Female violence against males isn't taken seriously because in the 1960s, women we call today feminists could not accept that there are two sexes and that innate sex causes differences between men and women, so to be able to deny sex-differences they developed a theory that says that men and women are not two sexes but two classes and that "if any differences appear between men and women it must be because the male sex constantly oppresses the female sex with permanent violence". This meant they had to show this constant violence. The problem is, that in humans like in all species, the violence between sexes is the rarest type of violence, compared to inner male and inner female violence, in each sex alone, which is simply the competition that creates on earth an evolution. The sexes in every creature are always excluded biologically from this universal violent competition to enable sexuality between them. So inter-sex violence is always the rarest type of violence compared to the two types of intra-sex violence (female against females and males against males). So what the feminists did to support their theory was: stretch the very rare male-against-female violence to "100%", "all women and girls" (by constantly expanding arbitrarily the definition of "violence" until "hello can be violence") and squeezing the same rare female-to-male violence to "zero" (by deleting data from reports, justifying female attackers, not reporting in the media), to keep their theory alive, that there are no two sexes and all differences are "social construction by permanent violence from males to females". The feminist denial of humanity and of the human sexes necessitates inflating one rare violence and methodically hiding another type of rare violence. To show a "one-sided and ubiquitous" violence to support their theory, to avoid the fact that there are two sexes and they have differences.

Prior to the feminist distortion of public perceptions, when both extremely rare types of violence - men's against women and women's against men - were acknowledged by society more or less equally (and in proportions to their rarity, that is, this was not the primary subject society revolves around as now, which is the result of the feminist deliberate stretching explained above), women's violence against men received the same social reprehension as men's against women, at least when it was severe. The indifference to men's and boy's well-being and lives is a result of feminist hate-speech causing dehumanization of men and boys - that is making women (and even some men) believe that men and boys are not as human as women and thus would not feel from the same abuse or violence the same inner pain and suffering as women would. Yes - men have a drive for self-sacrifice for protecting others and this means all of society could always view in certain contexts men's suffering as acceptable - but this was when the suffering was some last resort to prevent the greater suffering of others, that acceptance was not of arbitrary suffering - and the acceptance of that selfless suffering was not by indifference but by reward with appreciation, love and even glorification. The indifference we see today is not some innate human quality, as it is often understood, and in fact is in contradiction to women's historical empathy for men's struggles or pain, including ones caused by some violent women. When a murderer-feminist shot artist Andy Warhol who died of the injury a few years later, after she published a manifesto calling to murder men, she was erased from public memory, and the injury Warhol sustained was not met with indifference, and similarly after (possibly feminist) Lorena Bobbitt amputated her husband's genitalia in his sleep, he was perceived as the victim of a psychopath (both the feminist-murmurer and Bobbitt remained obscure until glorified by the me too vortex who, in the course of becoming a violent hate-movement, "re-framed" them in interviews as heroic victims whose story and heroism was "silenced" "because patriarchy").