I think you have missed the point, though.
A bear generally will not attack, it's just chilling there, right? Plus, they don't get provoked to attack because they feel like it, or their fragile ego got hurt, or because they feel entitled.
But a bear will always be a bear, and you can trust it to be a bear and do bear things.
A man is a total wildcard. He might be nice. But you absolutely cannot count on that and he is not able to be trusted because you simply do not know.
How stupid do you think I am? If a man had written that post, I would call it mansplaining.
The point, unless I am an idiot, is that men are more dangerous than bears. But this only makes sense if the bears are dangerous.
The question posed asks women to choose between a bear and a man for the rhetorical purpose of demonstrating that women find strange men very threatening.
Let's say we measure threats on a scale of 0 to 10, with zero being no threat and 10 being terrifying.
If the bear poses no threat and there is no risk of attack, the bear is a zero. The man, then, needs only to be a 1 to be more frightening than the bear.
This would mean that the strange man would make a woman a hair nervous, perhaps.
But if the bear is an 8, then the man has to be at least a 9 on the threat scale, which is why the question asks about a bear and not a bunny rabbit. And that's why women choose the bear (because that's the point) and why (some) men are insulted that women choose the bear.
And so if you want to discuss why women choose the bear, you have to begin by understanding that the bear presents a major threat--regardless of what might happen with a literal bear.
I do understand rhetoric, if nothing else.
