Men tend to have more of an out group preference for women than women do for men.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15491274/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5112287/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270538490_Sexual_Violence_against_Men_and_International_Law_-_Criminalising_the_Unmentionable

https://archive.ph/t4tjP

http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Keeping-Safe-Child-Protection-Curriculum_dissertation_Christopher-Vogel-June2019.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103101915112

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-04384-1_9

The result is a lot of people coming to defence of women (both men and women).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233717660_Thirty_Years_of_Denying_the_Evidence_on_Gender_Symmetry_in_Partner_Violence_Implications_for_Prevention_and_Treatment

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19746441/

https://youtu.be/GccCWo_eZdw

This is backed up anecdotally and by research.

It's not just women who shut down men's issues. I've been doing some research into whataboutism. I have discovered that it is not inherently fallacious, nor is it inherently right. It all depends on how accurate the point of comparison is.

In fact, when people claim whataboutism without backing up their opinion they are at risk of using logical Fallacies themselves. Namely:

Begging the Question:

Where the presupposed truth of the conclusion is used to support the premise

We are talking about female victims of assault, your inclusion of male victims of assault is irrelevant so you are just derailing the conversation.

This pressuposes that there is no comparison from a perspective of common humanity that male victims of assault are incomparable to female victims of assault. This is usually backed up by the claim that because men are more likely to be victimised by other men then it is an invalid comparison. I really don't see how this argument figures:violent, impulsive and toxic individuals target men and women. I think the inclusion of male victims is relevant and adds to the conversation rather than derails it.

Argument from Authority

Where truth is assumed because the person puts themselves into a position of authority

These are women's issues, so the male opinion is irrelevant. Listen to women who have the correct opinion.

It is not inherently clear that the "male" opinion is inherently fallacious considering this is a subject that affects men, and even if it didn't that does not mean that men would be incorrect in their analysis of the situation. The framing of it as a gendered issue is used as an argument that woman are the authority. It is not inherently clear it is a gendered issue.

Argument ad ignorance

A conclusion must be true because there is no argument against it.

Men are disproportionately present in crime figures, therefore men need to hold each other to account.

There is no argument that can be made that this is false (in terms of the circular nature of the fallacy). You can provide evidence that both men and women stand up for a women in distress, you can show how for most crimes men are the primary targets but as long as women are targeted and men are the main demographic of aggressors there is no disproving this argument. Men will continue to try standing up for women, which may impact the figures (doubtful) but as long as men are the primary aggressors (likely) it will be seen as a problem for men to fix. This does not mean the claim is true, it just means that the claim is not a logical one and so can not be counteracted with logic (as far as the person holding this opinion is concerned).

And finally...

Scapegpating

Blaming a group or individual for a problem that is an easy target for such blame.

Men are the aggressors, so men need to fix it.

This is never acceptable. I don't think I need to explain why...

But back to "whataboutism", whataboutism is not inherently a fallacy. In fact, it goes by another name...Simultaneously Paired Comparison

This is considered a valid although not the only method of comparison (granted). So here's how (I believe) it pertains to the situation;

The common claim is that women are particularly unsafe because they feel more unsafe. The last part of the statement is true and is worth consideration as part of the argument. I personally have no issue with being kind and trying to make people more comfortable. I do this not because it is my responsibility as a man (it isn't) but because I want to at least try and contribute to a less threatening world. My issue with the framing is such: That men share a collective responsibility because men are the fair share of attackers, that these toxic people existing is as a direct result of men not being "good enough" and that men have less reason than women to be scared. The perception of fear can be unhealthy for the person feeling it and should not be used as the only metric of measurement. Could it be that the focus on women feeling unsafe is actually contributing to unhealthy biological mechanisms and leading to more psychological harm?

For these claims, then, the comparison to men is (by my estimates) the best method of analysis (I won't link the statistics but men are by wide margins at greater risk of harm in most categories). If the argument is that one group is in more danger than another group and that other group is in more of a position to do something about it then a direct comparison not only make sense; it is also the best method available to obtain a data set that we can extrapolate meaningful analysis from. If someone accuses you of whataboutism, explain how it is actually a valid method of comparison and ask them to provide a better method of analysis. As claims of whataboutism aren't necessarily pointing out a logical fallacy and can even be fraught with logical fallacies that are well worth calling out...

In fact assertions of whataboutism, without additional extrapolation, are more of a derailing of the conversation than attempting to include a wider range of victims. This not only shows a more Empathetic approach but also provides a more robust data set to build from.