The Great Debate

When it comes to the man or bear debate, I’d like to comment without being screamed at by rabid folks who insist that any man who disagrees with them is an incompetent, stupid, apathetic misogynist.

If you’ve somehow missed it, the question is:

“If you were lost in the woods, would you rather be with a strange man or a bear?”

Many women choose the bear, because the clear point here is that women have endured terrible things at the hands of men. The bear choosers claim that bears won’t stalk, ogle, molest, rape, beat, lie to, or cheat on you. That is probably true. And you might be able to outrun the bear. That is probably not true; bears can run 20-35 miles per hour depending on the species.

The strange-man choosers think that you stand a better chance with a strange man than a bear. But there’s rarely tolerance for debate with emotionally charged people online. No matter the logical argument, Team Bear women (and men) often respond by citing the disturbingly high numbers of women who have been abused by men and the very tiny number of incidents of bears attacking humans.

Both are true, but that’s a classic false equivalency. It’s like saying that eating one apple is like eating one hundred oranges because “I ate fruit” applies to either. There’s a world of difference between the two scenarios.

More men than bears attack women, but nearly all women encounter men constantly, day in and day out, but very few EVER encounter bears. If bears numbered at nearly 4 billion and lived amongst people—and especially if women were friends with, worked with, dated, lived with, married, recreated with, or otherwise were around bears often—I suspect you’d find many more bear attacks.

When you reduce the population to two—one woman and either a strange man or a wild bear—the probabilities shift.

It Was ALWAYS About the Bear

There is little room for discussion with those who choose the bear when you do not. The arguments I’ve seen often veer into the absurd.Bears aren’t dangerous! They avoid humans! They’re afraid of us! Try that logic when bears are in mating season, protecting cubs, fattening up for hibernation, threatened, surprised, or starving—all things that are apt to make them more aggressive. Wild bears are not Care Bears.

When people pointed out real bear dangers, many respondents did what people defending passionate beliefs often do: They angrily doubled down and turned the debate around. “Men don’t get it,” they posted en masse, despite plenty of women choosing the strange man over the bear.

Some men indeed don’t get it, but I think most of us do. We get that women live with fears and anxieties about men, and we get that we cannot truly understand what that feels like. But when those of us who don’t do those things to women argue that fact, we’re met with a barrage of insults: “Of COURSE you SAY you don’t do that!” The implication is that we’re all actually horrible abusers, I suppose.

The escalation continued, with laser focus on the idea that men everywhere missed the point. The rallying cry became: “It was NEVER about the bear!”

That doesn’t track. If it wasn’t about the bear, and was truly about the negative experiences that women have endured with men, then the question could have been:

“If you were lost in the woods, would you rather be with a strange man or all alone?”

There’s a vast gulf of difference between the two questions. With “man or alone,” a woman can rely on herself rather than trust a strange man. With “man or bear,” the serious social issue of male violence against women becomes a caricature with people believing that a wild bear is a safer choice.

The point is that a woman would choose a dangerous bear over a strange man BECAUSE the man is more dangerous. Yet armies of people online claim that the bear is actually quite safe as a general rule. That’s where logic fails.

The Absurdity Deepens

The bear-choosers are hard to believe because most women apparently don’t refrain from meeting strange men in bearless situations. How would first dates ever happen if they did? “I can’t go out with you; you could be dangerous, so I’d rather be with a wild bear.” No, we always take those chances when we meet new people. Any belief that a wild bear is a safer bet than a strange man seems like the belief that the Earth is flat: at best misinformed and at worst delusional.

In fact, the alleged originator of this debate, who asked random women… was a man. A strange man, it would seem. In one video I saw, a strange man stopped eight women on the street and all engaged without hesitation—with seven immediately choosing the bear.

Some online said they’d rather that their daughter, if lost in the woods, be with a bear than a strange man. These people should not be trusted with children. What would these parents say if they learned that their young lost child was killed by a bear? “It could be worse—she could have been alone with a strange man.” Like any of the strange men from the team combing the woods looking for her? Seems ludicrous to me.

The absurdity damages an otherwise important discussion by turning it into a caricature of itself, where people don’t get how dangerous bears can be—while crowing that men who don’t get something. Many clearly don’t take the subject seriously; endless posts about choosing the bears feature LOLs, smileys, and other cheeky comments. “The bear wouldn’t mansplain things to me!” some proclaim, as if equating mansplaining with assault, rape, and murder. If you’d rather be with the bear because men have mansplained things to you, some of your priorities might be way off.

Meanwhile, one male poster said that the man was the safe choice, especially if the woman used her feminine wiles to, apparently, seduce him so he’d protect her. You can imagine the explosive response to that. It’s interesting that playing that stereotype resulted in such an uproar… but the legions of women decreeing that all men are so untrustworthy that a wild bear is a better choice did not. Offensive stereotypes are only allowed in certain circumstances, it seems.

There’s a Better Way…

The “man or bear” challenge succeeds in one way: by highlighting the fears and anxieties women have, no matter how absurd the scenario. But it seems more geared toward giving people the chance to smack down men as soon as they don’t say, “I agree with you 100%.”

But it fails in other ways. It fails as a logical and rational example. It fails as a metaphor. It fails with statistics. It fails against common sense. It fails as an attempt to shine a spotlight on the real issue of how men hurt women.

Many involved in this debate claim that the purpose is to start a dialogue—so that men (and boys) can understand that women really do fear strange men, and why. Blaming men for pointing out logical fallacies in the bear choice, insinuating that we’re all horrible for abusing women, and ridiculing us for allegedly not understanding the point are hardly constructive ways to achieve that dialogue.

Once again:

“If you were lost in the woods, would you rather be with a strange man or all alone?”

That has a logical framework. Women could make their points without demonizing all men. But, when you think about it, that’s the actual argument anyway, isn’t it? If the woman chose the bear because she believed the bear would leave her alone, or she could escape, then she’d be alone in the woods anyway. The question above removes the debate about how dangerous a wild bear is and gets down to the brass tacks of the discussion.

(If you think that was all mansplaining, my response: If you don’t understand why the original question is such a mess, then perhaps you JUST DON’T GET IT, and this column was ALWAYS about the mess.)

One footnote to this “man or bear” thing: You can’t ask any clarifying questions. It’s just a binary choice: man or bear. But details could quickly change the whole debate. For example, if the man is wielding a bloody machete, the bear might be your best bet. But if you surprise a hungry mother bear with her cubs, you might prefer the guy with the machete.

So let’s add some details:

“If you were on a narrow footbridge and a strange man was running toward you on your right and a bear was running toward you on your left, which would you run toward?”

If you answer that you’d run FROM the strange man TOWARD the charging bear, then that’s a chat I’d love to engage in. Maybe you need more details. Maybe the man has a machete and the bear is rabid. Perhaps you have a gun with one bullet and can shoot one of them. Maybe the bear has a machete and a gun and the man is rabid. But we’d be getting absurd, wouldn’t we?

It’s constructive to discuss that women have real fears of men. It’s constructive to find ways to educate men as to why they do. It’s not constructive to demonize all men everywhere and to blame those who don’t agree with your take on wild bears.

You may now send me hate mail.

David M. Fitzpatrick is a fiction writer in Maine, USA. His many short stories have appeared in print magazines and anthologies around the world. He writes for a newspaper, writes fiction, edits anthologies, and teaches creative writing. Visit him at www.fitz42.net/writer to learn more.

The views, information, or opinions expressed in The Cud are solely those of the author/s involved and do not necessarily represent those of The Cud editorial team and its employees.