I think there are several different issues floating around here that are relevant, but different enough from each other that they deserve separate consideration on the hatred side of things alone. I am leaving out whether or not this applies to boys too, because it's already too complicated, and anyway, some answers regarding men will render the question about boys much simpler. Regarding hatred:

(1) If a woman has a hatred of men, or perception of hatred from them, is it relatable and understandable.

(2) If a woman has a hatred of men, or perception of hatred from them, is her attitude justified.

(3) If a woman perceives that she is hated by men, to what extent may her perceptions be accurate. (She might also think she hates men (or think she doesn't) and be wrong, but let's give her that for now: she at least understands her own feelings with high reliability.)

We could ask all these questions with the actors sex-reversed, but this is already too long, so I won't. If I did, however, we would probably note some disturbing parallels that could only be resolved if we held rather questionable premises like "when hate becomes actionable, it loses its justification".

Topic Three

Let's take the last one first. Both you (SC) and Urchling have expressed the sentiment that you are hated by all men.

Now, note the phrasing here: this is specifically parsing out the individuality within the group of "men". We're not asking about whether "Men" hate the two of you--I'll get back to whether that's even a coherent concept, and if we can make it so, what the answer might be. Rather, we're asking, for any particular man who happens to know one of you well enough to have any opinion one way or the other, is there always an emotional stance that they take towards you which deserves to be called "hate"?

I know neither you nor Urchling well enough to do more than speculate, so it's possible that the answer is different for both of you personally than for a prototypical person who I can consider in your stead. With that caveat, however, I think it is extraordinarily likely that either (1) you're objectively wrong, or (2) your standards for what constitute 'hate' are so low that in actuality you are 'hated' by everyone--but the statement signifies little more than "people not gushing bundles of constant adoration".

One reason for my confidence involves knowledge that I'm privy to and you're not. I can't actually share the knowledge with you in such a way that you can be confident in its veracity, but I can share the idea that there could be such knowledge. That is: I personally am not a particularly hateful person, and for the purposes of my Medium identity, at least, I am a "man". I might be critical of what someone does or of an attitude they hold. I might hold someone in lesser esteem than they might like. I might be frustrated by them. I might find their presence irritating. I might judge them to be selfish and disruptive to pro-social interactions. I might judge them to be unreliable or untrustworthy and take steps to avoid becoming reliant on them for things I consider important. But I can do all of that without hate; without any kind of hate that you've stated save mild aversion.

There's a reason why we have separate words for "aversion" and "hate". It's because we need words for milder and more extreme versions of the same style of attitude. This doesn't have anything to do with women and men experiencing hate differently; it just has to do with using language in an expressive way.

Anyway, even if we included "mild aversion" as "hatred"--which I think is a silly way to avail ourselves of the expressive power of language--I still don't have mild aversion to any but a small subset of people (and I think to more men than women, though I haven't specifically counted).

So, from me personally, I am a counterexample of for this sort of statement that could be used by most of the women I know, and for every single one if we use any typical boundary between "hate" and "not-hate". Now, they wouldn't know to use me, typically. I don't go around telling everyone, "Do you realize that I don't hate you at all?" But if they somehow could know, I'd be a counterexample.

If you examine behaviors that display hatred even if the reported sensation is not there, you wouldn't find anything either. I genuinely want what's best for everyone, to within the constraints possible in a society where there are necessarily some zero-sum-game situations, and without systematically devaluing any participants, and I act accordingly to the best of my ability. Even regarding people who frustrate or irritate me--that's a different emotion on my part, and it doesn't invalidate the fundamental responsibility we all have to help each other with the most important parts of our lives. (Those who frustrate or irritate me, by the way, are not disproportionately women.)

Now, I recognize that (1) you can't verify any of this, and (2) I am something of an outlier. But although I might be in the, I don't know, 95th percentile or something of hatelessness, I'm certainly not such an outlier that most women don't know someone who isn't at least close to my level of magnanimity. Thus, I think the account at the very least suffices to cast considerable doubt on the claim "for most women, it is an accurate statement that all men hate them".

Another reason to seriously doubt the claim is that if you ask men, you will find that loads of them not only don't say they hate women, but will say they love women, and even describe themselves as feminist (now, even, when the brand has been tarnished with some degree of toxicity--true whether you think the tarnish is deserved or not): https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/07/61-of-u-s-women-say-feminist-describes-them-well-many-see-feminism-as-empowering-polarizing/ (see last paragraph of the first section--they didn't bother with a graph for men). This is, of course, better evidence than a personal anecdote--but I give the anecdote as well in explanation for why I might seem anomalously confident because it is good evidence if you're me and have direct access to my attitudes.

So overall, it is highly doubtful that "all men hate X" is an accurate statement for almost any woman X.

Let's try withdrawing from the "all men" statement to simply "Men".

But now we have a problem. Groups don't have feelings. Only individuals have feelings. The group of men doesn't hate because hatred as a feeling isn't a property that applies to groups.

There are two ways to proceed. One is to decide that when we talk about the feelings of a group, we talk about some sort of summary of how the group's members feel, possibly adjusted by how membership in the group systematically alters the feelings of its members. In the latter case, one is on pretty safe ground: inasmuch as men and women have systematic gripes about the other, emphasizing one's membership in these groups tends naturally to bring up these systematic gripes which are more likely to result in hatred than the opposite. Indeed, intersecting along any axis provides extra opportunity for grievances to be stressed (we're very tribal creatures that way), so it would be a bit of a surprise if anything else happened. In the former case, though, it's dubious, though I think one could make a pretty solid case that the strength of feeling of the fraction that actually does express something akin to hatred is enough to make one wary of a man you imagine picking uniformly at random. So, sure, "hate".

But the main conclusion I'd draw from that is that intersection is a bad idea. Union is where it's at.

The other way to proceed with "group feeling" is to use it as an analogy for what feeling would need to be possessed by a group consciousness in order to explain the actual actions of members of that group. Unfortunately, this is a difficult endeavor, because the behavior of the group is not--despite what some echo-chambers might have you believe--remotely self-consistent. So the conscious "Men" entity appears to have a serious case of multiple personality disorder. At one time he's so moved by love that he's writing women stupid sappy but heartfelt and genuine love poems despite never having had any interest in poetry or even literature before; and at another he's disparaging women's humanity. I don't know what to do with a mess like this except call it a mess.

Topic One

We have multiple examples where women have been mistreated by multiple men in their lives, including in multiple different cases by men whom they should have been able to trust.

Thus, both hating all men, and feeling that one is hated by all men, can be understandable. That doesn't mean it's desirable or ideal or correct, just that one can understand how this could happen.

I don't think the understandability should be seriously contested--isn't it plain enough?

It's also dreadfully sad: sad that the events that precipitated the attitude have happened, and sad that the consequence is a permanent feeling of being under threat from society.

Topic Two

Topic two follows quite rapidly from topic three, unless the answer to three is a mystery, in which case it follows quite rapidly from topic one.

First, let's suppose that we can get an answer to topic three to a high degree of confidence.

If it is in fact the case that one is not hated by all men, and one has a decent apprehension of the evidence and arguments (e.g. what I have presented above), then it's not justified to believe that one is so hated. In contrast, if in fact one is hated and one has a decent understanding of the reasons why it is, then it is justified to believe so.

Now, even if I am correct that "I am hated by all men" is objectively wrong for most women, a woman who is not universally hated might be justified in provisionally acting as if she were hated by any man in particular until she had adequate evidence that she was not--that's a separate issue having to do with risk and the costs of being wrong in either case. I don't hate all rattlesnakes, but I am pretty averse to any highly aggressive rattlesnakes. I don't know in advance which ones might be highly aggressive, so I am going to treat every single one as though it might be, because I like maintaining the level of rattlesnake poison in my bloodstream at zero.

However, we have a name for that when we do it to people: we call it bigotry. As a society, we have mostly decided it is not okay.

(If you hang with the appropriate subset of the illiberal far left, bigotry is cool again as long as you're "punching up". I don't want to get into that at this point; I just want to mention that the issue, which until quite recently seemed settled as a cultural norm, is now not settled again.)

The (lack of) justification for hating all men is similar. Hating people just-in-case is bigotry. We generally think that's not okay and not justified even if it would have been justified if you were talking about rattlesnakes or pit bulls or something.

The only thing that would render it a justified attitude is if one was a universal recipient of hatred or some similarly negative attitude from every man, not from "Men": we generally decide that reciprocity of hatred is justified, though maybe a bit regrettable, unless the target of hatred has gone out of their way to do things that are worthy of hatred. (C.f. punching everyone in the nose.)

I haven't gone through everything other than hatred, but as far as I can tell, it all goes pretty much the same way. Individual variability coupled with widely-expressed statements contradicting the premise make it virtually impossible for it to be universal.

So if it seems also very doubtful that misandry is justified for pretty much anyone, even if it's understandable for a lot of people.

Now, it might be the case that the state of affairs is actually unknowable: there just isn't any way to tell to any worthwhile degree of confidence whether men hate women or not. If we can know, then before we do something as drastic as hating half the population, it behooves us to figure out what the actual case is. Ignorance is no excuse for bigotry. And I think we can know--it's a statement which is sufficiently objectively answerable that we ought to be able to do it.

But let's suppose that all evidence is too ambiguous. In that case, it would be justified to act in accord with the best evidence one has, which would vary from person to person. Thus, you just read off the answer to topic one and can't learn any more, so go with that.

This illustrates the value of having objective knowledge of states of affairs: we're explicitly giving people permission to act totally at cross-purposes to each other and saying they're both justified. This is a pretty wretched situation to be in.

Topic Four

Although there are only three topics that I picked out that I think are relevant to the actual state of affairs, it's also worth considering how the perceived state of affairs could differ rather dramatically from the actual state of affairs.

This reply is already far too long, so I won't argue for the point, but merely raise it.

The easiest way to come to a seemingly solid but wrong understanding is to live in an echo chamber. We rely upon direct experience and sharing information with each other to form our judgments about the nature of reality. Most people also have a tendency to surround themselves with people who are like-minded to a degree, at least, and online this is even easier (and algorithmically assisted).

------------------

So, in summary:

(1) Hatred is a strong term.

(2) It is very unlikely that any substantial number of women are hated by all men or are the recipient of similarly negative attitudes.

(3) Absent being so beset, hating all men individually is not justified, even if hating the collective effect that men have had may be justified.

(4) Hating all men is understandable in light of some women's experiences. (But still not justified.)

(5) Because hating men isn't justified, hating boys also isn't.