Author(s): Devyn Wilson
Mentor(s): Collin Hawley, Honors College
L
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.