Well, ship.

Imagine you're on a boat, sailing in deep water, and you come across a slowly sinking rowboat full of men and women.

You see the hole, and realize you have exactly what is needed to plug it and stop the rowboat from sinking, but instead of doing so, you blame the men for the hole, pull the women out of the boat, take one of the oars, and sail away, leaving the men to fend for themselves.

Later, whenever you see a rowboat with both genders in it, you assume that the men probably have put a hole in it somewhere.

Even when there's no evidence of the boat sinking, if the women claim it is, you treat those boats the same as the first.

When there is evidence that women have damaged their boats, you ignore that and still treat that boatload the same.

When what you are doing is pointed out to you, you use your history of rescuing women and abandoning men as evidence that men are boat-wreckers, and women are not.

You expect people to not figure out the logical fallacy in that, and accuse them of dishonesty and whining when they do.

Kind of a stupid and dishonest way of handling the problem of sinking rowboats, isn't it?

That's how feminism handles domestic violence.