People who insert other groups into the "man vs bear" argument are inconsistent

These-Purpose-7019 · 2026-03-01T00:30:07+00:00

Its not inconsistent you just dont like the logic being used on groups deem socially unacceptable to generalize in your group. Alot of discourse online is about which groups its ok to generalize and which are not.

People understand the dangers of being generalized yet for some reason want to find ways to do it anyway.

Zabadoodude · 2026-02-28T16:36:52+00:00

The argument is that there is a small minority of men that are dangerous. Not that all or even most men would sexually assault a woman. It is the same argument people make about "green" people. Just because a small minority are criminals doesn't mean it's OK to discriminate against the whole group. That doesn't mean you shouldn't take some common sense precautions, though.

The silliest thing about the man vs bear debate is that when faced with this dilemma in real life and not just as a hypothetical, women pick the man 100% of the time. I live in an area with bears. I've seen women around bears. They will go well out of their way to avoid being anywhere near them.

I get it. Women want to convey that they feel they have to be a little wary for their own safety. Fair enough. I can relate feeling that way walking through some bad neighborhoods at night. I can empathize that being physically weaker and more prone to anxiety, women experience that feeling more than men. But comparing men to wild animals is not the way to get more understanding on this topic. It just creates resentment.

WanabeInflatable · 2026-02-28T17:22:06+00:00

There is a small group of men that are bigots and use biology as an excuse for rape or infidelity.

You use these people to justify misandry.

This is same as justifying racism because there are green men who commit crimes

BrianBorr23232 · 2026-02-28T16:25:30+00:00

Dont you think there is a possibility of those being 2 different groups of people? Why do you think you are arguing against a singular entity?

Extra_Performer4001 · 2026-02-28T19:43:42+00:00

You see old pastors and imams saying that crap. They don't speak for me. You can't provoke me to SA someone period, when I think I being "teased" I go rub one out, most guys are like me.

UnarmedRespite · 2026-02-28T21:02:45+00:00

Some “green” people claim they have urges to commit crimes

HeStaresOnward · 2026-02-28T16:36:17+00:00

Man vs Bear is misandrist. I'm sure it was created by some 4 digit IQ troll in order to prove that many women believe that most men are worse than murderous wild animals.

First, the argument shows that the general population lacks even a surface level understanding of statistics. Yes, men kill more women than bears, but the average women from a city encounters hundreds of thousands of men per year as opposed to near 0 bears. By the same logic we should all be sleeping of railroad tracks because more people die in their bed than on a railroad track. It's ridiculous, yet most people still fall for this, both men and women.

Second, even if the argument made any sense it would still be hateful. "Man" could have simply been exchanged for "Human". The fact that the former was used instead of the latter shows that the intention was to spread hate against a group of people.

wtknight · 2026-02-28T18:43:50+00:00

They're not inconsistent, because it is considered taboo to discriminate against a group of underprivileged people in society no matter what their culture is and how dangerous certain members of that culture are because they are under, and suddenly, women are saying that it is okay to discriminate against men, merely because of the fact that they are not underprivileged.

It's still essentially the same principle, though. A large group of people are being "punished" for the faults of a small group of people. Of course people should always be cautious around people who could be a potential danger for whatever reason, but this would also include men being cautious around women from poor countries who might be running scams on them, and my wife would have no problem with me saying that a relatively wealthy westerner like myself should be cautious around unknown women from developing countries considering that some, but not all or even a majority of them, can be unscrupulous due to their circumstances and their character. Likewise, I have no issue about women being wary around men, and even choosing the bear in this thought experiment, so long as they realize that not all men are a danger to them.

Other_Comparison_264 · 2026-02-28T20:34:38+00:00

There is no inconsistency. It's just your own cognitive dissonance trying to rectify itself. Since racism is a stronger moral offence in today's society than misogyny, we find ourselves in this fascinating (and sad) situation where some women will prefer their own victimization to being viewed as racists.

Personally, I have no problem with women viewing men as violent and potential predators, as long as they're also opposed to mass immigration of men from countries where gender-based violence is even more prominent.

DGenerationMC · 2026-03-01T06:37:49+00:00

Imagine wasting an ounce of energy on a person who drags you and/or your demographic into a hypothetical choice where the other option is a bear.

They have to construct a damn riddle instead of simply just outright saying "I don't feel comfortable around you and/or people like you."

Large_Bed_4251 · 2026-02-28T17:32:47+00:00

Can we stop beating this dead horse (or bear, I suppose) already?

Pitiful_Home5655 · 2026-03-02T13:45:55+00:00

It's literally one to one. If you want to make a claim that because group A does heinous action X more than average, and therefore it's justified for you to be scared or skeptical of group A, then you must also accept the same of group Green, who also does heinous actions more than average. There's no argument to be made that the core logic behind these two assumptions aren't identical. What you're describing is cognitive dissonance.

BCRE8TVE · 2026-03-03T04:48:14+00:00

Green people don't claim that they have urges to SA people and be attracted to minors because of biology. That's the main difference.

That's not the main difference, that's the non-sequitur. No idea why you think mean at large claim to have urges to sexually assault people and be attracted to minors.

Maybe if you tried to rephrase this in good faith instead of taking the worst possible interpretation, there could be a good discussion to be had.

Otherwise, when you so obviously misunderstand the people you're talking with, it's clear you're not going to understand what they say or mean.

I've seen some men of all races and various religions and creeds claim that women "teasing" men is dangerous because they have natural needs and urges that lead to rape.

And there are women of all races and various religions and creeds who say "kill all men" and "men are murderers". Does that mean all women are psychopaths?

Or are you perhaps looking at some of the worst men, and then blaming ALL men for being like the worst few you cherry-picked?

I've also heard numerous men of all races claim that it's part of their natural biological urge to be attracted to minors as long as they finished puberty.

And here you are conflating several things. Men are attracted to indicators of youth and fertility. For most of human history women had their first babies when they were around 15. Modern laws put age of adulthood and consent at 18 because of a variety of factors, not least of which is that it takes 18 years to graduate high school.

That doesn't retroactively make all men throughout history pedophiles, it just means you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to what men find attractive.

When you so obviously misunderstand the people you're talking with, it's clear you're not going to understand what they say or mean.

On the contrary, I've never heard anyone who's against racial discrimination say biology is the reason for the destructive behavior of people in any minority group. They typically blame poverty and discrimination instead.

Well yeah, after decades of efforts to combat racism. Scientific racism was a thing you know.

If after decades of efforts we managed to change social views that were biased against racial minorities, and in decades of efforts we are changing social views that are biased against women, you'd think that it might be time to recognize we also ought to try and challenge views that are biased against men instead of comparing men to wild animals and claiming all men are murderers and rapists, no?

So if you want people to not have a valid excuse to avoid men, stop blaming "nature" for men's fuckups. That makes it seem like men are either beyond help or fine with giving up.

Or, you know, maybe you should try and understand what you're talking about and educate yourself a bit more, so you can avoid strawmanning what other people are saying, stop cherry-picking the worst examples, and stop misunderstanding the arguments people make.

PrecisionHat · 2026-02-28T23:52:48+00:00

What are you even talking about? How do people blame biology for rape? The vast majority of men know rape is wrong, including rapists.
You're just justifying your own brand of bigotry. If you use crime statistics to make judgements about racial groups and to suggest it's ok to treat them differently, you are a bigot. Period. And the only difference between that and man v bear is that when it's about sex and gender, people don't care as much. But it was still a bunch of POS bigots who participated in that stupid circle jerk of a thought experiment. Yuck.

Ronniebbb · 2026-02-28T16:53:06+00:00

Whenever someone poses the question to me I always need to ask for clarifying details. Am I just hiking the woods and either I come across another male hiker or is it a local bear in my area (aka the grizzly). If it's a fight to the death or just passing by a scenario man always wins. I know what grizzlies can do, I do not want to die that way and I'm not sure surviving is much better.

If I get to chose the bear....I pick bear. I always wanted to touch a red panda. I love those little bastards. Don't even need to fight it, just put it on a log and scamper off and I can finally have given one a pet.

AutoModerator · 2026-02-28T16:06:44+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

AutoModerator · 2026-02-28T16:06:44+00:00

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

pie-mart · 2026-02-28T19:44:21+00:00

To me a good analysis has always been prison.

If you were in prison as a man, who would you feel comfortable showering in front of, having to bunk with them. And who could you trust to not assault you?

When you put them in a world thats just as sexually violent as our world, they begin to understand what we mean a little more

(Yes men face more physical violence in public than we do, but we en masse face more sexual violence than men in public)

So, if you put them in a role where they are suddenly at high risk for sexual violence, they would begin acting more cautious and fearful

Technical_End9162 · 2026-02-28T16:41:19+00:00

Maybe it’s a bad slogan because it’s useless, sounds bad and is socially retarded

Maybe we don’t need more text than that

QuietStoat · 2026-02-28T18:49:35+00:00

FINALLY! AN INTERESTING TAKE!

Technically you have to consider the overton window. Currently people are unwilling to say certain racial groups have higher tendencies to commit crimes. Currently the overton window is permissible towards sexism but not racism.
(I have research papers that determine certain haplo, and by extension racial groups have increased levels of testosterone which correlate with aggression and violence. But because the correlation isn't considered statistically relevant, you can say that the non-biological factors hold greater merit.)

Secondly, you can also say that SA by men is due to cultural upbringing. But due to the universality of the occurrence of SA, you can say that cultural upbringing can only in-part mitigate it.

The calculated response, would be to look at the percentage of men that commit SA, which general google was like 20%. 1 in 5 is sufficient that I do not blame women for the choice. It is statistically logical.

Title	People who insert other groups into the "man vs bear" argument are inconsistent
Author	sodacubes
Upvotes	0
Comments	127
Date	February 28, 2026 4:06 PM UTC (5 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1rh6edd/people_who_insert_other_groups_into_the_man_vs/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/people-who-insert-other-groups-into-the-man-vs.1574446 https://theredarchive.com/post/1574446

Comments