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.
Why not? The premise of the bear vs the man is a physical dilemma, which is usually how a male aggressor attacks a female victim. The premise of sharing your emotions with a tree vs a woman is an emotional dilemma, which is usually how a female attacks a male victim.
The tree vs woman was instantly understandable to me, because I’ve been manipulated and harassed by multiple women in my life, after opening up to them and being vulnerable, mostly with romantic partners. My male friends didn’t do this in nearly the same frequency. That said, it’s a problem of sampling bias. I’ve never had a romantic relationship with a man. Maybe they would physically attack me. Maybe they would emotionally attack me.
As inifinitesunrise said, it’s kind of nonsensical. I think the root of the question is “would you rather be vulnerable again or not?” but with heteronormativity or sexual dimorphism. Honestly, no. I’ll never be that vulnerable again. It’s backfired every time in my life. Every. Time. If my experience is universal, which I hope it’s not, then it’s just that humans are flawed and terrible. (I’m slowly turning into the old man in the woods with only a dog breaking the solitude.)
To be clear, I think this is a silly question, and I’m only entertaining it because I’m somewhere I don’t want to be, doing something I don’t want to be doing.
Because the bear is a danger to the woman, and is, at least rhetorically, preferable.
The tree is no danger to the man, unless it falls on him. To get a reasonable comparison, we need a comparable level of all but guaranteed danger.
I propose a megaphone in a crowded mall.
Oh, good point on bear threat VS tree threat.