This is actually interesting... Must be city women.
Because in the wild, given a knowledge of the landscape, Women would tend to have the advantage.
Men are made to see things that move (hunter)... Women see things that don't move (forage).
Men require vastly more energy to operate. Men require specialized tools to operate (hunt), which must be created. Men are far more likely to sustain damage.
Women have natural fat reserves and can operate at minimized expense for a longer time.
Foraging requires less expenditure than hunting.
Of the hilljilly chicks I personally know, I would expect any of them to get along alright if left alone in the woods - She wouldn't be having a grand time without a man, and over time would wear away hard, as the hunting is what provides protein... And women generally operate at a disadvantage in hunting/trapping/fishing.
But depending upon the season, that ought to take quite a while.
The outliers in that would be chance - Protection and shelter building, where a man's natural attributes hold a vast advantage... and firewood. Womenfolk get tore up getting wood bucked up, where a man can take that in stride. Likewise any number of ways a man can improve his lot - His larger frame, providing he can feed it, offers greater traveling ability, greater packing strength, and greater self-protection.
The women though, they balance that with less requirement, less energy output, greater foraging advantage, greater ability at fiddley tasks (like sewing, basket weaving, long term cooking), and vast advantage in health and medicine.
In my experience (and I have done this sort of thing in the real world) a man can survive better if he can get to meat. A woman can survive better on forage. And neither will survive particularly as well as they would together. Together they can prosper.
