Debate: women are more likely to punish one man for another man's crime. More likely to punish a weak but innocent man over a cruel but strong man.

I've seen couple of times from high school to workplace and neighborhood and parties.

The backbencher kid in the school getaway with all kind of pranks and mischief acts in school against the girl but the front bencher nerd is ridiculed for even trying to talk to a girl. Threatened and shamed and made fun of.

What can a nerd who barely moves his hand around even do to a woman when he has no history of beating up other men, or forcing himself in women etc...

Party frat boy who leans against the door and blocks the way of woman is not charged with restriction order, but a nerd is ridiculed for simply asking her out for a date.

My whole life I've noticed the weak/less dominant men absolutely getting chewed even when they aren't doing anything to other men let alone a woman.

Yet lot of cruel and evil man, barely get pushed aside by women (who despite knowing their bad reputation, don't do anything against them. )

The men who do the women wrong (assault, seperate them from group, abuse them, engage in sociopathic level of dominacy are left Scott free by women)

But they later figure out they even been abused and start punishing men who actually help her.

Before a man has obviously shown you he's Harmful or has a reputation for this - why women do not actively condemn punishing one man for other man's crime.

In many cases, women let the Ex go free without legally screwing him when he was the prime abuser.

But later same woman makes the life of some betabuck who probably never even stared in the direction of woman his entire life. (I know because I've such friends)