it's all your fault, guys

it's the kind of nonsense that should be ignored. Those morons would be starving out in the cold if it wasn't for the men they demonize

I enjoy colleagues, just not the "toxic" variety, of either gender (or, you know, "them" or how it may be).

That and "power trippers", "egomaniacs", mostly the "back-stabbers".

Seems unlikely there'd be so many guns in circulation in the US if most purchasers believed men were universally thoughtful and well-behaved.

There's a difference between insurance and a lock-pick set, i.e., "tools of criminals". Kind of like spyware.

"You can pick your friends, you can pick your lock, you can't pick your 'friend's' lock."

Then, shooting somebody is generally considered an affront.

Whether men are born with "original sin" like Calvinism or that men are naturally enemies after Spinoza, is not shared by all.

It's practical though that there are nogoodniks in the world, and, yet, a usual idea that "deterrence" and "insurance" are different than "destruction" and "intrusion".

I'm OK with critiques of men in the abstract; I don't consider the general state of "being a man" to be some kind of professional guild or trade union that requires circling the wagon whenever someone or other has a grudge against (some) men, for whatever reason.

I think going too broad into the pride-in-<insert biological characteristic>-thing eventually starts to sound kind of saying "being born was my greatest accomplishment" in the limit, in the absence of certain extenuating circumstances of the kind that most intelligent people can think of.

That is to say I contend the generalized "man club" suffers from the Groucho Marx problem: you wouldn't want to belong to any club which would accept you as a member.