The man vs bear "debate" is a case study showing that women struggle with logic and are overly emotional, and thus not worth arguing with.

I'm going to start by putting the ambiguity cop-out to rest. This question has been asked in a billion different forms, often with very specific phrasing to clear up ambiguity, but the responses from women were pretty much the same in all instances. Probably the most egregious one is seeing "Would you rather be stuck alone in a ROOM with a random man or random bear?", and then still seeing "bear" overwhelmingly be chosen.

The common responses from women were universally:

• "At least a bear won't ask me what I'm wearing."
• "Hurr durr Junko Furata / [insert other one in a billion horrific crime]."
• "I'd rather be eaten by a natural predator than violated and tortured by another human."

Obviously none of these points make any logical sense because they assume the one in a million, worst-case outcome in the encounter with a man, and completely fail to consider the relative probabilities of getting attacked by the bear vs man.

Beyond that, there were some attempts at rationally justifying choosing "bear", all of which completely fall flat at a glance and prove how bad women are with logic.

• "Statistics show men kill women many times more than bears do. Men are clearly more dangerous!" (Obviously stupid since it's not normalizing per encounter. If you were surrounded by bears all day like you are with men, you'd be dead a long time ago.)
• "Bears are predictable and I can scare them off. There's no telling what man will do." (Completely false. Even a black bear will instantly maul you to death if just the slightest thing is off- e.g. it thinks you're threatening its cubs, it's hungry, it's already gotten used to humans etc.)

There was even a stupid attempt to flip it around:

• "Well would you rather your sister/daughter be stuck alone with a man or bear?" (Man, easily and without a doubt. Any sane, rational man would choose the same.)

And finally, after all this, the stupidest ones of all:

• "You stupid men aren't getting the point of this. It's not about statistics, it's about women's lived experiences. Women are so scared of men that they universally choose bear, so men have to step up and make women feel safer/more comfortable!"
• "Quit invalidating and dismissing women's lived experiences. You're the reason we choose bear!"

In reality, men perfectly get the point, and this is women telling on themselves. It is your own responsibility to develop a coherent, rational worldview, and that means having a rational perception of danger. There is no problem with women being cautious of strange men, but there IS a problem with being so irrationally afraid of strange men that you'd rather choose a bear. When your emotions arising from your lived experience lead you to develop irrational phobias that manifest in the form of bigotry and dehumanization, then that is not okay and it is YOUR responsibility to get therapy to fix it.

To be honest, I'd be understanding if the woman had horrific trauma and that was making them choose bear. I get it then. But the vast majority of women choosing bear have no real trauma, at worst they were catcalled a few times and a guy once held their waist to pass them. Instead, the derive their irrational fears entirely from the feminist propaganda machine, sensationalist media, and Truecrime podcasts. Western women are far safer than ever before, yet also far more fearful and paranoid than ever before. That's what makes this even worse.

The entire man vs bear debate is a demonstration of women having an extreme, irrational phobia on a purely emotional basis and then shutting down all logical counters. Even worse, they then attempt to justify their irrational bigotry as morally virtuous and put the onus on men to fix it.

And perhaps the worst part is- usually, for poor female behavior, you can say "not all women". But that doesn't apply here. ALL women choose the bear and blame it on men, and in doing so place their emotions above any logical arguments. The amount of women who've gone against the grain against this one is tiny to the point of being negligible.

The man vs bear debate isn't just an isolated incident either; female rhetoric looks like this on ALL gender issues, I just thought this was one of the most prominent and clear cut instances to use as a case study. I think that the takeaway here is simply that women are overly emotional, struggle with logic, and aren't worth arguing with at all. You know the saying: "Never play chess with a pigeon. It'll knock over the pieces, shit all over the pieces, then strut around like it won." I propose a new one: "Never debate with a woman. She'll blame the patriarchy, call you a misogynistic inc*l, then strut around like she won."