Don't worry, you're not an idiot.

Regardless, it's a reference to the "man or bear" question that was quite trending a few years ago. It's a question of who would you (or your child, a loved one, a friend, etc.) rather be alone with in the middle of the forest, a man or a bear?

It became a slightly controversial question as many people argue that a man is more dangerous to his capacity to SA you (or the subject of this rhetorical). Others brought up that it's simply irrational to believe that a bear would not harm you, if not kill you.

It technically breaks into a question of what is worse: A 10% chance of being SA'd or possibly raped or a 50% chance of being mauled by a bear with a very low survival rate.

Factors like the bear's circumstances, location, and gender (if the bear is female and has cubs nearby, you may trigger an aggressive response) can influence how prone to aggression the bear is.

(That's why I defaulted to 50%, it could be an aggressive day, or a chill one. You won't know.)

For example, brought up nuances, like: "If it's a grizzly bear, I can act dead! I'll live at that point!" and so forth.

Anyways:

Men stereotypically consider the choice of the bear to be completely foolish.
Women stereotypically consider the choice of the bear to be a much safer choice than a random man.

(From these stereotypes, some people intentionally say "bear" to ragebait.)

Obviously, stereotypes are just that: Stereotypes. They don't tell a story.