You've written a wonderful article explaining why the fear of men is real--very very real to some women--and why this would prompt them to instinctively choose men. This take is really well-crafted.

However, the stats on bears are ridiculously off. It's a really blatant case of making an argument with a base rate fallacy. Lynn might know her bears, but she doesn't know her odds. (Do you notice that she shows off her bear claw marks? Yes, bears have attacked and injured her multiple times and she's trying to say that men are 167 times more dangerous? Can you imagine if a woman saying that men weren't so bad shows that men only left her bruised and with a black eye, didn't kill her?)

If you actually want to know the odds--even though it's really not necessary to understand the social phenomenon--I've explained the considerations and done a sorta halfway decent job of calculating the odds (sorta halfway decent but vastly better than anything else I've seen, alas--if you know of a good treatment please link me to it!) here: https://medium.com/@ichoran/man-vs-bear-decision-theory-edition-7b12eb26c2e2

Again, you don't need to know the odds for bears. Bears are rare. Men are common. That's enough to develop enough fear of random men to justify the answer in the context of the question.