Why is it so hard to understand that being cautious is the very opposite of “I’d pick a bear”? You have to assume all men, or rather a very large percentage (more than a chance of a wild grizzly mauling you) have bad intentions and are willing to act on them, but they only need an opportunity (i.e. be in a dark forest). The choice outlined here seems to be “would you face a murderer and a rapist or a wild animal” instead of “a man you don’t know or a wild animal”. That’s the problem “men” see with this hypothetical - there is a difference between validating feelings and outright misandry.
Why is it so hard to understand that being cautious is the very opposite of “I’d pick a bear”? You have to assume all men, or rather a very large percentage (more than a chance of a wild grizzly mauling you) have bad intentions and are willing to act on them, but they only need an opportunity (i.e. be in a dark forest). The choice outlined here seems to be “would you face a murderer and a rapist or a wild animal” instead of “a man you don’t know or a wild animal”. That’s the problem “men” see with this hypothetical - there is a difference between validating feelings and outright misandry.