True, but trite, and it misses the point completely. These men are NOT outliers, they are part of the continuous spectrum of men. The entire distribution of men is shifted towards violence and misogyny compared to women.
Notes: 1. Since I’ve heard that “not all misogyny is necessarily violent”, I’m restricting attention to “violent misogyny” (which leads to violence against women as discussed by Jessica Valenti in https://medium.com/s/jessica-valenti/revenge-killings-need-to-be-tracked-37e78a1cf6ce) as opposed to the non-violent, civil disobedience, ahimsa kind of misogyny. 2. The purpose of the chart is to demonstrate why the perception is not wrong when men feel compelled to state #NotMe,Never or that “most men are not violent misogynists” — the mean misogyny for men (0.275) is only 10% greater than the mean for women (0.25), on an arbitrary scale of misogyny from 0 to 1. At the normal end of the spectrum, by which I mean the non-misogynistic, <0.25 end, the two distributions are very similar, and yet …
Given any threshold >0.2 on the misogyny/violence scale, of course #NotAllMen will surpass it, however what the distributional shift does mean is that at every threshold there is a larger fraction of men than women who surpass it — just plot the cumulative distribution function from high to low misogyny.
At a threshold of 0.8 (for violent misogynistic tendencies leading to committing violence against a woman), the vast majority of men (99%) are not classified as violent misogynists. Yayy! However, “most men are not violent misogynists” misses the point, at that threshold, men have 10 times the odds of a woman of committing gendered violence. And that makes all the difference.
While you are at it, go look at the demographics of mass murderers in the US.