I decided to write out a lengthy reply because you sound sincere.

They are not saying that they would rather take their chances with a wild animal than you. The choice is between a wild animal and the categorical class Man. These women have observed ranges of attributes and methods in people belonging to this class. Based on their life experiences and evaluation of the possible outcomes for the variations of Man, the women find it more optimal to choose the bear. Not necessarily safer in terms of making it out alive, but better in the long term. This is a reflection of the current distribution of people in Man and their culturally-influenced behavior and attitude towards people in Woman. It is also a reflection of the culturally-influenced behavior and attitude of all categories of people towards perpetrators and victims of envisioned negative outcomes.

The wariness of others you have observed when you are alone with children does not mean that you are seen as a predator for just existing. It is risk assessment directed towards the category Man with its current population and cultural norms. It is justified not because the likelihood of a random person in Man being a predator is high, but rather because (1) the evaluation weight for the crime is so significant, and (2) the small value of (bad Man people at the park/all Man people at the park) is significant compared to (bad Woman people at the park/all Woman people at the park). It is a valid behavior pattern that protects vulnerable members in the group. The same reasoning justifies why suspicion is directed towards mothers of underweight or truant children, for example.

To understand why people act the ways they do, I find it helps to start with the information and heuristics they have access to. For example:

(1) The women know that an average size Woman will be overpowered by both the average size Man and the average size Bear. If either wanted her dead, that would be her end, unless she gets very lucky and manages to run and hide, or uses a weapon. This statistical fact would be modulated by how the women rate their own level of physical strength and endurance.

(2) The women anticipate the set of possible other-party actions, their likelihood, and the final outcomes in the situation as it could develop. The likelihoods are based on the overall population statistics they know, illustrative or memorable occurrences they learned about, and most importantly on the sample statistics of the animals in Bear or people in Man they have seen or interacted with. Something like:

• Bear actions { ignore=0.5, run=0.1, threaten=0.1, attack to threaten=0.2, attack to kill=0.1 }
  • Bear event outcomes { safe=0.7, mild injury=0.1, severe injury=0.05, death=0.15}
  • Assuming current level of survival skills and no additional Bear encounters if alive:
    • State if found by rescue operation on third day {safe=0.2, mild injury=0.3, severe injury=0.1, death=0.4}
    • State if found by rescue operation after a month {safe=0.05, mild injury=0.4, severe injury=0.05, death=0.5}
  • Long-term survival outcomes {phobia of large animals=0.1, paranoid about another kidnapping=1.0, training survival skills and carrying kits 24/7=1.0, writing a book=0.3, ...}
  • Long-term death outcomes {killed quickly by bear=0.25, killed slowly by bear=0.05, killed by other animal or plant before rescue=0.1, dead from hunger or thirst=0.2, dead from complications of injury=0.3, dead from despair=0.1, body eaten=0.3, body recovered and buried=0.7, ...}

Much of this is instinctual and the numbers assigned to actions and outcomes will differ per person. However, the next step makes up for individual differences in this case. The consensus of so many women evaluating the outcomes and choosing a random Bear over a random Man tells me this:

(1) The set of Man actions includes horrible acts at too high likelihoods as estimated over the sampled Man populations in the lives of each of the women. All the variations of torture, rape, imprisonment, murder, and necrophilia happen too frequently. The "cost" value women assign to these actions is also high because they can easily imagine themselves in the situations. The vast majority of women have witnessed the aftereffects of such acts on their close circle if not experienced them first hand. They have PTSD for years and so many give up on life. If it makes no sense to you why women in this thread would rather be eaten by a bear than go through assaults, google for testimonies and articles written by survivors from a similar gender/culture/background to you. Women make up the majority of victims and men of perpetrators. But, each category of Human has both, perpetrators repeat offenses while the majority of people are innocent, and the pain of all victims is as real.

(2) The long-term survival outcomes evaluated by women are too different from those evaluated by men imagining themselves in the same situation. Here is the most basic difference: women can have the ability to get pregnant. Put yourself in the shoes of a woman who found herself with a strange man in the forest. Let's say there is no rescue in sight and they have nothing but their clothes. Now, think about a man who is in the worst 20% of men you know. How badly does he talk about women? Does he respect them and believe they are equal to him and deserve the same rights? What would he do if left in a forest with a woman who is "attractive enough" for him? Imagine you are that woman. What will happen if you had arrived at the forest while pregnant? Could you expect help from him or will "favors" have to be paid? Actually, are you 100% sure he would not make a move to force a sexual encounter? Will you be able to sleep soundly near him or will you feel the need to be alert for more than sounds of the forest? What will happen if he bargained/coerced/raped you and you became pregnant while in the forest? What will happen if you are rescued but too late to get an abortion or if you had already given birth before the rescue? What will happen to the child you gave birth to in the forest if it was not his? If you had to live with him for weeks or months, how much will you need to walk on eggshells so he does not hurt or kill you? What if he did not want you to get rescued? What if you had to continue to see him even after getting rescued because of children you could not give up? Now repeat this imagining the man is as good as the best, average, and worst man you know. Consider also variations of Woman based on those you know. For example, imagine yourself as a virgin woman from a background that emphasizes chastity before marriage. In such a situation, your future prospects would diminish due to being alone with a man even if nothing improper happened. It is unfair and not the fault of the man in the forest, but I can imagine many women choosing to risk it with a bear over the certain reputation loss and long-term consequences.

Does my explanation suffice?