You’ve likely heard of the “Bear or Man?” Test
If you were alone in the woods, would you rather come across a bear, or a man?
It’s been taking social media by storm, and women overwhelmingly have answered “bear”, which has made many men angry.
The reasons women have given have been varied and extremely numerous, but some of the best answers I’ve seen are:
- A bear doesn’t deliberately want to hurt you
- A bear won’t lock you in a basement for three years
- With a bear at least it will be over with quickly
- If I’m attacked by a bear, no one will ask if I wanted it
- If I’m attacked by a bear, people will believe me
Many men have been highly offended by this, and done social media posts about how terrible women are for assuming they’re bad guys. But the problem is that women can’t tell who is a bad guy and who is not, and so we have to assume that everyone is bad.
The guys that get this understand the task: Empathize that women live constantly evaluating danger, and teach other men to not be dangerous, and make the world safer for women.
The men who are protesting kind of prove women’s point.
One of the most interesting TikToks I saw was a guy who was asked, “would you rather your daughter came across a man or a bear?” He asked a ton of qualifying questions, and his wife kept saying, “no, that’s all the information you have. Bear or man?” Eventually the guy agreed it would be bear. So then she asked, “woman or bear?” And he said, “Oh, woman! Absolutely.”
We’re finishing up Season 7 of the Bare Marriage podcast tomorrow.
Keith and I are working on the edits of our new marriage book The Marriage You Want which are due next week.
And then, after that, we’re taking a two week vacation.
So the podcast and blog will be taking a break for the month of May (though we may run some of Rebecca’s awesome Friday emails that go out to subscribers! You really should sign up, so that you’ll also be notified if I’m ever in your area and speaking near you!).
We’re wrapping up season 7 by reflecting back on our first episodes in January–Let Men Be Men
And tomorrow we’ll be looking at the concept of the Alpha Male, which we see evidenced in evangelical Christianity, like that ridiculous Stronger Men’s conference with Mark Driscoll earlier in April.
For some reason, many conservative evangelical male influencers are insistent that men are supposed to be dangerous, and that they’re not supposed to be safe. (And yet these are the same guys upset at women for choosing the bear).
Listen to this quote from Greg Morse that Keith is using in tomorrow’s episode:
Today’s “virtuous man” is depicted as much more virtue than man. He is compliant, deferential, and soft. He is nice. He works his job, pays his taxes, keeps his head down, and avoids scandal and, by all means, anything that could be called “abuse.” He is safe, but not much more.
Look at the disdain he has for men who don’t have even a hint of “abuse.” He thinks that’s somehow wrong, unChristlike, to not appear at least a little abusive.
And then you wonder why women choose bears!
That’s really been a theme of Season 7 of the podcast: What is Christian masculinity?
Because we believe that men can be strong, capable, engaged partners with their wives without needing to have a hint of abuse. We believe men can be good. We believe that men can be emotionally healthy. We believe that men can be safe.
And yet this is not what so many Christian men (like Mark Driscoll) teach. Instead, they portray men as unable to resist temptation; unable to connect emotionally but only sexually; unable to see a woman as a whole person; unable to be an emotionally available dad.
It is not us who have a low view of men; it is them.
And at the same time they tell women that it is unsubmissive to confront men about bad behavior, so with this teaching, men are allowed to be emotionally stunted and get out of being responsible, but at the same time can never be held accountable. It’s just so wrong.
We opened up this season with these podcasts that showed this vividly:
- Let Men Be Men: Because We Believe Men Are Great
- Why Is Emerson Eggerichs Afraid of Women Talking?
- Let Men Be Dads: Because Men Can Be Awesome Dads
We had a podcast looking at how it appears that women who give marriage advice in evangelical conservative circles are more likely to be abused–and would you even want the kind of marriage they’re promoting?
We can do better than this!
Then we had some more podcasts looking at what happens when men aren’t emotionally secure or aware:
Keith and I addressed the critique that we’re creating a strawman out of complementarianism, and that complementarianism isn’t actually that bad (nope, the data is actually quite clear on this).
We looked at the ridiculous and offensive wedding night advice that Josh Howerton gave from the pulpit (“stand where he wants you to stand, do what he wants you to do”) and why this contributes to worse sex for couples, but also creates men who don’t grow emotionally:
And then, tomorrow, we’re wrapping up with what the research says about Alpha Males, and why the church has got this wrong.
These podcasts show why evangelical women pick bears.
But here’s the thing: I believe that women would have felt very safe around Paul and the apostles, and of course around Jesus (after all, women WERE alone with Him and they felt seen and heard.)
We need to change the way the evangelical church talks about what masculinity and manhood looks like, because what we’re doing isn’t working.
Last week I did a bit of a speaking tour through Atlanta and Dallas/Fort Worth, and it was so encouraging.
I met youth pastors and pastors who were committed to doing this well. I met people whose lives were changed because of our books. And they all said the same thing: Things are changing. Aslan is on the move. Health is coming.
So let’s keep speaking up. Let’s reject this very low view of men that the evangelical world often promotes, and be firm that we believe that men can be safe, emotionally healthy, strong, and responsible.
Because they can.
Men are great.
So don’t sell men short by teaching all this ridiculous stuff. It really is that easy.
What about you? Would you choose man or bear? And is there a podcast about men in the church that stands out to you this season? Let’s talk in the comments!
I was told by someone that only x% (I don’t remember the exact statistic, but it was small) of the population commits violent crimes and that when when women choose the bear, they are making emotionally driven irrational decisions and that makes them delusional. The argument was that the risk of a bear is greater than the statistical likelyhood that random dude is a violent criminal.I tried to explain the reasons why some women choose the bear and it was disregarded as irrational. When I brought up men who support what some women have said, I was told they are “soy boys.”
That reminds me of the “Poisoned M&Ms” analogy. Imagine you went to a party and saw a bowl of M&Ms, but the host said “10% of these M&Ms are poisonous, but don’t worry, the rest are totally safe to eat! Oh, but there’s no way to easily tell which ones are poisoned and which are safe at a glance. Enjoy!” You’d be forgiven for not being eager to blithely eat anything from the M&Ms bowl wouldn’t you? Or would you expect people to tell you that you’re just being overdramatic because, after all, “Not all M&Ms” are poison?
If you told me that as I was eating my meal that their was a possibility I would get food poisoning and it was shown that it was a serious threat I would not trust that chef because he violated an unspoken rule that he respects my safety as his patron eating his food.
In the same way if a chef was told that I poisoned one of his knives that chef would be wildly irresponsible to use them and I would go to jail for attempted murder if I actually did poison them and I could still go to jail even if I didn’t for the disturbance of the peace.
You have a solid point.
Got to love it when men wheel out the ‘you are being irrational’ argument to condemn any woman who dares disagree with them.
It doesn’t matter what percentage of the population commit violent crimes if YOU meet someone who is part of that percentage. Likewise, it doesn’t matter what percentage of bears kill humans unprovoked if YOU meet one of those bears.
And I bet no woman ever, on the receiving end of male violence, has found it comforting to remember that her attacker is actually part of a very small percentage of the overall population…
I’d have to ask that person if it was really irrational to go with the more predictable factor, instead of playing the percentage roulette…
That response erroneously assumes that a man in the woods is a statistically average man.
I would assume that a man hanging around a wooded trail, waiting for a woman hiker, is far more likely (in a statistical probability sense) to be violent criminal than a dad who is spending the day coaching his daughter’s softball team. So from a purely statistical sense, we would not compare “average bear” and “average man;” we would compare “average bear in its natural habitat” to “men who like hanging around deserted woods, waiting for women hikers to come along.”
Your response is making assumptions as well – you’re assuming it’s a trail and that he is deliberately waiting for a woman to come along who is alone, when that isn’t the scenario given.
I assumed it was someone hiking, hunting, doing photography, etc. when I picture the question. And if I’m lost, they can give directions or tell me how much longer the trail is, or where the outlook point is, etc.
That doesn’t make anyone’s answers wrong, of course, and it’s sad experience has made too many women not feel safe picking another human. But we all answer the question based on a combination of experience and how we imagined the scenario when asked,
Maybe he’s hiking. Maybe he’s pretending to be hiking because that makes it more plausible for him to be out there. Maybe he intended on going for a hike but is an opportunistic rapist.
Regardless, he’s already positioned himself into a different camp than “the average man,” and in a scenario far from the way we normally encounter unknown men (ie public places).
That’s part of a real risk assessment.
I agree there is a risk assessment involved. My point was merely that we all are making assumptions about what this situation actually is in the first place. Statistically most are hurt by someone they know. That doesn’t mean anyone is wrong to pick anything other than what they pick, but a person alone would also be more help in an emergency than if you found yourself in trouble with more people around.
But again, my point was not actually to debate the scenario, but to point out we all make assumptions about what is happening in the scenario in the first place, as you did when you said you need to compare the risk of an average bear hurting you with someone who was “waiting for women hikers to come along” (in which case, it should be compared to a hungry bear specifically instead of an average bear), and I made assumptions too when I assumed they were merely the average joe enjoying the outdoors.
Rune, that’s not how it works. Sorry you appeared to have missed the point.
Rune, there is a difference between making assumptions and assessing risk based on probability. I won’t assume that a man means evil just because he is someone I meet on a hiking trail, but I will keep in mind that statistically, he may or may not be “just a hiker.” No assumptions involved, just assessment of possibilities.
I mean…not all bears are violent either. Most black bears will go their own way and leave you alone. It’s not like 100% of bears will hurt you!
I am a woman who hikes alone and have backpacked alone and in both I have come across situations I felt scared of a bear and scared of men. There was no attack, and no clear evidence there would be harm, but for both the fear for my safety was real and I had to take smart steps to protect myself. I don’t think man has to “win” this contest for men to have empathy that women feel unsafe and have too many examples in which men were untrustworthy. Not only are there examples of men being untrustworthy and unsafe, but we also live in a society where we know they can get away with it. The knowledge that there are good men does not give us the luxury of guessing that every man is safe.
What Christy said. I almost always hike alone and often in isolated areas. Bears and men are a risk.
I suppose if forced to answer, I’d prefer to meet a bear because animals tend to be more predicable than humans and tend to give warning signs of attack. Humans are just plain unpredictable and really good at hiding their intent.
But really, both are risks and also both can be as safe as a possible threat can be.
Given the different innate natures of an animal and a human, the question is too flawed to have more value than a conversation starter that all parties admit is not grounded in reality.
I guess the point is that bears just do what bears do – they don’t have any moral worldview that tells them they shouldn’t hurt humans, so if they want to hurt you, they will. But humans should have that moral worldview. So if people were living as they should, NO ONE should answer ‘bear’.
I think it’s also interesting to see the reactions that this kind of question raises, because after all, it’s a fake situation (no one is ever going to really be given that kind of choice in real life). I saw one comment that said something like “even when it’s a hypothetical question, men still won’t taken a woman’s ‘no’ as her answer”.
And the person who said that isn’t wrong!
Bear every time. Not because I don’t believe it’s possible for men to be good – I was privileged to know many good guys growing up – but because it isn’t possible to tell from external appearance if someone is safe or not. And at least if a bear is unsafe, it will be over quickly. I won’t have to spend the rest of my life being blamed for ‘causing’ myself to be attacked.
That Greg Morse quote reminds me of the “God designed men to be dangerous” poison that the Eldredges churn out. Eldredge claims that “aggression is part of the masculine design.” He encourages women to be attracted to men who are dangerous “in a good way” and claims that only damaged women prefer non-aggressive men… Seriously, with garbage like this being promoted in churches, is it any wonder so many people are in a mess?
There was a dating book I read by the DiMarcos years ago and they suggested that women should not date “nice guys” because they don’t take initiative in “leading” the relationship and don’t women just love a little bit of danger? This book was called Marriable. I read it years ago and it just did not sit well with me. If men are supposed to be a bit jerky and dangerous, why would I even want to marry them? The DiMarcos were definitely along the lines of the Eldreges.
I’ve heard a lot of terrible things about that book!
I’d love it if you could do some ‘fixed it for yous’ on the Eldredge’s books. Especially the stuff that encourages women to marry guys who are “dangerous…in a good way”. Because that is dangerous in a very, very BAD way!
Also another good fix it for you should be counteracting the Eldreges who insist that every little girl dreams of being rescued by a prince and every little boy dreams of adventure and being the rescuer.
Yes – and one of the most dangerous aspects is the way Eldredge continually insists that ALL women think this way and if any woman says she doesn’t,, then she’s obviously been too damaged to realise the truth that she really DOES think that way.
It’s concerning to read reviews of their books by men who say that ‘now I understand women and what they want’. Um…you really don’t. You understand what a very small section of the female population are like. Many of whom have probably been conned into believing that they have to be that way, because that is what ‘real’ women are like…
If they want to write books that say women can have princess fantasies and men can love hunting and camping and still be good Christians, I’d have no trouble with it. My issue with their books is they use super dodgy ‘theology’ (so called) and personal experience to dictate that this is how ALL men and women should be.
Confession: I borrowed the Eldridge book to men years ago from my church’s library… I wrote notes in the margins in the worst/absolutes’ places so the next reader might know how wrong parts of it were. I don’t feel bad about marring a book in that way!
What the heck is “dangerous in a *good* way,” anyhow? Dangerous is dangerous, y’all, and it’s not something we deliberately chase in relationships!
I have some thoughts on this.
I got my username from Metal Gear. That series has a famous dialouge you can find it easily that goes like this.
Otacon- I just want to know if even soldiers fall in love. Can love bloom even on a battlefield?
Snake-Yes. I believe that people anywhere can find it within themselves to fall in love, but if you love someone you need to be able to protect them.
I think a lot of men can respect that sentiment that one must be capable of standing up for themselves and their lived ones.
Paul says that one who doesn’t provide for their family is worse than an unbeliever and on this site you have talked about how that also relates to abuse.
I think a lot of men might be upset that you chose a bear because for as violent as a bear can be and for as violent as men can be you don’t see bears doing things like what your own husband Keith would do Mrs Sheila which is be your friend. Bears are majestic animals but you don’t see a bear laughing about how well you can get along outside of storybooks.
I can’t fault women though. Some days I feel like I would be safer meeting a bear than a man or woman. A bear and it’s intentions are simple people on the other hand are anything but simple.
You mentioned bears being simple, and I think there’s something to that…
There are prescribed actions to take when one encounters a bear. It’s pretty straightforward, and the info is essentially the same regardless of which source provided the info.
With evangelical teachings on marriage, etc., there is SO much ambiguity, so much subjectivity! Say it “softer.” Don’t “provoke” him (with no clarification of what is provocating.) If you are respectful “enough,” he won’t have any reason to bother you. But when the target (respectful enough) is a moving target based on factors that you cannot know, it feels impossible.
Better the enemy that you know than the one that you do not. And while I hate to lump men into an “enemy” camp for this example, having no other factors to base it upon, that’s the best many of us can do.
I wish men could fully process how telling it is that so many women DO have experiences *with men* that make choosing the bear a very real, valid choice, instead of turning it into how *they* are the ones hurt. In a way, it’s a form of DARVO.
(BTW, Codec, I hope you know I’m not lumping you into this just because I replied to you- I just fully agree that, “A bear and it’s intentions are simple.”)
I don’t fault you at all.
It’s not even a modern thing. If you look back over history, especially of how people tend act when they have little over site, even men should be choosing the bear over another man. Especially in a scenario where you would probably be encountering them with no other people around. Humans can be in love with cruelty in a way that no bear ever is (even as brutal as bears can be). Always remember that violent p**n is popular…. At least bears are relatively predictable.
You make a very good point actually.
Ever heard of the man eating lions of Savo? They killed hundreds of people but they didn’t do so out of a thirst to kill but because they couldn’t hunt their normal prey.
We don’t call a hippo a murderer in any serious way even though hippos kill around 500 people every year. Why? Hippos don’t have Mens Rea or Mea Culpa they don’t have evil intent they are animals.
Humans however we have distinctions about killing because we humans have a capacity for understanding both evil and injustice. It is why we have laws about justifiable homicide.
I think the original discussion was “armed man vs bear”, but either way, here’s my take.
If anyone reading this finds this argument ridiculous because you can’t imagine why anyone would say bear, try this: pull up your local sex offender registry and see how many men are listed on it in a five mile radius of your home. Okay, now look at that number. Are there an equal number of bears with a history of harming women in a five mile radius? How often do bears make the news for harming women?
Statistically, most women already know which of the two if encountered alone in the woods is more likely to be dangerous to them. I walked outside to find a bear in my yard a couple years back. It did no harm, and I found it less alarming than I would have an unknown armed man in my backyard, especially since I have young daughters.
No, not all men. Not even close to all men. But men who do not understand this, may be men contributing to the problem.
Fellas, women expect bears to be dangerous. We know that. They’re wild animals.
What women don’t know is **which** men are dangerous. We know that not all of them are, but unfortunately, the real world isn’t Inglourious Basterds where the bad guys have an obvious “I’m a bad guy” symbol cut into their foreheads. Or like Left Ear meeting Skinny Pete in The Italian Job. Left Ear was right to be afraid of Skinny Pete, don’t you think? Wouldn’t YOU be if you met Skinny Pete, well, anywhere, really, and especially if you were alone?
For all the man-talk about men needing to be protectors of women, exactly whom are men expecting to protect women from? Um, that would be **those**men.
So, guys, why don’t you police **those** men among you instead of getting upset at women for making a realistic assessment of the world women live in?
Yes. And no one is going to condemn me for taking evasive action if I see a bear approaching me in a wood. Whereas if I take evasive action to avoid a man and he spots me, the fact that I am trying to avoid him could make him even more likely to attack. But if I don’t take evasive action and get attacked, it is my fault for not taking evasive action. So I can’t win.
I used to walk my dog regularly in a rural area. If I saw a strange man approaching in the distance, I would take a different path if I could, not because I assumed he was dangerous, but because I couldn’t assume he was safe. It was scary the number of times the guy would call after me and sometimes even follow me to tell me he was offended that I’d taken a route that didn’t go past him because it looked like I didn’t trust him… Like him being offended by a random woman choosing to not walk next to him in an isolated location was far more important than me being anxious I might be about to be murdered by a totally strange man…
That those men WERE offended by that makes me feel they were even more dangerous. If a man noticed you avoided him and said nothing, I’d think it was because he simply felt you had changed paths OR had an understanding that you felt unsafe and he would not want to make you uncomfortable. Those are the safer men- not the ones that are demanding enough to try to have you make them feel better.
Totally. The ones who got offended were the most scary ones!
Yes, men are OFFENDED and complaining about a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, while women are afraid for their BODILY SAFETY and their VERY LIVES.
A bear. At least you may have a chance to get away. It may not pursue you because it really doesn’t want confrontation.
Those choosing a bear obviously have never seen the damage that a bear can cause. I have on several occasions. A black bear is probably not going to kill you but you’re going get maimed. There have been several unprovoked attacks in the past few years in the GSMNP in the past several years including one fatality where a woman was killed and partially eaten.
I would also point out that the man eaters of Savo were stopped by an aggressive man with a gun. The reason that the lions killed all of those people is irrelevant. They’re all just as dead whether killed for sport or food.
Boone, given that you are a regular around here, this is pretty disappointing. 🙁
***Women*** doing this risk assessment are not ignorant of the possible outcome of a bear attack, and they’re ***still*** choosing the bear. You’ve read here the stories of what men have done to women, and especially when men have the authority and force of THE CHURCH backing up the men’s actions. Think about what it really means that women are choosing the bear anyway. 🤔
And your point that the Savo lions were killed by a man is somewhat ironic, as it’s the GUN that leveled that playing field. The man didn’t kill the lions barehanded the way David did. It could have just as easily been a woman who pulled the trigger.
David used a sling to kill those lions. The Hebrew says he struck them but not with his bare hands.
Looking at this discourse I notice something.
We fear the bear because it is a dangerous carnivorous animal. We fear our fellow man because our fellow man can be a savage.
1 Samuel 17:33-35?
None of the English versions of v. 35 mention a sling, though some mention a club.
Actually, I think I was remembering Samson in Judges 14:5-6.
The use of a club and sling isn’t mutually exclusive. A staff sling was the most likely weapon David used.
We see evidence if that in what Goliath says to David. Am I a dog that you come at me with sticks is the taunt he gives.
I have to admit this has been interesting discourse.
Boone, like Jo R, I too am disappointed by your response. It’s far too close to the patronising male attitude of ‘if women were less ignorant, then they would agree with us’.
If you’d ever heard someone say that the thing they hate their attacker for most is that he didn’t kill them, I don’t think you’d be making such flippant comments about bears doing more harm.
Also, Boone, I am in the area, and I have to say, using the word “unprovoked” to describe those bear attacks is not exactly accurate. The victims may not have realized they were acting provoking, but in several cases they did try to rush the bears to “scare them off,” or they were too close to cubs. For a bear, those are legitimate provocations; and the humans could have done a better job with their behavior and lessened their chances of being attacked.
In the case of another human being, however, we can’t win: if we take a different trail, we may be followed; if we walk toward, then we may be exposing ourselves by proximity; if we greet, we may be “seducing;” if we don’t greet, we may be called out for being “too sensitive” (or some such nonsense); if we have on shorts and a t-shirt, we exposed too much skin; but statistics show us that covering everything up does exactly nothing to prevent assault (not to mention that it is mighty uncomfortable to hike in a hijab!) The goal posts are constantly moving, and we never know what we are going to be called out for if we are attacked. At least a dangerous bear often gets hunted down and relocated or eliminated; a sexual predator most often doesn’t even get a slap on the wrist.
I actually agree with this. Not saying that the argument that this question is highlighting is invalid at all, just that the question doesn’t actually illustrate the point very well. Some bears have a 100% chance of being very very bad, especially a grizzly or polar bear. It’s like being in the forest with a moose. If you don’t know much about moose, then it seems ok, but if you know how dangerous they actually are, it’s a hard no.
I have been hiking alone and met men hiking the same way and also seen potential signs of bears (momma with cubs). With men, I was highly nervous and on guard. With the bears, I was gut-level scared. Just physically speaking, I might have a fighting chance against even a large man (and I know that from experience I have brothers 🙂 ) But a bear is not an animal that I can win against, plus it can likely climb, swim, and run much much faster than me. All in all I just think this is a silly comparison. It would be better to say: would you rather meet a wild man or a wild woman in the forest? Then the comparison is fair because each is a bit crazy and could be equally non-violent or violent but one is statistically significantly more of a threat than the other if violent.
Marie, I get what you’re saying, but I think you’re missing the point on two levels.
One is that a lot of women are aware they could end up dead or seriously injured if they encounter the bear, but they are STILL choosing the bear. So this isn’t about a bunch of silly women thinking that all bears are cute and cuddly. It’s about women who are well aware of the risks but who still think a bear is preferable.
The other is that it really doesn’t matter how many women say ‘man’ and how many say ‘bear’. The truth is that NO woman should feel she would be safer meeting a bear than a man. Apparently, far more women say ‘bear’ than ‘man’. But even if it were the other way round, it would still show that there was a deep-rooted issue in society. An issue that is made worse by the number of ‘Christian’ teachers proclaiming that it is ‘manly’ to be aggressive and dangerous.
“With men, I was highly nervous and on guard.”
Yes, this. THIS is exactly why so many women just skip straight to the bear.
Why don’t people ask why it is that men induce this general reaction instead of bitching when women acknowledge that this is how they live every moment every day of their entire lives?
God forbid women ever suggest men might actually be doing something even the slightest bit wrong. 🙄
Emily at Thriving Forward has a great repost:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02TknchB4UXVVwkKCRGGUhx5Uo2eMhUoyPJbSrwSu52udRh4yM8qwQ8rrfAA754BM2l&id=100063497325684
I thought one of the comments on it was especially relevant to those insisting that those of us who choose ‘bear’ obviously don’t know anything about bears.
“Your job wasn’t to come charging in mansplaining to women why they wrong for choosing the bear. Your job was to listen to them about WHY they would choose the bear. And THEN to hold our fellow men accountable so that in future women would not feel inclined to choose the bear.”
Andrew Bauman has a great take.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0VB2LrEv2rsPkh8Sm3pg8cvZkVL6WYU3wKTah51qrqAyxqV3DdqAfiqYazgQ9Nr8Yl&id=100062963963753
And the story in the image is WHY women choose the bear.
Some of us are not on Facebook, and Facebook will not let me see comments unless I log in or create an account. Is there another way to see the Thriving Forward and Bauman reposts y’all mentioned?
I’m sorry I missed this reply.
I’m not on FB either, but I can see these pages by using a different browser (in my case, Brave).
After i get on the page, i have to do a page refresh to see the comments.
Andrew linked another one. Woo, what a doozy!
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02XLHctiLU7F5ChfT4q4rQkhMqNK1urb6LKZVBLxnrrH8vg2WugFoTAonspWn3r45Tl&id=100062963963753
Holy $#!+!!!!
Sarah McDugal put up the simple prompt of “The bear didn’t…” and hoo-boy, some of the responses are absolutely bone-chilling.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02jYdBCTBoMUQ9zzk59kujXZobLNkp6E4fYnQqfCg2yiiyFFCW3tjtvYCBPKTPZrjtl&id=100044361072738
Andrew reposting yet another great write-up, this one attempting (probably in vain, more’s the pity) just exactly why so many women choose the bear. (And really, it ought to be that ZERO women would choose the bear, and that SO MANY women choose the bear ought to cause men to do a boatload of introspection rather than bitching because women dare to tell the truth about the reality of their daily lives.)
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid023o6AovyeYJZ71ysRAQeU3TnjGx6pDaGpxY9Ym7Tb7K7xbQFAhXyxj8f67iJb1SGel&id=100062963963753
One thing I find strange about the “men are supposed to be dangerous” is that men are able to compartmentalize. In college I had several very close male friends who were all highly trained in a combat style (karate, training to join the US military, etc) but I never saw any of these men as dangerous. They are only dangerous if I think they might turn that training against me. These guys were very respectful, very safe. While maybe women want a man who is willing and able to protect them in bad situations, that ability doesn’t make them dangerous.
I also find it telling, that for many of the reasons why women choose bear, they aren’t claiming the bear is good or safe, they know they aren’t getting out of that situation unharmed. Some men are think women are saying bear = good, men =bad, but the discussion is not so simple as that.
I pointed out the character of Solid Snake from the Metal Gear series and he exemplars your point perfectly. Snake is one of videogaming’s most capable soldiers. This man is the weapon to surpass Metal Gear. He can be dangerous to you if you are his enemy but even then he tends to respect his enemies. What he really wants though is to be able to live a life he can be proud of. To pass on the torch so that people may learn from the messy annals of history.
As someone who also practices and hopes to one day professionally teach martial arts yeah I see that mentality of learn to be dangerous when the need arises but actively try to deescalate. I literally have taught children the principle of de-escalation so that they don’t have to learn submissions that could break someone’s arm. If they need to do so they can but you want to avoid fights if at all possible.
I have mixed feelings on this one. (I was not aware of this discussion online)
I do think of how men of color, specifically black men, have been trying to push back against the stereotype of black men and boys being profiled as dangerous. However, that’s often in context of them being subjected themselves to harassment and possible physical threats by police and other authority figures, but I think even constant judgment and presumption, fearful looks, etc, could be difficult to take as well.
I could also see a statement like this landing in a sensitive spot for men who are physically disabled or otherwise vulnerable themselves.
Seems it’s a question of determining how this can be a conversation about the responsibilities that come with physical power and whether we teach people who enjoy certain power and privileges to steward them rather than use them to exploit the less powerful. If you automatically enjoy a certain level of strength, it’s good to contemplate the experience of those who are not so strong.
It could also be a conversation about human nature generally: would you rather be chased by a mob of angry humans, or wild animals? Humans do have a capacity for cruelty that other animals don’t have, as someone noted above.
> > the real world isn’t Inglourious Basterds where the bad guys have an obvious “I’m a bad guy” symbol cut into their foreheads.
One of my favorite pulp fiction authors has a series of books where all of the bad guys have thin lips and their eyes are set too close together. The other characters in the story never seem to realize this, though.
If I was walking alone in a parking garage at night, and a woman was walking alone, and saw me, and went the other way, I wouldn’t be angry with her or blame her.
Thank you for being one of the men who understand why so many of us choose the bear. The more men like you who speak up, the more chance there is that the next generation of girls won’t be so inclined to choose the bear.
“If I was walking alone in a parking garage at night, and a woman was walking alone, and saw me, and went the other way, I wouldn’t be angry with her or blame her.”
I vaguely remember reading about a guy who said that, if he were walking on a city sidewalk in the evening and saw a woman walking alone toward him, HE would cross to the other side of the street so that SHE would not be worried about what he might do as they passed each other.
As a woman who’s been approached by unknown men in parking lots in broad daylight, I appreciate the idea that a safe man would give a woman a wide berth so that she can somewhat more safely go about her day.
We hadn’t been married long when my husband remembered one evening that he’d left something in his car that he needed urgently. The parking lot for the houses on our street was badly lit and quite isolated. He asked me if I’d mind walking round with him, as he felt that any woman walking through that parking lot after dark would feel less anxious to see a couple than to see a man on his own. I was really touched that he’s stopped to think how his innocent actions might affect a total stranger.
My son-in-law always did this. He’d smile at her, take his hood down if he was wearing it, and cross the road. If he couldn’t cross, he’s speed up walking and announce loudly, “I’m just passing you on your left” and get ahead of her.
Okay, yes a bear can rip someone apart. And the vast majority of stranger encounters don’t end with a woman experiencing violence. But the vast majority of human/bear encounters are harmless too. The risk of horrific violence is small but present for both.
There’s no one logical, obvious answer. And that’s the whole point! Not whether men or bears are objectively, statistically more dangerous to women, but that the answer isn’t clear-cut.
Would it be out of bounds to say I would choose the bear because there is a 0% chance of being roped into an awkward conversation?
Safety issues notwithstanding, none of the bears I have met in my time have hit me with a bad pickup line or weird political baiting or joking-if-you’re-mad-serious-if-you’re-up-for-it cringe.
I used to get bears in my yard all the time when I lived in the mountains. We like all the same foods. They were delightful company, welcome anytime.
I wonder if it rephrasing the scenario might put it in a different light for some men:
Would you rather, while camping in bear country:
1) send your 7-year-old son all by himself to the men’s shower and toilet facility at a campground
Or
2) send your son all by himself into the woods to do his business
Honestly, neither sounds good. But it would be understandable to choose the woods.
Assuming one survives either attack (by man or bear):
Which attacker is going to be easier to avoid in future- men or bears?
I imagine it would be far easier for the average woman to avoid bears than men. Living through an attack of either could be horrific (obviously loads of things factor into severity). However, I think a lot of those arguing against the women choosing bear aren’t reaching a consideration point of how women live the rest of their lives and what triggers (like reencountering men of a similiar build, etc.) they can or cannot avoid. PTSD is real, despite what jmac claims.
Oh my goodness, I just clicked the link to the article by Greg Morse and wowww it’s so bad. It’s about how masculinity is inherently supposed to be dangerous, masculinity is about the desire to control and possess women, and women *should* be scared. Oh wow that is so messed-up. (What if a woman is married to an abusive man, and she’s scared of him, but she doesn’t realize that’s a problem, because apparently that’s the way it’s supposed to be.)
And the whole bizarre bit about how God is so incredibly masculine, that even men are feminine compared to him- what on earth??? That is not in the bible, Greg Morse just made that up. (Or got it from somebody else who made it up.) What a bunch of nonsense. It’s so obviously nonsense, but at the same time it kind of scares me because I used to believe in complementarianism… what if I had read an article like this back then and thought it was right, and tried to make myself believe it?
I agree. I looked over that article and it ends saying how “[Jesus] is not, nor ever will be, safe. But he is good.” and that is a horrible message. My wife pointed out he completely misinterprets CS Lewis talking about Aslan with that. He botches CS Lewis at the beginning too, but who could read any of the Psalms and think God is not safe? You make a great point about abused women who read that and think it is normal, which is so scary. I passively believe that too and it has caused a lot of harm to my marriage and my faith.
I’m not sure of all his views, but searching for safety passages to reset my brain, I came across David Platt’s site that says “Secure, peace, security. So these words used three different times together and in Psalm 122:6–7 to give a clear picture that all who love God are secure and have peace.” at https://radical.net/podcasts/pray-the-word/safe-and-secure-in-jesus-psalm-1226-7/ as a contrast. His site’s article on Masculinity (from 2019) at https://radical.net/article/biblical-manhood-unhealthy-masculinity/ only talks about women a little and talks of Jesus’ full commitment and total sacrifice, which is such a stark contrast to Piper’s site that focuses on a man’s control over a woman.
Seems Platt is on the Council of The Gospel Coalition still, so hard to trust what he has to say, but the fact even his site seems to contradict Piper’s is showing these guys can’t get their act together and change on a whim.
Most of the article is based on a fantasy/sci-fi novel by C S Lewis…it kind of says it all when a supposed Christian Bible teacher has to start using fantasy fiction to promote their ideas of control and subjugation…
The idea of God being so masculine that men are feminine in comparison is from C.S. Lewis, who was pretty mid-20th-century in his thought. He would NEVER, however, have used these ideas to promote abuse.
Okay the “Desiring God” post was so bad I had to blog about it- “Desiring God” says God wants women to be scared of men
It’s funny: you mentioned the “Stronger Men’s Conference” and for just a glance I read that as “STRANGER men’s conference.”
Pretty appropriate, I’d say! 😂
Now that would make a BRILLIANT ‘Fixed It For You’ 🤣
Yes it would!
I go hiking a lot. I’ve encountered both men and bears. None have ever hurt me. I do not expect that men or bears I encounter in the woods would hurt me (cougars, rattlesnakes, and wild boars, OTOH…). And obviously, context matters: if I’m lost, hungry, dehydrated, etc., then of course a human would be more helpful; if I’m between Mama Bear and her cubs, all bets are off…
That being said, in the generic scenario, I’d pick the bear for two reasons:
1. In most scenarios, if I hold still and let the bear do its thing, the bear will go on about its business and then so can I. If a man is involved, there’s a much higher likelihood they will want to engage in conversation, and I really just want to be left alone to commune with nature. (To be fair, I think this is just human nature and not gender-specific.)
2. If the bear tried to harm me, nobody would fault me for using bear spray. If the man tried to harm me, using bear spray on him would open up a very unpleasant can of worms. And I do think it’s more likely that a random man in the woods would try to harm me, than a random woman in the woods, though the likelihood of either is low.
One other thought: although I’m a hetero cis-woman, I have a pretty “butch”/masculine demeanor and appearance. I’ve learned as I’ve gotten older that this is a double-edged sword: it’s much less likely that harmful men will target me, but it’s also much more likely that good men will be afraid of me and not be romantically interested, or even if they are, would want to approach me. Whereas, other women often want me around because they feel I’ll protect them (which I have and will). It’s an interesting dynamic.
This discourse reminds me of a Twitter thread from Holden Shearer on Nov 11 2017. (Not linking but it’s easy to find; look for the one about women “dissembling,” or what I would call fawning as a safety technique.) Basically it amounts to our adaptive behavior of “not running the test” to find out if *this* guy is one of the good ones.
Shearer also describes some ways men try to signal safety and how even those may not convince women–and why.
I don’t know anything about this guy other than this thread, so I’m not recommending anything but that one thread.
I saw an interesting reel by Dillon Michael White, who usually does funny posts (the one about the night he thought his home was under siege and he ran downstairs to defend the family with only what he could find in the moment – a belt! – only to discover that he’d left a case of Bubly in the garage and each of the cans had frozen and were exploding, is hilarious) but he did a couple serious posts about this question. He’s a lawyer so he brought up some good points – he did the math on the number of bear attacks vs. male-on-female attacks, both fatal and non-fatal, and found that even if you multiplied the numbers to create an equal number of bears in the U.S. as men, you’re still more than two times as likely to be killed by a man. He had some other thoughts – bear attacks are not notoriously under-reported; if you are in the woods and you meet a bear and you use whatever means you have at your disposal to defend yourself against the bear, in most states you won’t face prosecution like you would if you did so with a man; the stats on bear attack recidivism don’t exist because basically, bears that attack humans get euthanized, whereas many men who attack women walk free. (Also of note: someone in the comments pointed out that if you’re attacked by a bear, no one will ask what you were wearing.) He closed the post by saying “The answer is bear, because women are saying it’s bear.”
I saw that reel, and it was phenomenal. This is the guy I want in my corner!
Proverbs 17:12, Solomon picks the bear too. A man who is unsafe to be around certainly is caught up in folly, and that’s putting it MILDLY.
I’ve encountered both random men and random bears (one with cubs). The bears all left me alone, even the one with cubs. Many of the men followed me home, harassed me, or did *worse*. I don’t believe ALL men are dangerous, but ENOUGH of them are to give me pause.
Statistically speaking, I have better odds of not being attacked by a bear in the woods that I would by a man. Shoot, I’d have better odds playing Russian roulette.
The question was not, which would I rather fight. Nor was it, would I rather encounter a man I DO know or a bear. It’s a random bear or a random man. And the chances of me walking away from a random bear encounter without being attacked are much better than if I encountered the man.
I live in a college town, and there have been several break ins recently where a woman living alone wakes up to find a strange guy with a ski mask standing over her bed. Another incident involved the SWAT team called to a home because some guy was holding his girlfriend and their children hostage. Other times in my life, I was followed by a strange guy in a van going across town, and he pulled into the same parking lot as me. He didn’t get out of the car, but left when I called my brother to come and get me. No cell phones then. As a teenager, I was at the local mall the same day another teenager was kidnapped and murdered from same shopping mall. All I can think of was it could’ve been me. Some guy walked by my car while I talking on my cell phone and made a move like he was going toward my passenger door. I quickly hit the lock switch and the audible sound of doors locking got me a very dirty look. Was he going to try something, or was he insulted because I thought he might? Who cares! I did what I had to. I used to live along, and I would hear the sound of someone rattling my doorknob at night. Big mistake if someone tried that now with my husband home most nights while I am working. During the pandemic, we would walk some nature trails becuase nothing else to do during lockdown. Some dude was always there in a van apparently living out of it. I was usually with my husband, but I knew several women who would take kids there by themselves. While nothing happened as far as I know, we just don’t know in this day and age. I vote for meeting the bear.
My son (17) texted me last night and asked the question (I don’t know if this was the first time he became aware of it or what). He was surprised when I said “bear!” I hope we can talk about it more in the next few days.
I love the opportunities for further discussion this has created in some realms (namely those who are actually curious as to why so many women are choosing the bear.) I hope you get/got to have that convo.
I’m hoping we get to have more conversation. It was interesting too that his guy friend he asked, also answered “bear!”