Does the question also say "on an island, the size of Ireland"? If you're going to argue in bad faith, we can be here all day, because if it's just you and some man in Madagascar, you're equally as safe as sharing that island as with a bear or much anything really.

But then, you knew that and are being purposefully obtuse, since "island" type questions are usually about being in a limited amount of space (btw - bears hunt in forests, known not enclosed spaces, so kinda still proving my point most people really don't understand the danger a bear poses).

Either way, you're falling for the trap I just mentioned. It's not to further discussion on the problem, because it doesn't actually address the problem. Secondly, there's no reason I need to prove I'm the "reason" so many women picked the bear. That's a logical fallacy designed to inflame, not unite. And at it's core, you're proving what some have said, and showing how this question is malicious - it's designed to paint men as bad by default, rather that what the real problem is - statistically more likely to be abusive than the other sex. And before you misinterpret that, statistically significant ≠ everyone. It means to practice caution, of course, because the problem is there. It doesn't mean assume every single man will be evil, because then you won't be able to have healthy relationships (and I'm not even talking romantic ones here, but familial, social, professional) if by default you assume you will be in danger. That is, after all, the only logical conclusion to thinking a random man is more dangerous than one of the strongest predatory mammals on earth.

That you then dismiss someone simply because they didn't tow some now created narrative is exactly what identity politics also wants. Because then you're not open to dialogue that might fix the problem, and you're also preventing focus from the true root of virtually all modern societal issues: the wealthy ruling class. They are, end of the day, the ones that tip the scales of power so that things are the way they are.

Just as one example - does roe v Wade being overturned help in any way with the current fear many women have of men? No, it doesn't, because now rape becomes even more horrific without access to abortion. So why would Republicans appoint members to a supreme court that would do such a thing?

Well, we don't have to guess, because they've even said the quiet part out loud - to create more cheap human labor for the economy. And that's not the only thing it does - it's harder for a worker taking care of a child to quit a job where she's being mistreated or underpaid. It's harder for her to risk her job to join a union.

And that's just one part of the multifaceted issue that is (especially American) women being afraid of men in general, regardless of the bear or not. And it, like most societal issues, come back to the wealthy ruling class. But instead of that, they've managed to get people like you to play identity politics. Solve the real problem - an oligarchy that wants people divided - and most of the other issues go away.

This furthering of a perception of men being more dangerous than a bear is just another scheme to prevent us from working together.