->The people who think they are perfectly rational are usually the most delusional of all.
Nobody believes they are perfectly rational, but people should attempt to become purely (rational, moral, and physical sensation driven). Morality and physical sensations are different from emotions.
->So for a woman, the scariest thing is something that can follow her into the social context in which she seeks protection and still harm her.
That can be a bear just as a man. If a woman sees a strange man in the woods, then why is that man in the woods to begin with? Easy: He likes to hike (or fish, or be in the outdoors). Rape almost never occurs in the woods; it occurs in bedrooms and club parties.
I've endured more burns from stoves than lava; but I'd rather get burned from a stove than a volcano because I'm not emotional/stupid (which are synonymous terms).
->A man is driven to assess outside threats and respond to them based on the likelihood of him being able to survive that conflict. A woman is driven to avoid the conflict in the first place and seek safety in a social setting.
Everybody avoids conflicts/challenges under various conditions. You think men look at a hurricane and think, "I can survive this thing"? Women endure various challenges as well (example: exams in school). Nobody is a fight absolutist or a flight absolutist.
->Now, is the risk very small? Yeah. But the risk of the suspicious character coming towards you at dusk is also small, but you still cross the street. You will take a thousand little steps throughout life to avoid those very small risks, especially if you are a woman.
If a suspicious man comes towards a woman, then she crosses the street. If a bear comes towards a woman, then she's petrified. Also, you are defending sundown laws with this statement, you realize that, correct?
->Similarly, if I designed some kind of retarded revolver with 100 chambers and put a bullet into one of them, held it to your head, and started pulling the trigger you would rightly get angry. The risk is small, 1% to be precisely, but what's at stake is everything. Now imagine that I have some sort of crazy M. C. Escher gun with an unknown number of chambers. It could be ten, it could be ten thousand. You'd be even more pissed off because of the uncertainty, because of the possibility that that is a very risky gun.
The average woman sees 400 strange men daily. For 50 years (assuming 2% chance of rape) this is 1/438000000 odds of a strange man she sees raping her (less likely than winning a Powerball lottery with one ticket). These are the odds that women are dealing with with strange dudes.
If a woman sees a bear in the woods, then maybe 5% chance (1/20 chance) she's dead from the bear.
For this claim to be acceptable, a woman would have to believe 21,900,000 murders (basically several Holocausts) are worse than 1 rape.
And if proportions don't matter (but only fear does), then Trump can say any xenophobic thing about immigrants that he wants based on one immigrant doing something like murder and use it to dehumanize all immigrants (which given that you are a strong Christian theocrat, you would be against that). You can also say that you prefer the bear to the strange woman because the bear never falsely accused anyone of rape (a woman getting raped is equally as bad as a man being falsely accused of rape).
Your solider analogy doesn't apply here because women aren't in war. If a woman is in the woods, then she's hiking, enjoying nature. If she's being S.A'ed by a guy, then she will mace him if required (which is good) and she is prone to acting on emotion in the heat of the moment (which is fine). But all of her negative emotions should be used solely on the man that S.A.'ed her and nobody else.
Same thing if she got raped by a black guy from Brooklyn.