“Would you rather be stuck alone in a forest with a man or a bear?” To this question, in 2024, the vast majority of women polled in many of the videos, in different languages, that spread on various social networks seem to answer that they would prefer the bear. We are referring here to the version of the meme in which the woman is assumed to be stuck, trapped alone with either the man or the bear, not the version of the meme in which the woman is assumed to simply encounter a man or a bear in a forest. This assumption is crucial. Various social media accounts, blogs, and newspaper pages have presented risk calculations based on different methodologies: according to some, it would be more dangerous for the woman to be with the bear; according to others, it would be more dangerous for her to be with the man. All of the pro-man calculations we have examined overlook one simple fact: the probability that a man or woman will commit a crime depends on the probability that, in doing so, he or she will suffer criminal consequences or reputational damage. And the latter probability is plausibly different in a vast forest in the (extremely unlikely) situation where two people are stuck in an unexplored and confined area from which they cannot get out and do not know if they will ever get out, than it is in a city. We are not suggesting that the situation is similar to that in the movie The Purge. Still, it is undoubtedly rash to assume that the same odds apply in the forest in such a situation as in the usual civilized settings. It is also highly plausible that a power imbalance would manifest which — according to a certain feminist logic, for example — would invalidate sexual consent. And therefore — even just in this meaning — the probability of rape would not be extremely low. Murder against a woman who "would not acquiesce" would also be, plausibly, more likely than in the usual civilized contexts. However, it is reasonable to assume that the risk of death is much more significant in the bear option.
So it seems reasonable to assume that, plausibly, in the case of the man option, the risk of experiencing sexual violence or sexual harassment is higher, and the risk of dying is much lower. In the case of the bear option, on the other hand, the risk of experiencing sexual violence or harassment is much lower, and the risk of dying is higher.
Aren't the women interviewed a bit like Saint Maria Goretti?
02/21/2025
Lo stesso paragone tra uomo e orso è pretestuoso e privo di logica. Un orso tenderà a reagire secondo schemi di comportamento limitati e dettati dall'istinto quindi, se percepirà una intrusione nel proprio territorio, molto probabilmente attaccherà. D'altro canto il ventaglio di possibili reazioni che può offrire un essere uomano è molto più ampio e imprevedibile, perché egli non agirà solo in base all'istinto. Infatti egli userà quest'ultimo solo nel caso in cui veda messa a repentaglio la propria sopravvivennza mentre, in tutti gli altri casi, agirà in base alla ragione, che gli consente modificare di volta in volta il proprio comportamento, ampliando a dismisura il numero delle sue possibili reazioni che, a loro volta, dipendono da una complessa convergenza di fattori personali (il carattere in primis) e sociali (le legge civile e la legge morale introiettare dall'individuo). In più, quante sono le probabilità di trovare un orso aggressivo? Tante. Quante sono invece le probabilità di trovare un uomo aggressivo? Qui la questione si complica e diventa difficile poter dare una risposta certa e che non dipenda da un mero pregiudizio personale.