Talk:Man or bear

Thumbnail image

If the image man_or_bear.png is not appropriate for the article, it can be replaced with an image of the Screenshot HQ logo which is public domain because it is made of only simple shapes and letters. It could also be replaced with two images of a man and a bear each in a forest, or there could simply be no image too. Also, if this article seems too unimportant to have its own article, it could maybe be merged into bear attack, although the meme doesn't necessarily have to do with bear attacks. Squidb4ll (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Incredibly one-sided article

Considering this article was largely written entirely by only one person with a specific interest in a highly controversial subject that has been splitting up the internet for a while now, it's no wonder the article pushes a strong narrative towards the current views of the creator. I can't believe such an article hasn't been called out much earlier for such blatant POV pushing.

This is most glaringly obvious in the "statistics" section as if it's written to "confirm" that "human men are more dangerous to you than bears", not factoring in the most basic contexts such as how close proximity people spend on average with bears relative to men and that women do not spend nearly as much time with bears as other men.

By that logic, we could post statistics of "shark vs vending machine" and use these same statistics to paint a picture as if it was far more justified to fear them, and that vending machines are more dangerous to be around and thus justify a fear that is minor relative to the alternative, but we all know that would be silly.

Now imagine if such faulty logic to push a narrative of fearing them as a whole was applied to real human beings?

Well now apparently I don't have to imagine it...

...because somehow, after a whole MONTH of this article existing, NOBODY has thought to correct, edit, or at least question this?

Despite the same fallacious reasoning being used to push such a dishonest narrative against real human beings? As if such mishandling of statistics could be seen as actual evidence to justify stigma against a certain group of people?

This is clearly just twisting the facts as they really are to excuse an irrational overreaction to a particular group of people when the truth clearly doesn't allign. And to me really only risks harming feminism, since I have only ever imagined such arguments of fearing all men reflecting quasi-feminist worldviews that in truth are mostly only pushed by radical anti-feminists as strawman arguments, and yet somehow here I am, reading an article that unquestioningly advocates for such things in total sincerity.

How could this be allowed to pass? how could people see these arguments as a legitimate representation of the modern mainstream feminist movement as a whole?

This isn't feminism.

All this is doing is only risking tarnishing feminist reputation and advocacy overall and spreading irrationality, fear, anger and only furthers misunderstanding for everyone involved.

GigaMigaDigaChad (talk • contribs) 11:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Remove it, and explain your reasons why. Use a source if you can, ideally. Do anything other than nothing at all. 125.62.206.55 (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest rewriting this article or even taking it down - either the author has very little understanding of statistics, or that's not the case and they deliberately drew wrong conclusions. Every single quantitative argument is wrong and results in an article that supports irrational fear of and hatred for men. Then, there's the phrasing 'acts worse than murder', implying that rape is worse than murder, which is certainly not an accepted assessment.

Apart from that, I would definitely say that this IS feminism, and typical for it. E.g. they wrongly concluded from the gender pay gap of 15-20% that women earn 15-20% less for the same work, which is a blatant lie (comparing the same professions and accounting for overtime, it's 2% (source: Wikipedia: Gender Pay Gap), which, considering there's a non-zero standard deviation is probably not even statistically significant, and even if, there are still other factors not accounted for), that now is still accepted as 'scientifically proven' by many (if not most). A typical case of 'lying with statistics', just like in this article. It's sad to see that meanwhile people are too afraid to act against this kind of propaganda, that can be instantly debunked by rational arguments and correctly done statistics. --Felix Tritschler (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Statistics potentially misleading

The number of bear and human assault cases doesn't say anything. There are far fewer human-bear encounter than woman-man encounter to begin with, but only some reader is aware of this caveat. Leaving those statistics there without any elaboration leads to all sorts of (mis)interpretations, such as:

• Men are indeed more dangerous than bears.
• The low encounter explains why fewer people understand the danger of bears.
• Yo, look at Wikipedia's feminist agenda trying to mislead readers into thinking men are more dangerous. I see right through your ruse!
• Nice, that's exactly the number I was curious in.
• This statistics is not enough to let me infer anything and is just a useless piece of information.

If anyone knows a good source to cite, please add an acknowledgment to the limitation to those numbers. C9mVio9JRy (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@C9mVio9JRy A reference for the statistics has been added. 178.155.17.2 (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What does it help to add references for the statistics of killings by bears and/or rapes/killings of women by men? In the article itself they misuse these numbers to encourage the reader to draw obviously wrong conculsions! --Felix Tritschler (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Grizzly 399

If the page were to have a see also section, would it be relevant to mention Grizzly 399? She is a mother bear who has been known to hang out near humans to avoid any male bears. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)