The situation for men is that economic danger is constant and always ongoing. The state will use violent means to ensure you cannot ever leave ‘the arena’ to live your own way. Should be established for everybody who already knows.

This is far worse than what men in a post apocalyptic setting or before industrial times lived in. They didn’t have to worry about not having land to live on whatsoever until the enclosures, they only had to worry about physical danger. Only the nobility or warrior caste specially trained to do so competed for status.

Economic violence is arguably worse off because you can’t engage in a fight with your oppressors in which it ends quickly there and then. No, it goes on and on with depression, lack of social services, purpose and homelessness torturing you into a slow and painful death where you can’t fight back.

Whereas in a post apocalyptic scenario or before industrial times you just work together and fend off the raiders or pirates then become closer friends with whoever is involved in the defence with you. You either live and overcome them or die.

While you live your life doing whatever you want until the end of your days.

The other side argues that women may not have to worry about economic insecurity but they do about occasional physical danger.

This used to be true for men before the industrial revolution and most men at risk of homelessness today who lost their jobs to automation/outsourcing would say today was worse than in the past when it was the same for men.