That is exactly the situation. No part of this post is hateful; it's adversarial because women expressed a justified fear and men just "disagreed" because they don't like to think about it. The point is to be controversial yet morally correct as a statement. It would absolutely not work just as well if it was inclusive, people would just agree with it and no one would care.
Do you disagree with the statement? It doesn't sound like you do. What's the issue? Who is harmed by this post?
Does the sign say "all men"? If it did, would it matter? This is the most engagement I've ever seen on Lemmy regarding the issue of women's safety, sorry you don't approve of it.
Most bears don't seek out and attack women, but many men do. One of those happens far more often than the other, and you're either uninformed or willfully ignorant about that fact.
Im a little shocked at the general sentiment in this thread, I'm not a woman but most of my friends are afab and just hearing stories about how men will act normal until they're in an isolated situation like the scenario describes makes it a no-brainer why so many people pick bear
Then the post wouldn't have meaning because that's a universally agreed upon moral sentiment on its face. The post is targeting people who would rather take offense to recent discourse rather than slowing down and considering how this moral sentiment applies to the situation. Without specifying 'women' and 'men' the post would not have contextual meaning.
You're free to make your own 'inclusive' meme that states the obvious, but the people this meme is targeted toward would see it as obvious and not consider how it pertains to their behavior.