The problem with the man vs bear question is that approximately nobody has any clue whether men or bears are more dangerous to encounter in the woods--and the bear scenario especially doesn't feel real to most of them--so they go based on gut instinct, which isn't even their honest gut instinct but rather their performative gut instinct because they know they're not actually having to choose. That's all fine.

The problem comes when people start trying to rationalize this. Then they say all kinds of ridiculous things, giving evidence that isn't remotely adequate to even narrow down the conclusion, pretending that they know something that they don't, and generally committing various logical fallacies.

If women would just say, "Bear, because I've been scared of men and I shouldn't have to be, and this is my chance to make that point," then it would work out much better. Likewise, if men would say, "That's a really hurtful comparison you're making; I envision bears as really really scary," it would be a much more honest rebuttal. The whole situation is rife with people talking past each other, missing the point, doing completely pointless calculations, and telling each other that the other is missing the point while missing the point.