This is another staple used by this reactionary wing of the Left to justify their misandry: Take a legitimate concern and hit it with a disproportionate degree of hysterical reaction. This deliberately results in policies and attitudes that blatantly favor one group of people (the one the reactionaries like) over another. It deliberately encourages the stereotyping of one group of people, who are portrayed as inherently barbaric and in need of being slapped down, for the good of the "better" group.

It also deliberately overlooks and rationalizes any similar behavior exhibited by the group they like as being "necessary" or not their fault. Yet, the group they dislike are never afforded anything resembling that type of nuance or sympathy.

Why do we not start from the premise that maybe it's not men who are messed up, but the emotionally competitive social relations we encourage between the genders, and the very values and institutions that shape how they react to each other and interact with each other, all of which are based on very specific gender-based (and age-based) expectations? They don't do this because they are in basic support of these institutions, values, and expectations, along with the society that has sprung up around them. So, they externalize the blame and focus it upon an easier target, one they consider expedient, expendable, and less likable from an emotional standpoint.

Sound familiar, my friend?

They want to be the armor-wearing saviors of the pretty princesses, and they want men to be the dragons they must save them from. And to them, the evil queens who try to kill innocents with the poison apples are simply pretty princesses who were corrupted by the evil monsters they attempted to feed those apples to.

Does this metaphorical analogy also sound familiar?

To this school of thought, "virtuous" does not actually mean good and ethical; it means emotionally appealing.