I have heard people say “would you rather share your emotions with a woman you know or a tree in the woods”, but that doesn’t really feel like it’s an equal question in my head. I am curious if anyone has a better example of the “mens” version of that question.
I feel like you’ve locked in too much on the gender binary here and are maybe missing the point of the “would you rather” to some extent. It isn’t really about the individual answers to the question (though in aggregate they are also telling.)
The premise revealed by the question itself is that the statistical danger of encountering a random bear in the woods is comparable to the danger of encountering a random man alone on the street. The aggregate answer just feeds into this premise: many woman would take their chances with the bear. This is a surprising outcome, and is meant to make
peoplemainly men question why they feel surprised by this result. To self-analyze and maybe improve on that is the goal.So for the “opposite scenario” you’re asking if there’s some surprising situation where an “average” man would prefer to be in than encountering a random woman. I have a strong feeling that due to the general balance of power in society, the answers to this question will tend to still be empowering of men and dismissive of women. I think the obvious joke here is something like “who’d you rather find at home after staying out too late drinking: your wife or a feral racoon?”
The sharing emotions one you use is better but still kind of in the same genre: it isn’t pointing out some truth about women, but making a different sweeping critique of men. I thought of “which would you rather: therapy or fight club” but that’s the same joke, and is still focused on critiquing men.
I’m having real trouble thinking of a broad problem with (USA specifically) women that affects men and is compatible with this joke format.
Would you rather have a conversation with a girl that blames men for all problems woman face, or with Andrew Tate.
The girl, absolutely!
There’s not, because it’s shitty and nonsensical to compare an entire gender to a dangerous animal in the first place. The bear analogy did not actually work, and no equivalent analogy for the entire female gender will work either.
There hasn’t been a comparison, though.
A bear is never really dangerous if you know what you’re doing. (Except if it’s a polar bear, but they don’t really roam forests). You look at the bear, talk calmly and back off. Problem solved. Most men would be of no danger at all, but you can never know if you’ve got the one in a hundred or so that will run after you, catch you, and do seriously bad things to you.
If you know what you’re supposed to do when you see a bear and you do that, you have chance of something happening, but it’s very small. If you know what you’re supposed to do when you see a man and you do that, you have chance of something happening, but it’s very small, but bigger than the danger from a bear.
With a bear you have a standard course of action, and it works. With a man you have a standard course of action and it often keeps you safe, but there’s a bigger chance that a man is of the exceptional deranged type than that a bear is of the exceptional deranged type.
At least in Finland bears are encountered by people regularly, but the only case of a bear having killed a human in Finland was in 1998. Before that, nothing from the time when such statistics have been made.
I don’t find it insulting that many women feel that bears are on average safer than men on average. I understand that’s the reality and I am able to act accordingly when I’m around women.
