The other comment was pointing out that society is stacked against marginalized men. The support systems aren't there, people are less likely to extend empathy, and society isn't ready to treat mental health issues faced by men, since they're told from a young age that their emotions are invalid and unimportant (ok, this last bit admittedly is my own editorialization).

The person seemed to be commenting from a place of anger at how their brother was treated adversarially in his time of greatest need.

I volunteered with homeless people for years, and 80% or more were men. This issue is close to my heart as well and I absolutely think the commenter was pointing out relevant systemic issues, including touching on toxic masculinity and its attitude of treating other men adverserially

> The only way to read it charitably is to insert statements they didn't make, but easily could have and chose not to.

By the same token, can you explain how it can be read uncharitably without inserting statements they didn't make? Because as you said, they "easily could have" included misogynistic commentary "and chose not to"