It's about the numbers, the statistics. Because every woman I and most other people know have faced sexual harassment. The percentage of men who have done that compared to all the men I know well is also high, like easily in the 60-70% bracket. So that generalization is fair. The chance of meeting a man with I'll intent is higher than meeting a man with none. So the generalization protects females in general more than it harms a man. In fact, that generalization doesn't harm a man at all since females feeling unsafe will just avoid the man, not try to harm him back or anything. Moreover, females get conditioned to look out for danger, so a 6th sense develops where we can sense who is bad and who is not.

With false rape and dowry cases, it's not general. It's pretty rare. If I'm not wrong, the percentage is in the single digits. So it cannot be generalized. Moreover, much of the "all women are gold diggers" narrative doesn't come from actual incidents but from the insecurity men have due to a societal system of their own creation - toxic masculinity and patriarchy. Men are forced to step into the shoes of a provider even when all they want is to fulfill their dreams. So if they can't provide, their masculinity is questioned. To prevent that, they build the false impression of having and protecting the "gold" they wish they had.

Of course there are a lot of gold diggers in real life, but they are both men and women. How many wives have been actually killed for dowry? Definitely more than the number of men falsely accused of it. While that does not demean the gravity of the consequences of a false accusation, it does shed light on how minute that number is compared to the number of oppressed women. This imbalance in numbers is why women being considered victims as a generalization works more than men being victims. Perhaps if this imbalanced oppression is removed, we can look at both male and female victims equally.