This is a recurring theme that I've noticed when debating feminists on discrimination in various institutions, and in particular it comes down to either; it's ok when women do bad things because of the past or because of the patriarchy, and it's ok when men are victims of a crime because they commit a majority of them or because they reap the benefits of living in a patriarchy.

Here is an example of a man on national tv in the UK talking about how men are the victims of domestic abuse more often than women are, and her counter-argument is that men are the perpetrators of these crimes more often (bare in mind they were discussing why male victims receive less attention) and therefore his point is invalid.

One primary goal of real equality is to see people as individuals and not their demographic, so when talking about victims, all victims should be treated the same regardless of gender, race, age, sexuality etc, so why when trying to dissect support for men when being a victim of DV, would the gender of the perpetrator even enter into the discussion? Is the victim not a victim because the perpetrator is the same gender?

The same can be said for non-violence related issues too. Why is boys doing worse than girls not an issue unlike when it was the other way around? The patriarchy doesn't oppress boys (so we don't have to tackle the issue of why boys aren't doing as well as girls?) like it oppresses girls.