Well I think reading the book and evaluating its arguments and supporting evidence is the only way. I know that&#x27;s unreasonable to expect in a forum discussion but I think it would be rather harsh to dismiss the book out of hand because of a slip-up in an interview. It&#x27;s a failure of small degree, really. I&#x27;ve read other sociological works that talk about the skewed gender distribution in acts of mass violence in a similarly categorical way even though there are documented cases of mass violence committed by women. I think the difference between 100% and some slightly smaller proportion does not change the premises enough to invalidate the arguments.<p>I think toxic masculinity is under-examined and men are disadvantaged about talking about it and recasting their identities without it because, well, a lot of men in these comment trees demonstrate a resistance to entertaining the idea it seems on principle. That principle seems to be, and I have to guess here because it&#x27;s usually left implicit, is that masculinity is somehow immutable, innate, apolitical and unideological, and I think that&#x27;s a harmful attitude to take in the interest of society and one&#x27;s own interest. It makes violence against men at the level of identity and gender unassailable, unexaminable.<p>But of course some guy in this comment tree found a way to blame it on feminists and women.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10683479" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10683479</a><p>&gt; And traditionally women were loath to marry down, for example, whereas for men it was pretty common. I guess to prevent mass shootings, more feminists should marry down instead of complain about male competitiveness (which is 99% driven by women&#x27;s choices, as mates is part of what men compete over).<p>I think the reading I suggested is far more constructive than everything else being brought to the table here, really.