Would you rather be stuck in the woods with a bear or with a woman who believes it’s morally ok to falsely accuse men of rape

Additional stipulations:

You can’t hurt the woman or do anything to sway her opinion in one direction or the other

The woman is less likely to falsely accuse you than the bear is to attack you, the probability is roughly equal to the probability a random man would attack a woman in the forest. The woman has a gun and will fatally shoot you if she thinks you are threatening, at roughly the probability of a random man deciding to kill a woman.

The woman knows who you are but you are unaware of her identity

My thought process/disclaimer: this is an imperfect analogy. I’m more generally interested in if men (in this subreddit) find the psychological risk of a false rape claim to be more threatening than the higher risk of a mauling. I think in general the reason someone would answer “bear” is not because they believe the probability of a person hurting them is higher, or that the person is capable of more physical damage than the bear. It is that the bear is a natural force,which we accept are semi random and unknowable, and society will undoubtedly be on your side against a natural force if it hurts you. This makes the idea of a bear less threatening in a hypothetical context. Meanwhile, if another human being decides to hurt you, it is a more personal betrayal, it may effect your ability to trust in society, and it may cause society to perceive you as a lesser person. The consequences of another person betraying you are widely understood and therefore play out more significantly in the mind vs a bear attack. This is a fallacy common to all people.