Man vs Bear

Who would win?

I had a dream. I was walking out of an alleyway into the street with a woman holding onto my arm, and she was about to ask me a question... then, almost of nowhere, I saw a brown bear appear on the street and that's when I realized what the question was going to be about.

It was a silly, weird dream, but the way I interpreted the question in my dream was different than I did in reality, and it made me realize some things; so let's talk about it.

The question, which as far as I know was posed in a tiktok video, was aimed at women and goes as follows: "Would you rather be stuck in a forest with a man or a bear?" Out of eight women in the video, seven said they would rather pick a bear over a man. This question eventually spilled over onto other social media, and subsequent responses were... well, mostly the same.

Of course, this in turn led to various critiques of the very question and the answers being given, which I'll discuss briefly. For example, one of the main critiques that I've seen is the absurdity of the question; specifically, failing to understand basic statistics when it comes to men vs bears, and the fact that bears aren't causing more deaths *primarily* because they are encountered rarely.

I've also seen someone whose name I can't remember - perhaps CovfefeAnon on Twitter? - posing a question along the lines of: If you had to encounter someone in the woods, who would you rather it be? A white man, a black man, or an arab man? Obviously, more than few of those commenting were unwilling to answer the question, or for that matter, feigning outrage at it. Although if you wade through the responses, I'm sure you'll find some giving an answer along the lines of "black/arab man," and for a reason, too.

Which brings me to the point of this article: the reason why they'd answer the second question as such (or for that matter, struggle to answer it to begin with), is the same reason as to why they pose "man vs bear" question and say they'd choose the bear; because it's an ideological question, or more explicitly, a feminist question. Furthermore, it's not a logical question - it's not about statistics or whatever - but a visceral, emotional one. And once you interpret the question as such, what they are asking can be more properly understood as follows:

"Why are men oppressing me? Why are some men dangerous to my well-being and my existence despite being a human being just like me? Why are some men acting like predators, ones comparative to bears?"

Frankly, it's a silly, immature question - a question you'd expect to come from a child with lick of understanding of the world - but remember, this isn't the a logical question, but an ideological, emotional one. And as such, it answers itself; it's based on fundamentally false premises, especially as feminism is part of the ruling ideology, an ideology which has nothing to do with reality.

Furthermore, the answers themselves in both cases demonstrate this. It's worth remembering that women are more conformist on average than men (most people are, but women more so), and more status driven; if they were to give a logical answer in either case, it'd be an act of heresy - and for that matter, a sign of non-conformity.

This is why more than few rw, dissident women take issue with the question, or in a different case, why various women larping as rw refuse to engage with it, ignore it, or ignore the substance of the question; in some cases, they may go as far to defend its premise.

To give you an example without naming any names, consider the "right-wing" woman who once protested immigration, then ended up working with Hope Not Hate, got pregnant by a fed, got dumped, and since she’s demonstrated both her personal and political acumen, is now lecturing right-wingers on misogyny.

Or for that matter, a particular zionist woman who once operated a certain Twitter account where she spent her time fetishizing non-whites, then became a political influencer after working in an office for some rando right-wing politician. Most recently, she took issue when people criticized her for hanging out with a paid dnc shill, perhaps because it hit too close to home.

But to get back to the subject, the premise makes as much sense as would posing the following question: "Imagine you're a boy, and you had to choose between being stuck alone with a woman in the woods or a bear. Whom would you choose?" How many would answer the bear? Probably not many.

But it would make as much sense to choose the bear in this situation as it makes sense to choose bear in the other. Consider this: Two different studies by Justice Department have shown that when it comes to juvie, female staff are the primary abusers of children, and overwhelmingly so. Here's a breakdown of the stats:

In one study, it was shown that of those kids sexually abused by staff (around 10%), 95% were abused by female staff. This is despite the fact that only 42% of the staff was female.

A follow up study, this time based on hundreds of facilities that represent about a quarter of those housing juveniles, had shown that the rate of sexual abuse by staff was slightly lower: 8%. Yet the percentage of those sexually abused by female staff (92%) was about the same, and once again this is despite the fact that female staff was in the minority (44%).

Similarly, there are studies showing that boys who happen to act like boys in kindergarten get punished and treated worse than girls. Brief search suggests that 96% of kindergarten teachers are female.

Does that mean that the logical choice for any boy would be to choose to encounter a bear over a woman in the woods? Are women acting as predators towards kids, especially boys? Are boys being oppressed by women? I'm sure some leftoids and/or feminists would argue something along those lines - certainly, many such people who've had a "thing" for kids historically did argue family & patriarchy oppressed kids - but I would say that's absurd, even if large scale treatment of boys in kindergarten is unfair. Such treatment is, primarily, a sign of social policy; however, the fact that some men act violent or that some women such as those in juvie or schools engage in raping kids isn't. Humans can suck. Accept it or get over it.

This also brings me to a tangential point that I believe is worth raising. I don't particularly care about abortion nowadays and don't really have much of an opinion on the act itself, but it would hardly be controversial to argue that many women support aborting their own kids, that more than few have in fact aborted their kids, and in turn to raise various questions about it, such as about their basic morality (or lack there of), and the fact that such acts are legalized, often state-supported, and largely bipartisan (most people left and right support it).

This brings us to an interesting contrast: while it's true that some men are violent and that some men suck - a small, negligible percentage - if we were to take above argument, who sucks more would end up fairly, and extremely, lopsided. After all, you don't really see men going around sacrificing their own kids at scale in name of personal freedom, lack of material wealth, or because of their mistakes. There aren't over a thousand clinics and countless organizations serving to aid in sacrificing said kids by men, nor have such acts been labeled as a matter of personal "health," or a matter of "human right."

And though I don't really have stats to back it up, merely my own observations, it certainly doesn't look like it's primarily men going around sterilizing their own kids in pursuit of the latest ideological fad.

But anyway, I think the point has been made.