Scott J. Lawson

May 6, 2024

Like most kids, mine love to ponder “would you rather” and “who would win” types of questions. This means I engage in these types of debates quite a bit. Something none of us ever want to do when we are exploring these scenarios is blurt out an answer without giving it some thought. Where is the fun in that? If one of us does give a seemingly foolish answer though, the rest of us are naturally going to question it. Apparently, according to some people these days, that just makes us big meanies.

“If you were alone in the woods, would you rather encounter a bear or a man?”

This hypothetical question is making its rounds on the internet and it has become a hot topic in the culture wars as well. If you are not familiar with the origin of the question and the general discussion around the question, USA Today has a good breakdown in this article.

This Is Not How This Is Supposed To Go. This Is Not How This Is Supposed To Go At All.

What should probably be regarded as no more than a silly thought experiment and conversation starter has become a rather nasty and divisive ideological litmus test for some. Certain militant feminists and many on the Left insist that the tendency of many women to choose the bear over the man reflects an important truth about the nature of men and the relationship between men and women. According to these people, even if you consider choosing the bear to be irrational and ignorant, there is still a lesson one should take away from the hypothetical question. The important point, according to this argument, is that men present an element of danger in the first place; and the amount of danger is at least enough to make women consider the bear (a known danger) a better option. People are therefore expected to reflect on this notion and presumably commit to some sort of action towards improvement in behavior regarding the relationship between the sexes and between people in general. Of course, the improvement, in their mind, requires that people ought to adopt their preferred worldview and ideological outlook as a basis for the solution to manifest. I’m sure it has not occurred to them that the continued perpetuation of their jaded worldview just may be part of the reason so many women answered as they did in the first place – and that worldview itself is fair game for criticism – but that is a discussion for another time.

The Problem

I doubt anyone genuinely denies that people ought to always be looking to improve themselves so that their beliefs and actions are more virtuous and respectful of others. I also doubt that anyone denies there is some element of danger inherent in encountering another human alone in the woods and that this is higher in general if that human is a male rather than female. But people correctly reject the notion that the path to virtue is found in rejecting rational decision-making in order to validate the irrational fears of others. The problem with the feminists making the above argument is that they expect people to use reason and logic to willfully choose moral behavior (their subjective version of it anyway) while simultaneously basing their argument on a poorly-designed thought experiment and highlighting responses that essentially discount the notion of human beings a rational actors. If one prematurely concludes that a random man in the woods presents more of a danger than an irrational wild bear, then that person likely does not have a genuine belief in the inherent goodness of humanity or the utility of reason as a means to discovering moral truth, guiding behavior, and/or for solving problems. 

Rational vs. Irrational

When it comes to assessing the intentions of a stranger, a good rule is to “trust but verify.” When it comes to self-defense situations, we also understand that it is better to be prepared and capable of adequate defense than to be caught surprised and helpless.  We can conceptualize these things as rational human beings because an expectation of moral behavior and mutual respect for the rights of others is the norm (in a civilized society at least), and also we understand there will always be people that act contrary to the norm for their selfish purposes. We cannot do this in the same way with a bear because they are not rational and therefore not capable of moral reasoning. With a bear the best we can do is understand their behavior, understand how to minimize probablity of attack, and understand what to if an attack occurs. This is because a bear is governed not by reason or moral behavior but rather instinct and the law of the jungle. To choose a bear over a man prematurely without regard of further inquiry is not only foolish but also disrespectful to humanity itself; to our nature as rational beings, our progress as moral beings, and to yourself and others around you. In sum, just in general, passing a random man ought to be regarded with an expectation of normalcy and mutual respect with a small possibility of danger, whereas encountering a bear is inherently dangerous but may very well end up resulting in nothing more than a scare (for both of you).

The Real Critique is Regarding the Weaponization of the Question, Not the Answers to the Question Itself

The fallacy inherent in the Feminist argument is more about the judgment we are meant to make rather than the decision of the women given the question. The mere existence of a fear does not even necessarily mean it is justified, let alone give us any input on how to competently address it. When we hear that some women may be so scared of men that they would choose a chance meeting with a bear over a random man in the woods, our reaction shouldn’t be that this means men in general are overly flawed, as these feminists appear to be arguing, rather it should be to expand on the question and determine the cause of the fear in the first place. The question is rather vague, and that may be some of the reason for the answers that were given. Expanding on it and discussing various scenarios and lines of reasoning would probably result in different answers. It is no surprise that when people (especially men) have attempted to do this after this hypothetical question went “viral,” they were ridiculed by the feminists that want to steer the discussion their way. The feminists have done this by accusing those seeking clarity as being an example of the very problem with men that they are lamenting.

So by all means, feel free to actually explore the question and have some fun with it. Don’t let these ideologically-driven feminists gaslight you into thinking you are somehow “a part of the problem” if you dare challenge the opinions of others!

Have Some Fun With It

Here are a couple more specific scenarios to consider for fun. The addition of details gives you something to consider other than just a knee-jerk reaction.

1. You are alone in a US National Park well out of cell phone range. Would you rather find yourself met with a startled mother grizzly bear protecting a couple of her cubs, or would you rather find yourself on the run from a known psychopathic killer (male, 35 years old) with a handgun and two full 10-round magazines?

2. You are walking alone in a large outdoor recreation area somewhere in the United States. Would you rather stumble upon a solitary black bear that is used to humans, or would you rather pass a random large male walking the opposite direction that appears normal from a distance?

3. You are in Alaska. It is normally not the time of year when polar bears are around the area. You go on a walk in the woods 20 miles from the town. You are one mile away from your car. Would you rather a hungry polar bear spot you from 500 yards out and start heading your way, or would you rather a helicopter carrying a crazed hunter that wants to hunt you for sport (like in the movie Hard Target) start flying towards you with the hunter shooting at you with a rifle?

What would you pick for each scenario and why?