The "so what" is not sbout punishing men so much as it is a rebuke of the usual right leaning discourse around the topic.

That we should re-enfranchise men by disenfranchising women again. Then everything will be fine. This willfully ignores the fact that when it was women who were disaffected, there was large scale addiction and depression amongst their ranks too; suicide rates were high. The rhetoric makes a choice about who's lives matter and who's don't.

Or this one: if women would just have sex with men, they'd be cured. Women should be given out by lottery to men once a year. Men have to take a bullet, you bitches can take his dick for 10 minutes. If I have to point out the NUMEROUS things wrong with this one, there's no hope for you.

Then there's: feminism has destroyed young men. That's why they become Incels. Women need to be barred from the vote, birth control needs to be banned, they need to be barred from holding office, they need to be made to go back home and have babies and leave paid work to the men. A man will take care of them out of love. Because that one worked out so well for everyone involved the first time around.

So that's where that clap back is coming from. It's not about a chance to punish men for the past. It's a reminder that going back to what was sacrifices everyone else for the benefit of white men. It's a rebuke that trading one problem for another is not progress. It's just choosing to throw someone else under the bus to save someone who is already radicalized beyond salvation.

These men are going to have to save themselves. No one can save them when they won't believe reality.