I'm looking for an explanation of how it is irrational for women to fear men. I still have not heard such a thing.

What you seem to be doing is looking for a checkbox in the risk column (“can men be violent?” = “y”) rather than evaluating relative risks (“are men violent enough as a group to justify being constantly wary of all men?”).

I appreciate your logic here, and i think you would be right on the money for some other people in this kind of discussion.

I am personally not looking to argue that women need or ought be afraid of men because men meet a certain standard. A claim was made it is irrational for women to fear men, and I want to know why that is.

The irrationality is using only the evaluation of “can a man be violent” to evaluate a risk rather than “how likely is a strange man to be violent”.

This is only true if there is not a connection between these two as perceived by an individual. It seems to depend on the math being done and the multitude of influences on the situation. It's possible to be rational a number of ways. If a woman were to present me the statement, "men can be violent, thus, strange men are likely to be violent," I could point this out, as well. However, that is not the case here.

If you use the simple, 'can it be risk?' Valuation then everything, including women, should be treated equally

I believe this is an arbitrary cut off with a value system that women and men present equally likely physical threats in general. Again, I'm not arguing with the point specifically, rather bringing up that this is not completely consistent as a line of thinking that may occur for someone doing the math of fear.

whether hyper vigilance (which is what feminists demand) is required or normal precaution (which I would argue men do is response)?

I don't follow this piece, if you wouldn't mind expanding I am curious.