Let me tell you something. I knew a man once who was of Chinese descent who was from New Zealand and living in Australia. He used to paint the signs and corflutes for the shops (there was a convenience supermarket, a fruit and vegetable shop, a newsagent, bottle shop and a few others) for their weekly specials. If ever he saw a Chinese person who was rude to a staff member, he felt bad. I remember when a group of Australians, some of whom were Liberal Party staffers, after some alcohol consumption at the Sepang Grand Prix, lowered their trousers to reveal underpants with the Malaysian flag on them. They were arrested, and the then Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, Julie Bishop, a woman whom I disliked, was able to have them released. I would have opposed a judicial caning for those men, but I would not have opposed a fine and possible exclusion period (say six months, minimum).

I get that your argument is like saying that because someone drives a Volvo that they shouldn't have to call out the stereotypical Volvo driver. And to use the Volvo driver as an analogy for other social movements, nobody is saying that if the police set up and RBT unit that they should wave on a Volvo driver because an ad was made years ago, where a small child said, "Bloody Volvo driver!" What they're saying is, the deep-rooted social prejudice needs to be addressed. They're not saying that all men are bad, they're saying that misogyny needs to be addressed. Vive le difference?