If you are "interrogating" white women on whether or not they are caring about other types of inequality other than their own in the context of a discussion about whether or not women are justified in feeling hated or hating, you are setting up a metric wherein they must demonstrate that they are sufficiently "good" victims before we can care about their plight. This is a common aspect of patriarchy (not just the male, female part), but the entire social stratification part - victims must always justify that they are worthy of concern by the dominant social group because in a dominance hierarchy, those nearer the bottom are supposed to take their abuse stoically. You are perpetuating that dynamic.
In another context, it is perfectly acceptable to ask this question. It is a part of a larger social justice landscape to be sure. BUT NOT when the topic at hand is whether or not women deserve to feel hated or to hate men in return.
If you understand that saying "women aren't perfect either" is a deflection to not talk about improving things for women, then why don't you understand how utterly inappropriate your thread was? Because that is EXACTLY what you were doing, under the guise of talking about injustice as a whole. Women are expected to always put themselves last, to never be able to care about their own needs and concerns unless they also take into consideration everyone else. Women are viewed as "human givers" and not human beings, and you just completely perpetuated that - subconsciously I'm sure, but nonetheless.
Her humanity may hence be held to be owed to other human beings, and her value contingent on her giving moral goods to them: life, love, pleasure, nurture, sustenance, and comfort, being some such. This helps to explain why she is often understood perfectly well to have a mind of her own, yet punished in brutal and inhumane ways when that mind appears to be oriented to the wrong things, in the wrong ways, to the wrong people — including herself and other women.
Manne, Kate. Down Girl (pp. 22–23). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
Even people who value equality and want to support it may find themselves at times acting on subconscious scripts about where women belong and what they should be doing. As Manne points out, sometimes acting out is even a replacement for a conscious experience of these feelings.
Women who resist or flout gendered norms and expectations may subsequently garner suspicion and consternation, which has less to do with their challenging gendered norms per se, and more to do with their challenging entrenched norms simpliciter.
And for some people, feminism, in particular, has profoundly disrupted their sense of the social order. The hostility they display to women who disrupt or pose a threat to gendered social hierarchies, say, is compatible with their being egalitarians in the abstract. They may nevertheless perceive powerful women who do not wield their power in service of men’s interests as abrasive and threatening.
For that reason among others, a misogynist social environment may be partly the result of more or less well-intentioned people acting out of disavowed emotions or exhibiting flashes of aggression that are not consciously experienced. And indeed, such aggression may be acted out partly as a substitute for feeling it: the expression “acting out” is suggestive in this context.
Manne, Kate. Down Girl (p. 61). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
