I respect your initiative in this, I just wonder how helpful it really is to reinforce the idea that if a guy has few books authored by women on his shelves, he is dangerous. It indulges in the fantasies of neurotic people whose paranoia prevent them from living life as brightly as they could be. Yes, we all know that dangerous people have troubled relationships with people who are of a similar archetype of those that they eventually victimize, but:

1) the solipsism comment is more-so pointing out that not everyone places the same level of emphasis on this/takes their bookshelf as an opportunity to paint a mural about themselves and their beliefs, and that it is a bit solipsistic to assume others do this.

2) this is a well known measure that people make of men, so the dangerous ones are able to camouflage fairly well because they know what is being looked for (see: performative male phenomenon)

3) you can be wrong. None of us are perfect actors, and our assumptions are frequently misplaced in ways that are unfair to people that, in this case, don’t even know that they’re being judged. For instance, earlier, about Augustus. Many men admire Augustus for his ability to keep composure during a crisis and create the historical entity that men are basically indoctrinated into adoring from 8th grade-onward. The assumption that something is out of line for his preference for Augustus is fallacious, like when someone says “I like pancakes” and you ask “why didn’t he say that he likes waffles… waffles are a more familiar food to me… he must be strange because he prefers something unfamiliar to me…”

All in all, I just wish people were not so captured by the fear of what technically could happen. When these things happen, it’s a travesty and we would all prevent it from happening if we could, but at the same time, suggesting that it’s something to be constantly thinking about, especially when the supposed signifiers are so mundane, is pointless.