I'm really confused by the conversation about the Bear thing.

Surely the point is to illustrate perceived risk. It's essentially irrelevant whether a bear is actually more or less dangerous than a man. It's about the idea that, seemingly, many women perceive a lone man in the woods as more dangerous than a lone bear in the woods. Just as most men would perceive the bear as obviously the more risky. (The reality is that statistically neither is terribly dangerous.)

And, yeah. Not all men.  And not all women either. I suspect it's flavoured by experience as much as anything else. (Goober's comment about women feeling scared walking home at night, made me smile - purely because my wife thinks absolutely nothing of walking around the worst bits of Leeds on her own, whereas I get nervous going for a stroll at midnight in our relatively small town.  The difference being that nothing has ever happened to her, whereas I have been attacked for no good reason by random blokes in the street on more than one occasion - the perils of being ginger.)

If a woman tells you she thinks a bear is safer than a man it's probably because experience has made her utterly terrified of men - that lots of women seemingly share that view ought to be a reason for reflection, rather than going "don't they know how fucking dangerous bears are?"  

And, yes, most men know that women find men frightening.  But I'm not sure most of us really get how pervasive that is, or how that feels.  The outrage we feel at someone saying they think men are scarier than bears is a really short sharp way of ramming that home. It's a measure of the trauma caused - that it makes no sense to the rest of us is literally the point.

The fact that it turns into a discussion about how dangerous bears are and how women must de stupid to think they're safer with a bear etc is the reason it's not a great way to get the message across. Add that to Tik Tok, Twitter etc and the result is anger and entrenchment. Not the most useful result.

Kow wrote:

The fact that it turns into a discussion about how dangerous bears are and how women must de stupid to think they're safer with a bear etc is the reason it's not a great way to get the message across. Add that to Tik Tok, Twitter etc and the result is anger and entrenchment. Not the most useful result.

I agree that’s not the most useful result but I think It’s men who turn it into a discussion about how dangerous bears are etc. Not social media. Men.

poprock wrote:

Kow wrote:

The fact that it turns into a discussion about how dangerous bears are and how women must de stupid to think they're safer with a bear etc is the reason it's not a great way to get the message across. Add that to Tik Tok, Twitter etc and the result is anger and entrenchment. Not the most useful result.

I agree that’s not the most useful result but I think It’s men who turn it into a discussion about how dangerous bears are etc. Not social media. Men.

The question is about which is more dangerous. Again, it's weird to expect anyone of any sex to completely ignore one of the options just to stay on point with the intended message. And that's assuming the intended message isn't just "men bad"

Go on then, enlighten me. What's the question about?

Paws for thought experiment.

I think folk are just bored of the chat. We’ve all made our points and people disagree. World still turns.

RedDave2 wrote:

Moot_Geeza wrote:

Paws for thought experiment.

The results are bearly credible and the typical polarising comments on social media reveal some grizzly thoughts from some people.

best not to panda to the clickbait.

I suppose it has run its course when we get to the point where people are suggesting that the original question wasn't about the inherent dangers of encountering two things while stuck in the woods.

Or that BLOODY MEN have somehow changed the meaning of the question by answering it fairly.

By that stage it's gone hasn't it?

LivDiv wrote:

RedDave2 wrote:

Moot_Geeza wrote:

Paws for thought experiment.

The results are bearly credible and the typical polarising comments on social media reveal some grizzly thoughts from some people.

best not to panda to the clickbait.

No, I meant what I said, thanks. They're not even mutually exclusive terms. I get the feeling that people don't like what I'm saying but can't argue against it, so we end up in pedant's corner.

Unless you feel the "fucking things up" characteristic is not inherently present in either bears or men?

Here's Andy in pedant's corner again.

Splitting hairs over perceived risk and danger as if they not part of the same thing when considering this question. Dear me. Surely you've done a risk assessment in your line of work?

I am sorry that asking you a question is being perceived as aggressive though. I just prefer to be direct and honest instead of the passive aggressive shite you're up to

Paul the sparky wrote:

Here's Andy in pedant's corner again. Splitting hairs over perceived risk and danger as if they not part of the same thing when considering this question. Dear me. Surely you've done a risk assessment in your line of work?

Do you think that the women answering this were doing a risk assessment?

djchump wrote:

Dude.

What did people think about the time Andrew Tate came out with that "would you rather have a male or female pilot" bullshit? I saw straight through it as misogynistic nonsense, and the guys that lapped it up and said they'd never fly if a woman had the sticks were cut from the same arse hole cloth.

This daft question is on similar lines. It's like someone took a page from this twat's book and reversed the roles in an effort to take a shot at men. Except it's even more stupid, because there's a bear involved.

On the Tate one, I'd answer that I don't give a fuck about the pilot as long as they're qualified. The way this thread is going, if men were to say I don't want a woman because some of them can't even park a car in a parking space, you'd have their back? Even if someone said "but loads of men are shite, unsafe drivers", you'd say it's not about the man (substitute the man for a bear if we want to get really daft)? That men are right to ignore the other option, because their feelings on women are perfectly justified. It's not about the ability to fly a plane. Tate was right to open up the discussion etc.

Fucking lol