencing/social consequences too... post some studies on the topic that you want to bolster your argument if you'd like...

but just asking for opinion on hypotheticals will just lead to useless discussion from both sides...

If you doubt that, then I'll ask you this. If you had a 15yo daughter who was going to walk her dog alone in the park at night, would you worry about her safety more or less than you would worry about your 15yo son doing the same thing?

what data have you read about on these scenarios?

can you link them.... ?

I can't tell from your flippant language whether you are purposely conflating crime report #'s with victimization surveys, or just straight confusing them.

The discussion of unreported victimization is usually in reference to crime reports. Crime victimizations surveys are considered far more accurate, because few people have motivation to lie about any serious crime in anonymous crime victimization surveys. That's why crime victimization surveys are considered to more fully cover the # of crime victims than crime reports are. And the #'s I quoted from your earlier link were from a crime victimization survey, not crime reports.

you didnt read this part of the second study i linked huh...

"This critical review of the literature explores how men understand and conceptualize experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization, and examines current knowledge about the gendered types, tactics, patterns, and impacts of IPV victimization in men. A key goal is to identify conceptual and empirical gaps related to IPV experienced by men and related research priorities"

cultural norms can affect how the victim themselves view their own victimaztion...
anonymous surveys not designed to draw out this distinction would overlook the issue im speaking on entirely...
but that's digging deeper into me posting studies and you just throwing out opinionated hypotheticals...
link some data that supports your viewpoint on the topic of male underreporting....

But I'm interested because you're pushing this point so hard. Do you seriously believe that men are the victims of any serious domestic violence more than women are? In terms of actually dangerous attacks, in terms of something they would have a legitimate reason to fear, do you really believe that occurs to men more often than women?

now we are discussing the severity of the violence the victims are receiving...


getting even further away from the point and obfuscating the issue itself

As I said before, I think the average man in the woods is far more likely to be attacked by another man than be attacked by a bear. But, as I also pointed out, the average man assumes he can hold his own against another man better than he can hold his own against a bear. Whereas the average woman assumes she's going to be overpowered either way, whether it is a man or a bear.

my initial post was about men choosing the bear too because they are more likely to be victims of violence...

then I had to post data to support that point...

then you started talking about domestic violence for some reason and this discussion went left and lost the initial direction...

should have just agreed with what i said and kept it moving...

 

[Professor Emeritus]

what data have you read about on these sacenarios?

There isn't going to be any relevant data on those scenarios, because the average 15yo girl is FAR less likely to go out in the dark in a dangerous area alone than the average 15yo boy is.

There's a good reason for that, and if it was your daughter's safety at stake rather than just you trying to win an internet discussion, you would act the same way.

"This critical review of the literature explores how men understand and conceptualize experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization, and examines current knowledge about the gendered types, tactics, patterns, and impacts of IPV victimization in men. A key goal is to identify conceptual and empirical gaps related to IPV experienced by men and related research priorities"

cultural norms can affect how the victim themselves view their own victimaztion...
anonymous surveys would not draw up this distinction...
but that's digging deeper into me posting studies and you just throwing out opinionated hypotheticals...
link some data that supports your viewpoint on the topic of male underreporting....

That would be relevant if we were talking about weak ass slaps or shyt. When we're talking about situations serious enough that death/maiming was on the cards, are you seriously going to try to excuse the clear #'s with bullshyt about "well the man might not have viewed it as victimization".

Try this - women are far more likely to die due to domestic violence than men are. Do you believe that's just "underreporting" too? And if female death due to domestic violence is much more common than male death, then why do you doubt that the same dynamic holds for severe injury? In fact, I'd bet anything the #'s are even more lopsided for severe injury, because death can come by shooting (which a woman can do as well as a man, even though they don't), but severe injury can come from beating alone, where men maintain a huge advantage.

now we are discussing the severity of the violence the victims are receiving...


getting even further away from the point and obfuscating the issue itself

You don't think the severity of violence plays a role in how afraid the victim will be?

Yeah, I'm sure you fear being slapped on the face by a woman just as much as a woman should fear being beaten unconscious by a man.

 

[Savvir]

There isn't going to be any relevant data on those scenarios, because the average 15yo girl is FAR less likely to go out in the dark in a dangerous area alone than the average 15yo boy is.

There's a good reason for that, and if it was your daughter's safety at stake rather than just you trying to win an internet discussion, you would act the same way.








That would be relevant if we were talking about weak ass slaps or shyt. When we're talking about situations serious enough that death/maiming was on the cards, are you seriously going to try to excuse the clear #'s with bullshyt about "well the man might not have viewed it as victimization".

Try this - women are far more likely to die due to domestic violence than men are. Do you believe that's just "underreporting" too? And if female death due to domestic violence is much more common than male death, then why do you doubt that the same dynamic holds for severe injury? In fact, I'd bet anything the #'s are even more lopsided for severe injury, because death can come by shooting (which a woman can do as well as a man, even though they don't), but severe injury can come from beating alone, where men maintain a huge advantage.







You don't think the severity of violence plays a role in how afraid the victim will be?

Yeah, I'm sure you fear being slapped on the face by a woman just as much as a woman should fear being beaten unconscious by a man.

First you want to argue against my statement that men are more likely to be victims of violence by trying to push the "but women are more likely to be victims of strangers"...

After I posted data to refute that... you switch to domestic violence...

then start to dig into the severity of the domestic violence....

etc etc....

you've just hopped further and further from the point....

not even trying to do any due diligence in providing data to support your hypotheticals...

c'mon breh, just go back... find the initial post i made that you replied to...

quote it again and agree with it...



you just trying to "win" at any cost... its a bad look

 

[Umoja]

I'm saying that even if you were totally unaware of how many women are given real-life reasons to fear men, then at very least you would have this forum to read and see why women have reason to fear.

You, personally, get far more angry and emotional when you're defending men who hate women than I've ever seen you defend women.

So now you've jumped to lying.

Is calling bullshyt on women saying they're more afraid of men than bears the same as as being unaware of the reasons why women are afraid of men?

I didn't think so.

This is the problem with the entire dialogue. People like you seeing it is an opportunity to act like you're the only person who recognises the issues in society by mischaracterising their position.

Technically, the average man is FAR more dangerous than the average bear, which is why Americans kill ~50,000 bears a year but bears kill less than 1 American a year. So claiming that a bear is more dangerous than a man is kinda odd.

What's odd is someone with enough sense to read and write putting forth that argument.

How often do people encounter bears? The last time I encountered a bear was in the zoo.

Human beings are making decisions each to just walk around bears. If someone walked up to a bear and got mauled to death, we would laugh at their stupidity because it would be see as a needless risk. If someone walked up to a random stranger and got mauled to death, their would be shock and outrage because it is not behavior typical of man. It is for that reason that human to human encounters are more common.

But one part you keep missing is that women don't fear the "average" man. Women don't think every man is out to get them. What they fear is not knowing whether that strange man is an "average" man, or whether he's one of the violent ones.

Let's say that only 1 in 100 men has a chance of being violent, sexual, or aggressive in some manner when alone in a secluded place with a woman. Even if 99% of men would not be that way, women would definitely still fear that 1% chance. Because even if the first man they run into is fine, and the second man they run into is fine, if they go about their lives with total disregard for what that 1 in 100 man might do, then sooner or later they're going to run into him.

I don't know if the real number is 1 in 100, or 1 in 50, or 1 in 200, or what. But the odds are closer to 1 in a million for being attacked by a random bear. So whatever the odds are with men, the odds with bears are better.

But the odds are not better with bears. This is why we live in this thing called civilisation. It is why you wouldn't think twice about leaving your home if a stranger was walking down the street, but you'd bolt your door shut if you saw a bear.

 

[ViShawn]

Women really popped their collars with this shyt although it is logically unsound.
Then they added the guilt trip caveat "well if I get attacked by a bear, I'll be believed!"
There are facts that people are going to have to normalize before a conversation can be had in good faith.

1) Women lie about sexual assault far more frequently than society would be comfortable with. You can't just point and someone gets carted off to prison.

2) Any allegation bears investigation. No matter what you report to the cops, the victim is the first line of questioning.
Why? Because the victim most likely will give the most valuable information because they were a first hand witness.
If I say my lawnmower was stolen, the cops will ask me questions.
If I say I lost my dog, the cops will ask me questions
If I say I was in a car accident, the cops will ask me questions
Hell, if I go to the hospital and say that my head hurts, the doctors will ask me questions.

Women read investigative questions as "not being believed".
Some women's extreme emotional sensitivity, need to be coddled, and lack of logical thinking put them in more danger than they can even imagine.
That's how you end up lost in the forest with a bear thinking that the odds are in your favor.

EDIT: A lot of you nikkas are creeps, weirdos, and demons.
The flaw of this "bear" logic does not absolve your behavior.
But realistically, somewhat normal men far outnumber you.
It's just the fact that a lot of you live your demonic creepiness out loud make it seems like there's more of you then there actually are.

A lot of these dumbasses don't understand why we have DUE PROCESS and innocent until proven guilty in this country. Too many race riots, lynching of black men etc all because a white bytch accused him of raping her. This bear shyt makes me want to be a misogynist lol

 

[banner34]

Most of these women are probably miserable and single

 

[Professor Emeritus]

you just trying to "win" at any cost... its a bad look

The lack of self-awareness here is wild. You either have no idea what is going on or you're a compulsive liar.

First you want to argue against my statement that men are more likely to be victims of violence by trying to push the "but women are more likely to be victims of strangers"...

After I posted data to refute that... you switch to domestic violence...

You're so full of shyt.

Your initial claim was that men were more likely to be victimized by other men than women were..

In my VERY FIRST POST to refute that, I quoted the domestic violence stats as well as the sexual assault stats. I didn't "switch it up" at all, it was my FIRST argument because you said violence in general.

YOU are the one who tried to argue against that by switching it to "victims of strangers", even though that wasn't your initial claim at all.

You literally accused me of the exact thing you did.

then start to dig into the severity of the domestic violence....

etc etc....

you've just hopped further and further from the point....

Your initial claim was "men are more likely to suffer violence at the hands of men", which was objectively false. I don't think you even realize that your whiny attempt to weasel your way out with "But domestic violence against men is underreported!" doesn't even help your case, because that would mostly be violence at the hands of WOMEN, and your initial false claim was that men were more likely to suffer violence at the hands of MEN than women were, which is why they should be afraid of a MAN in the woods, not a woman.

You're the one who tried to say "but but we're talking about strangers in the woods, not domestic violence", which simultaneously trying to argue, "But women slap men too!" So you simultaneously want to divert the argument to what "really" matters, while arguing random shyt that doesn't matter at all. The fact that some women slap their partners too has NOTHING to do with the conversation, because 90% of men aren't the least bit afraid of getting hit by women, and fear is the actual discussion.

So who was hopping "further and further from the point", the person who correctly proved your claims wrong about who suffers more violence from men were wrong, or the person who literally tried to start counting hypothetical "unreported" slaps from a wife to a husband as a means to explain why the data wasn't supporting his case?

not even trying to do any due diligence in providing data to support your hypotheticals...

YOU are the one who made the hypothetical claim that women commit more domestic violence than men, even though the crime reports and victimization surveys both say the opposite.

c'mon breh, just go back... find the initial post i made that you replied to...

quote it again and agree with it...

Are you serious?

Here it is:

A man is MUCH more likely to be assaulted/murdered by a man than a woman is...

BY A MAN.

Now do you realize that all your caveats about "unreported domestic violence" had nothing at all to do with what we were arguing about?

 

[Amare's Right Hook]

Most of these women are probably miserable and single

Quite possibly

 

[Savvir]

Your initial claim was "men are more likely to suffer violence at the hands of men", which was objectively false.

Wow you really went on a long tangent.

Let’s just stick to the original point, I’m not gonna go back and requote everything again.

Please post your source for the above statement.