Author(s): Devyn Wilson
Mentor(s): Collin Hawley, Honors College
L
Abstract
Stemming from the 2024 TikTok trend asking women if they would rather be stuck in a forest with a man or bear, this study seeks to answer what the internal discourse of women is when choosing a man over a bear, in order to assess their values and perceptions of safety. Early research on this subject focused on crime statistics and victimization rates. As feminist theory developed, researchers began to explore broader contexts, including public spaces, urban design, and societal norms that influence women’s feelings of safety. This transition showcased that women’s safety perceptions are often shaped by societal norms, cultural narratives, and lived experiences. However, this proposed research question explores how women assess and investigate the intersection of physical, emotional, and social aspects of safety. To explore the decision-making process of women, mixed methods including, Critical Technocultural Discourse analysis of social media posts (Brock, 2016), bear attack statistics, crime analysis, and survey analysis of women in the DMV area will be used. Critical Technocultural discourse analysis used to analyze social media discourse to find what women are saying regarding their perceived safety in either scenario, a man or a bear appearing. Bear attack analysis and crime analysis can compare the relative risk of damage if a bear or man appears. Surveys of women in the DMV area allow for a conversational component in which women will be able to express safety in their setting. The findings contribute to broader conversations around safety, risk assessment, trust, and gender in contemporary society.
Audio Transcript
Imagine walking on a trail much like this one. While walking you hear leaves rustling, would you whether the rustling be due to a man or a bear. This question was presented to TikTok users in 2024. What was supposed to be a quick, simple, easy-to-flow trend turned into discussions about women’s safety and how they perceived the world around them. It has been a little over a year since this question first appeared, allowing many people to answer it. But what does this question demonstrate about women’s perceptions of safety? What does this question demonstrate about the perceptions of safety of women. What kind of improvement and conclusions can we draw from this trend to make women feel safer. Furthermore, the project wanted to explore the intersections of social media and outlook on safety.
Academic conversations have yet to cover these discussions. Early research on women’s perception of safety focused on crime statistics and victimization rights. As feminist theory developed, researchers began to explore broader contexts, including public spaces, urban design, and societal norms that influence women’s feelings of safety. Furthermore, safety is grouped into other discussions including MeToo, Not all men, LGBTQ+, and family disputes, among others. While these papers provide context to safety, they fail to capture the true fears and realities of women, in their everyday life. The shift from victimization rates to broader contexts marked the understanding that women’s safety perceptions are shaped by societal norms, cultural narratives, and lived experiences. Despite this shift, academic papers have yet to capture the nuanced discourse of women in everyday life. This disconnect raises important questions about whose experiences are prioritized in academic discourse — and why moments like the “man or bear” debate remain outside scholarly engagement. This project seeks to highlight the internal dialogue of women set upon by this trend Man Vs Bear, exploring how women assess and investigate the intersection of physical, emotional, and social aspects of safety.
This semester primarily focused on IRB approval and gathering survey responses.
Before examining the responses, it’s important to note the inclusion criteria. Respondents had to be women or nonbinary, between 18 and 25 years old, and currently attending a university or college in the DMV area. A total of 70 participants met this criteria.
When asked whether they would rather be in a forest with a man or a bear, responses were as shown in the graph:
Most participants felt confident in their choice. Those who were uncertain said they wanted more context—such as the type of bear, the exact setting, or the man’s behavior—because these factors would meaningfully shape their decision.
Since the purpose of the study was to understand why participants made this choice, the explanations are central to the findings. Common themes included:
Fear of men: This appeared on both sides. Many respondents felt they could more easily predict a bear’s behavior compared to a man’s intentions. Participants mentioned strategies for avoiding bear attacks or managing the situation, while expressing concern about men having hidden motives or personal gains. Several respondents noted that some potential outcomes with men—such as assault, or not being believed afterward—felt “worse than death.”
Some pointed out that they see men every day and have survived those encounters, implying that men may not be as dangerous as perceived. Others emphasized that bear attacks are statistically less common than violent crimes committed by men.
Later questions provided broader context for these choices: 93% of respondents felt that women are conditioned to be more alert or afraid in public spaces than men. No one said “no.” 80% reported they have pretended to talk on the phone, changed direction, or taken defensive actions when encountering an unknown man in a quiet area. These behaviors highlight the role of social conditioning and hypervigilance in shaping perceived safety.
Across responses, control emerged as a major influence. Participants expressed more fear of threats whose motives could be hidden—such as a man who appears helpful but becomes dangerous.
Many respondents also said they would trust their instincts over statistics, suggesting that cultural narratives and personal experience strongly shape safety judgments. For some, choosing the bear aligns with worst-case-scenario thinking, especially for those who stated that certain outcomes with men would be worse than death.
Respondents tended to classify their fear of bears as primarily rational—based on a known, identifiable physical threat.
Fear of men, however, was described as both rational and emotional, rooted not only in real statistics but also in lived experience, cultural conditioning, and emotional memory.
indicating that fear is shaped by:
lived experience,
repeated warnings,
cultural narratives, and
observed stories of harm.
The data shows that young women and nonbinary students interpret safety through a blend of emotion, lived experience, social conditioning, and perceived controllability. The surprising preference for being with a bear over a man is not about the bear itself—it is a reflection of deep concerns about male unpredictability, cultural warnings, and threats to autonomy.
The bear becomes a stand-in for a danger they feel they can understand, while men represent dangers they feel they cannot read or control.
Looking into the coming months, Critical Technocultural Discourse analysis, bear attack statistics, and crime analysis will be put into conversation with the survey results. Together, they will uncover more about perceptions of safety and where gaps can be filled through societal shifts. Ultimately, my work contributes to a broader conversation: how gender, safety, and culture shape the way we move through the world.
The “man or bear” question may sound simple — even silly — but it reminds us that women’s fears are not irrational. They are reflections of real, lived experiences in a world that too often asks them to be cautious — even in the forest.