Has the "Bear vs. Man" conundrum made you reconsider your writings?

[Bramblethorn]

It's also not one that many people are actually likely to face; bear attacks are a vanishing rarity because their species' range and habitat is radically decreased from what it once was. Statistically, most of us are far more likely to face physical threats from fellow humans because there are just far more of us, living in close proximity. That's the other factor that renders the thought experiment kind of irrelevant. We're way likelier to encounter a serial killer, a mass shooter (especially for the Americans among us), a paranoid QAnonite or some other flavor of human whacko.

As a fancy way of mostly repeating what you just said:

I occasionally do risk assessments as part of my work. Formal systems for risk assessment usually involve evaluating potential risks on two dimensions of "how likely is this to happen?" and "how bad would it be if it happened?", e.g. this matrix:



For most Americans, evaluating risk over the course of a year, "bear attack" would be at the extreme bottom right of that matrix. "Man attack" would be slightly to the left but much higher on the probability, so it ends up being a much more important risk.

If you do that evaluation for a single encounter, the impact doesn't change but the probabilities do. "Man attack" becomes less likely, "bear attack" becomes more likely, and if it were actually my job to do that risk assessment on that precise scenario, I'd be looking for numbers to figure out how much those risks move. I have my ideas about what the conclusion would be.

But finessing that analysis is a distraction here, because most people who answer this question aren't trained risk assessors and they're not likely to be thinking through stuff like "what is the frequency of bear encounters vs. man encounters, and based on that, how do I adjust those probabilities?" "Which would you choose in a single encounter?" is the question asked, but the question people are mostly answering is some more general "do I have more to fear from bears or from men?" kind of thing.

There are a couple of ways to handle that. One is to play the Um Actually, Bear Facts game for points, by explaining why their assessment is bad and wrong for the "single encounter" scenario and proving through logic that if they're ever in the extremely contrived situation where they get to choose between meeting a strange man and a bear, they should choose the man.

But the other is to recognise that the question they're answering is the one that's actually important in everyday life, the one that shapes people's behaviour and attitudes, and engage with that.

I'm a nitpicking pedant, everybody here knows that. But if somebody tells me "I'm terrified of spiders and one just fell on me" I'm not going to tell them "well actually this is a harvestman, which technically isn't a spider!" I'll try to engage with what they're saying in the spirit that they meant it, because when somebody's trying to express something that scares and distresses them - it's shitty to derail that with technicalities. Playing Um Actually Bear Facts doesn't make anybody think "oh I feel safer around guys now!"

Is it a poorly framed question? Yes. Are some folk taking advantage of that poor framing to deflect conversation away from the concerns it was meant to illustrate? Also yes.

 

[Bramblethorn]

This and the entire post that it kicks off just brought a huge smile to my face.

If you're not already a subscriber to Dropout.tv, I feel like you'd find it worthwhile. They have a whole show called "Um, Actually" specifically for those of our tribe. It's aces.

I encountered that one a few months back and was delighted, so your recommendation is on target.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Okay, this reminds me of the statistic that "Cows kill more people than Sharks".

That's true, except people are constantly around cows, and comparatively rarely around sharks. But in general, a cow is less of a threat than a shark.

Humans are surrounded by other humans constantly, and as such, serial killers are hidden amongst us and SURROUNDED by potential victims.

I did acknowledge that issue earlier in the discussion:

Asking them to compare two different types of risk is particularly hard. Meeting a bear in the wild is dangerous but not something that happens often; individual men are a relatively low risk, but most of us have a lot more encounters with men so it ends up being a more important risk, and translating that back to a single encounter isn't intuitive.

See also my later reply to Cyrano.

 

[KeithD]

I'd change my self defense weapon if I was headed into bear territory).

Of course the traditional self-defense tool for this instance is to take along someone who can't run as fast as you can.

 

[Bramblethorn]

From the very beginning I was convinced he was playing dumb. "How do you know a man is a good one? He'll tell you." I genuinely thought nobody could be that blind, naïve, clueless, etc.

Now, based on the way he has completely failed to acknowledge the flaw in that logic, I'm not convinced he was playing dumb this whole entire time. Maybe he really doesn't understand that bad guys don't come right out and say they are.

There's an organisation here, branch of an international one, that was set up as a "men against violence again women" initiative. It may have been founded with good intentions, but it became a laughing stock because so many guys used it as an opportunity to boost their own profile and set themselves up as Good Guys, often while depending on women in the background to do the logistics of running events etc. (Meanwhile, sucking a lot of money and attention away from less glamorous organisations that were focussed on activities other than big-noting themselves.)

One of their "ambassadors" was recently jailed for almost ten years for rape and domestic abuse. Another was ditched after allegedly groping a journalist. A few years back they flirted with dropping their position of support for reproductive autonomy. Last year they set up a partnership with a "cryptocurrency charity start-up" led by a guy who ended up having to delete his LinkedIn after sending abuse to a bunch of women. etc. etc.

Meanwhile, plenty of guys out there just quietly doing actual Good Guy stuff without expecting a medal for it.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

I did acknowledge that issue earlier in the discussion:



See also my later reply to Cyrano.

I read your later response, and I think it was very well thought out.

---

I typed up a long comment about victim blaming and shaming innocent groups and all sorts of other stuff, but then I deleted it. Haha

I just don't have the energy for this discussion. But yeah, I understand why some women feel more threatened by a strange man than by a bear.

BUT since I actually do run statistics in my head sometimes when I'm afraid, I'm definitely not that kind of woman. .

 

[SimonDoom]

Before I say anything else, I want to acknowledge that the OP's original question is a legitimate and interesting topic of conversation. The issue of women's fear of men is a legitimate and interesting topic. How it does or should play into writing stories is worth discussing.

But this thread has just gone bat-shit insane. Bears, sharks, cows, koalas, monotremes. Risk assessment matrices. The Chicago Bears. Accusations of bad faith and bad motives. Mansplaining. Misogyny. Misandry. Godzilla. Ungulates eating popcorn.

If you ever wanted a thread to convince others, "Sure, they can write fun smutty stories, but those people are fucking nuts," this thread would be it.

 

[Erozetta]

Okay, this reminds me of the statistic that "Cows kill more people than Sharks".

That's true, except people are constantly around cows, and comparatively rarely around sharks. But in general, a cow is less of a threat than a shark.

Humans are surrounded by other humans constantly, and as such, serial killers are hidden amongst us and SURROUNDED by potential victims.

Conversely, bears are almost never around humans, and we avoid them when we can. There is no statistics for "Uneventful encounters between strangers in the woods" because it would be impossible to track and rather common. How many times are people attacked in the woods by strangers?

Regardless, I would rather encounter a human, because the self defense weapon I tend to carry is intended to deal with humans... not bears (although to be fair, I'm sure I'd change my self defense weapon if I was headed into bear territory).

I can only go based on my own experiences, but I lived across the street from a cow pasture for six years. I've been in closer proximity to more bears and sharks than cows. Hell, I've touched more sharks than cows. (Sharks: a dozen or so, cows: zero.)

That said, I'd choose the man because I'm confident I could climb into the trees and avoid him. The funny thing about that is it would likely increase my chances of coming across a bear because they also climb trees to avoid potential predators.

 

[CyranoJ]

As a fancy way of mostly repeating what you just said (& c.)

This is actually really useful. Clearly trying to joke about the whole fracas is not the play (I tried bringing up Marian Engels' Bear novel as an example of why women might prefer the bear and the first reaction was trauma so, that wasn't it, chief) and this is clearly thought through and convincing. I might borrow some of this language, by your permission.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

I can only go based on my own experiences, but I lived across the street from a cow pasture for six years. I've been in closer proximity to more bears and sharks than cows. Hell, I've touched more sharks than cows. (Sharks: a dozen or so, cows: zero.)

That said, I'd choose the man because I'm confident I could climb into the trees and avoid him. The funny thing about that is it would likely increase my chances of coming across a bear because they also climb trees to avoid potential predators.

I've touched a handful of cows. They are dumb and incredibly strong, which is an excellent recipe for accidental killing... But they are also soft and cute and I like them.

Also, we should all remember the poem about dealing with bears.

"If it's black, fight back,
If it's brown, lie down,
If it's white, good night."

But I've encountered countless men in my life, and I've never been attacked. I've even encountered strangers in the middle of nowhere... never had any problem.

 

[Erozetta]

I've touched a handful of cows. They are dumb and incredibly strong, which is an excellent recipe for accidental killing... But they are also soft and cute and I like them.

Also, we should all remember the poem about dealing with bears.

"If it's black, fight back,
If it's brown, lie down,
If it's white, good night."

But I've encountered countless men in my life, and I've never been attacked. I've even encountered strangers in the middle of nowhere... never had any problem.

I've also touched a few alligators and lived to tell the tale. Many times in the case of death by animal there are circumstances in play that are out of the ordinary. Very few kill just because they can. With people, torture, rape and death is far too often just 'cause they wanna or they get a thrill out of another person's agony. Animals in the wild don't torture and maim for pleasure. (Except maybe dolphins and killer whales, but they don't do that to people.)

Also, that poem is really bad advice. Slowly back away with a slightly diagonal angle and don't make eye contact, keep them in your peripheral so you can see them without being threatening to them. If they follow you, stand your ground. You run and you're toast. Fight back and you're unlikely to walk away without life altering injuries. Lie down and you might as well tell them you're a tasty snack or toy. Though, if you encounter a polar bear and are quite flexible, making an attempt to kiss your own ass is probably the last time you'll get the opportunity so go for it. (And, for the record, not all black bears are black and not all grizzlies are brown.)