The “Man or Bear” debate is becoming old news by TikTok brainrot standards but it’s already had a few resurgences as new content and different angles pop it back into the spotlight. It’s another captivatingly mediocre chapter in the timeless narratives and debates that define our era and your marriage.
If you’ve been living under a rock, (i.e. aren’t chronically online,) the psyop controversy is asking a woman whether she would rather encounter a random man in the middle of the forest alone, or a wild bear.
Shockingly, many women answer they would rather encounter the bear, which has left a lot of men righteously indignant— and a lot of women essentially repeating the tired sentiment that all men are dogs, never mind that they’re the ones dating them. Should’ve dated the bear.
Let’s hop to it. It’s a 28 minute video with a roomful of people, so I won’t go play-by-play, you can watch for yourself. I’m just using it as an example because I happened to watch the video because Vice thinks the podcast is bad. >:]
You don’t even have to watch the video, just use your imagination. They’re the same old ragebait and epic pwns that give you a sense of accomplishment and superiority while changing nothing, the exact opposite of this authorative blog. But if you can take something actually applicable away and at least do something like write an autistic article about it, then let’s carry on and feel accomplished and superior ~ together ♥
Walk softly through the woods and carry a big yardstick
The video fades in with a torrent of clucking. Asked around the table one-by-one, five out of the eight girls say they would rather encounter a bear in the woods than a random American man. We can safely ignore that that qualification alone puts the question on a whole different footing than if we included all men on Earth, but shockingly no one’s asking if the bear is black!
What’s immediately striking is the outlandishly bad grasp of context and estimation skills the female guests display. “Being mauled by a bear would suck, but…”
Even guest #4, who chose man over bear, estimated the likelihood of something really bad happening upon encountering a random man alone in the woods at 1-2%, which means the most conservative guess in the room thinks that there would be a 1-in-100 or 1-in-50 chance to be killed, kidnapped, beaten half to death, horribly disfigured, etc, if they saw a random guy in the woods. Other estimates went as high as 40%.
With those odds, I would take the bear too. But of course none of them really believe that, except when they do, because they feel they do.
That none of these girls carry a gun in their purse, have all taken a secluded walk alone, have gone home drunk with a strange man from the bar, or agreed to go on a Tinder date with you disproves their logic, of course.
But to take that logic at face value would be insanity, because even they are pretty quick to explain that they really mean something entirely different than what they’re saying. If only you’d listen when your wife expressed the same. Do the bears still cry out, Clarice?
But we’re not here to try to follow girls’ logic as if it were guys’ or we’d end up in the worst part of Wonderland. What’s really going on?
Maddie Hatters
#4, the plainest looking girl and #6, a heavier girl try to inject a little sanity into the debate and say man. #7, another heavier girl tries to as well, but fumbles the bear (I mean ball) by saying she’d choose bear because she wants to be a large animal veterinarian. (???) I guess if she were going to ninja academy, man would be the safer choice, makes sense to me. This whole scenario would be a lot more interesting with a loaded .357 Magnum in the picture. (No, unfortunately that’s not a threat on my own life.)
I don’t bring up their body types to disparage them, only to point out that in this clucking gaggle of nonsense, there’s weird inter-girl dynamics at play: while they’re happily generally opposed to the male position off the bat, their different alignments and personalities are an interesting study in itself, assuming you’re less inclined to go and just talk to some women. I wouldn’t bother though, considering how dangerous you are.
Fuzzy Math
Bear-ing in mind that 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8 chose bear, 4, 6, and 7 chose man, (marked with cute terrifying emojis for easy reference) here’s the percentages they estimate of random American men encountered in the woods who would do something really, really bad to them:
🐻 30% - Darling princess #1 was confused by the answer in all fairness, having seemingly just escaped highschool before they could cover what 3 out of 10 means.
🐻 20% - The voice of moderation for the opposition. She notes that it’s probably lower in terms of reality and statistics, (???) but we’re not talking about those, we’re talking feelings, and that’s a fact.
🐻 30-40% - Not to be outdone, #3 takes the lead.
👨 1-2% - /ourgirl/ #4 steals the audience’s heart with her estimation that only 1-in-50 or maybe half as many American men will murder, rape, or maul you if they catch you alone with no one around to help.
🐻 30-40%? - Drowning her response in qualifications, our most adamant bear fan admitted that her percentage mostly applied to things that would make her uncomfortable, like harrassing her or grabbing her ass, which is more terrifying (and importantly, more real to her) than the danger of having her entrails eaten out while still alive by a black bear whose cub she got too close to when teleported into northern Maine. These results will have to be removed from the equations by the far-future anthropologist-statisticians who wonder what the fuck is going on here.
👨 5-10% (???)
👨 .1% - Our new winner!
🐻 1-2%
If you haven’t gotten the point, this isn’t a discussion of objective facts for her. It’s whatever the prevailing force in her life makes her believe.
No, this isn’t a special case, it’s usual female shenanigans. It’s the same when Andrew Wilson (the slicked back hair guy, more on him later) or Brian Atlas (the host) or you question or educate (i.e. bore) a woman on something they don’t want to change their hard-fought, steel-clad opinion on. Put them live on a podcast with all their friends and viewers watching and they’ll fight at least 20% harder than your wife does with you in the kitchen.
They will evade, distract, ignore, refuse, restate, ramble, get emotional, insult, shut down, plead, escape, etc— basically a Bizarro nega-version of DARE vs. DEER— which may be worth its own study, but can be summed up in “not reasoning in good faith,” which is what pisses you off about communicating with your wife, until you learn to communicate differently.
Their “nega-DARE” tactics are just part of the natural feminine impulse to protect their psyche from a world full of men that want to tell them boring or uncomfortable stuff. It’s the literal same self-protective impulse that a child has when they ignore you, shrug their shoulders, or say “Yes sir!” then stick their tongue out and go do the exact opposite of what you just told them.
If they just did what everyone convincing said, they’d be more of an unstable torrent of different personalities than they already are. If they did everything you said, they would just be a pawn or a clone of you (i.e. an autistic man.) It’s part of life’s game that they challenge your logic and authority, else you wouldn’t be the hard-boiled stud that’s reading this blog right now.
What’s sad is how many of us give up at the first tactical defeat, (or even just the first perceived hit to our sense of self) rather than taking it as a challenge and setting the pieces how we like them with the relaxed but thoughtful whimsy of the game it actually is.
“My marriage/life/etc isn’t a game!” Of course not, but if you treat every small interaction like it’s the end of the world, you’ll drain your and her souls until it really is a crisis.
Grin and bear it
The debate, not just in the video but in general, impresses on me that Patrice’s philosophy is not dated but actually more applicable than ever. He was generally dealing with women on his show that were close to or above thirty and at a time where people were more levelheaded and mature, (i.e. every single day of history before today, and continuing.)
Whatever your age as a guy, if you’re dating a twenty year old (who will still be in highschool mentally) or a thirty year old (who will still think she’s twenty) or whatever age your companion is, you’ve got a monumental task in training these crazy hoes, and you better be up to it. Otherwise you’ll be dealing with an apocalyptic reckoning after you inevitably slip up and put a ring on it or sign a lease with a girl who thinks like this, and more importantly, is enabled to act on it. You’ll come home with her in bed with the bear. “He makes me feel safer!”
She really thinks so.
Nevermind that these girls go home with and get knocked up by the exact type of guys that you actually wouldn’t want to encounter in the woods or in a Superior Court lobby alone.
They’re not afraid of actual danger so much, or else they’d carry a gun, delete Tinder, wear a burka and use a condom, and block the bear’s number. They’re talking about emotional security (= emotional discomfort.)
Reality for them is emotional. You’ve got to show them yours. Uh, your reality, sir. Put that thing away.
Your job isn’t to logically convince them of your reality. It’s to be the type of man that makes it unthinkable they’d go with another reality they found on TikTok, Tinder, at the bar, or wherever.
You don’t do that by hemming them in, commanding without the respect to back it, pleading or explaining, etc, you do it by honing yourself in. Become magnetic, irresistable, unassailable, all that crap.
Create a reality they’re conditionally invited to that they can’t so no to, that they don’t want to say no to.
A good general leads by example.
Styles and tribulations
I got to Andrew Wilson and this video because I was impressed by how Andrew Wilson dealt with a fake alpha male guy that flew into a childish roid-rage the moment Wilson briskly shrugged off his caricaturish materialistic mindset. Less impressive were that any of them were at a live paid Fresh and Fit event, but eh, it’s a tough business. Aren’t we all whores for the dollar? Of course, I stay celestially detached from all that by sticking with the loving community of galaxy-brained MENSA escapees here on Substack.
Wilson in the fake alpha male video just looks like a normal ol’ white family man as he playfully and masterfully shrugs off the screaming degredations of a man who missed his calling in pro-wrestling. (Imagine if you could do the same with your wife.) That’s exactly the image Wilson seems to portray in a video about how he started in this sphere, admitting he’s broke, likes to play video games with his kids, drinks and smokes too much. That’s an All-American man.
As I get into some of the million clips and videos of him, you quickly get his shtick, and while it’s not necessarily super exciting, I can’t diss it, and they’re fun to watch. People actually watch Ben Shapiro after all. Wilson is basically like the average American dad trying to explain to his daughter why it’s not good to be a whore as she cries and yells she hates him. Watching it in a podcast setting is a nice little bit of popcorn fun sometimes.
His style is straightforward, logical, and pretty unrelenting, which is exactly what his viewers like about him. They think they’re like that or that want to be like that, and while there’s nothing wrong with that capability, it’s a style that’s more suited to speaking in good faith with guys than leading women.
While his audience is surely almost all men and the occasional based trad conservative fifty five year old woman (i.e. a woman already trained decently by a man) it did make me think:
His communication style doesn’t change the minds of the girls he’s talking to directly of course, a fact that would save your sanity if you applied it in your own life. But a theoretical female viewer (probably being shown the clip or video by their overzealous boyfriend who is humble enough to admit that he can’t explain this stuff right himself) might, being detached by the emotional discomfort of being directly criticized, and seeing the girls in his videos being frustrated and silly, internalize a little bit of what daddy Wilson is saying…
…Then I remember when “based” women watch dudes like him or Jordan Peterson, they’re usually looking for life advice that their man should be following. She shoves 12 Rules for Life in yours arms and says “Do it!” and then waits for you to do it. Ah, gotta love ‘em.
Which brings me to Patrice. His personal style, which he himself noted was informed by his work as a comedian, was a pro at perfectly balancing pressure and then relieving and redirecting it. If you had to choose who was more of an argumentative asshole, your first instinct might be Patrice because he’s loud (and black,) but Patrice’s style is a lot more conversational and dynamic, whereas Wilson mostly just keeps pounding away at the people across from him. (Again, no hate, that’s his thing.)
Patrice turned every conversation into a live show, and made his live shows feel almost conversational, all to the betterment of everyone around him.
And the input of the people around him, not because he gave them equal “airtime” or never told them to shut the fuck up, was integral to his communicating because they fueled him, no matter how good or bad what they were saying was. He wasn’t afraid to admit how someone had a point then immediately demonstrate how even that confirmed his central premise without sweating about it.
There’s something to be learned there. I don’t advocate stealing a man’s style, or trying to avoid a style because someone else said it was lame or boring. I point it out to let you draw your own conclusions.
Patrice’s vibrantly lit up a room because he was naturally talented and purposefully masterful at commanding it. He made the world around him his stage without the mistake of becoming a tyrant. His confidence and intensity were tempered by ease and humility and an incredible sense of humor.
“Humour is...the all-consoling and...the all-excusing, grace of life.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
He pounded at people with logic many times, sure, but he didn’t usually let it turn into a back and forth. He had a way of switching his focuses between people and angles that didn’t let a subject get bogged down and that reinforced the point of view he had and the power to put it forward. Even when conversations did get bogged down, it wasn’t a grinding halt, but a sudden deep dive into the topic. Few people have that.
If you’re trying to “run the show,” you may want to learn how to run a show. If the way you’re acting or communicating isn’t working, take a step back and try something different. Whatever it is. As long as it’s done righteously. You learn what works if you don’t let your ego stand in the way.
The Man or Bear debate is just another example of chicks being goofy. You can dig into all the psychological and cultural reasons why this particular generation is giving this answer to this particular question, how insanity and degeneracy have taken over the world, but it boils down to the same stuff Grandpa Adam was dealing with, Grandma Eve being goofy, and himself being an imperfect man charged with an imperfect woman and an imperfect world he had brought to be.
The question is how you want to shape your goofy girl, and that all depends on how you shape your goofy self.