correct. a man on the other side of a clearing is a more dangerous threat to you, a hiker, regardless of your gender, than a bear. nothing about this ever said that the bear or the man was directly in your close personal space. it was always just "you encounter a bear outside"

that's what people keep saying. i don't know why you're so hung up on these details you added to the scenario that were never there in the first place

women saying they don't by default feel safe around men and feel more equipped to deal with a bear is a reflection of rape culture and bears being predictable, not a preference for being attacked by a bear

No, he may be hunderds of meters away from you. You're certainly not getting stabbed this second, but the point is that you won't know what he'll do until it's too late to avoid it. The bear is much easier to handle at a distance, especially since the bear is much less likely to move toward you than the man. The man isn't very likely to move toward you either, but still more than the bear, which is almost guaranteed to avoid you.

If you suddenly realize that there's a bear not too far from you (still hundreds of meters away), it's not a nice feeling, but you still know what to do. If you sudenly realize that there's a man not too far, it's probably okay, but your risk meter goes up the closer he comes toward you and you don't react, whereas if the bear even turns toward you, you just leave and you're safe again.

You can also turn away from the man the moment he turns toward you, obviously. But the whole point of the danger assessment is that you don't know how to react, and the risk only goes up for a woman alone in the woods. The man is an unknown variable, the bear is not. That is the entire message of the answer.