Only modern leftists "understand" this. Others recognize that attributing all unfavorable statistics to generic yeah-but-they're-oppressed-ism is quite a leap.
It is quite sad that those are not in there since the answer usually surprise people. The chance (risk?) of a woman being physically abused by a spouse is identical to a man. In study after study, both men and women report similar rate of physical abuse from partners. Domestic violence rate is also independent or household occupants, meaning that it doesn't matter if its woman-woman, man-man or man-woman. Were there is a difference is in rate of domestic abuse that ends up in hospital or have a fatal outcome.
Chance of being sexually assaulted is also interesting when shown next to the chance of being assaulted. For some reason those numbers tend to be almost a mirror match.
Other statistics show things that favor men. For every 100 women... There are this many men...
Fortune 500 CEOs - 1,900 (There are only 25 women, vs. 475 men)
Billionaires in the world - 854
Millionaires in the world - 900
Income over $100K in US - 240
Income over $250K in US - 290
Leader of a nation - 873 (There are only 15 women vs 131 men)
But I don't think you have to be an aggressive type-A man to make $100K in the US.
At any income level in the US, there are more men than women making that income. Most likely the same is true across the world.
What I do find surprising is that this particular post got traction whereas the one yesterday (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21938201) did not.
It is indeed cherry picking various data points (e.g., chance of being beaten by spouse is not on there, chance of being sexually assaulted, etc).
However, it does beg the questions that you aren't supposed to ask, such as:
We have a criminal justice system that disproportionately incarcerates people of color. We also have a criminal justice system that disproportionately imprisons men, by an order of magnitude. The question you aren't allowed to ask: Is that ok too?
Men are (by a significant factor) more likely to be homeless, mentally ill, die by suicide or homicide, and/or be addicted to drugs. The forbidden question to ask: When it's on the basis of race, everyone understands that's due to systematic racism... but when it's on the basis of sex, and that sex is male... then what?
--
I guess my larger point is I've (thank goodness) made it "over the hump". With good family support, good education and a good career - also blessed with relatively good health - I made it safely to home base. I have the financial and personal resources to have a stable relationship, afford safe housing, invest in my career, etc.. There were many cases where if I had one link in that chain missing, I would have been a statistic like that. I'm the privileged man that's fair game and fat target for feminist critiques of the patriarchy.
But I think (since most of us are men) we know men who did not make it over that hump - who due to lack of education/money/work cannot attract a partner, struggle with a cocktail of mental illness and/or drug abuse, and generally have no future... and who have no public narrative of a class of people in need of support and investment. And this is to the ruin of us all.