This doesn’t quite work. In fact, I think it’s the opposite.

The way I heard it described, which really drove the point home, was that imagine you are at a table and the food is being passed around. Every time it gets to you, the food is passed right past you. Everyone has a full plate except you. You say “hey, I deserve my fair share!” and then some jamoke says “we all deserve our fair share.” It’s missing the point, because you currently aren’t getting your fair share, and your unique plight is being ignored.

The sign in the case here is diminishing the fact that there are victims of females. They aren’t saying “women are unique victims” here, they are saying “men are unique perpetrators.”

Without the sign, this conversation doesn’t happen. You should be on the side of everyone else here and should be saying “hey, keep your misandry to yourself, this is about female victims” but instead you’re arguing “we should just let blatant misandry slide right now because we are talking about a female victim of a man.” It would be like (as I said in another post) letting blatant racism in a protest slide because the perpetrator was black and the victim was white.

Let me ask you a question.

If this were about a gang of black people committing some crime, and as a protest someone was carrying a sign that said “not all black people, but always a black person” would you be telling people it’s “not the time” to point out the obvious and blatant racism?