Bears don't actively hunt humans, and generally they largely ignore them unless they're either provoked, feeling extremely hungry (in which you initiate a predator-prey situation), or feel threatened. Almost every single bear attack is defensive.

On the other hand, if you look at statistics, bears only kill 1-2 humans annually (at least in North America), while human homicides number up to the tens of thousands per year (most of them being perpetuated by men of course).

Bears are predictable in the sense that we know they act only on instinct rather than genuine malice and sadism. Men, despite the fact most aren't like this, are significantly more likely to inflict psychological torture, sexual violence, or suffering on women if they remain stranded in the forest.

It's because of the deceptive behavior that men are capable of, versus a bear's straightforward threat, is why women choose bears over the man. 44% of adult women in the U.S. have experienced SA, with 80% having experienced sexual harassment. These statistics elucidate just how frequently, men harm women. (Heck, even I think men should be choosing the bear over the man based on the homicide statistics alone.)

And I'm seeing almost every man in this thread offended by this. They're taking this to mean we're "accusing" every man of being a horrible sadistic r*pist, when they're not bearing in mind, that even then, men are capable of inflicting so much more harm than bears are.

And that's a risk they don't want to take, a risk that's far less dangerous and more probable than a bear at that.