You were doing so well up to this point!

Unfortunately, here you switched over to rationalizing, and thereby missed the point.

No, almost nobody--men or women--has a keen sense of how dangerous actual bears in the forest can be. Not enough to make an assessment like this.

But you don't have to. It's a hypothetical. You're not actually going to end up in the woods at all, let alone with a bear or a man.

Saying "bear" to a hypothetical question like this is a way to state: "I have to worry about men far too much. I shouldn't have to. I indicate my disgust with what I have to put up with and what risks are imposed upon me by saying "bear"."

It's a way to state: "No, I don't know how dangerous actual bears are and that's not the point. The point is that I know how dangerous men can be and it's way too high."

And that's it.

Nobody is actually choosing to fight a grizzly. Nobody needs to know about the bear's mood, the man's mood, their own mood when they go to the woods. It doesn't matter that bears have killed people and eaten them alive, or that men have killed (and eaten!) people. Approximately zero people understand the odds well enough to make an informed decision, and zero people actually have to do it.

It's all about making a statement, not about decision theory. That's the point.