Yes, I would be lying if I said your responses were not a bit exasperating Emily (though I would not say "rude"), but yes also I do appreciate you reading and responding. If I can offer this: I think you and I agree that a new vision of masculinity is needed to curtail violence and aggression. I wrote about that in my "Dick School" piece, but unless I misunderstood your comment on it, you seemed to similarly reject the premise of it just as you seem to be rejecting this piece too. It doesn't leave much room for conversation does it?

I may disagree with you on the idea that "men do x" statements helps with promoting new visions of masculinity; I think it tends to divide and create mistrust by overgeneralizing. Though I also honor the idea that expressing these hyperbolic statements can be cathartic for healing in women's-only spaces. But I feel like that my ideas on this need more exploration and wasn't the thesis of this piece, so I'm planning for a future article (and I certainly welcome your feedback).

I just don't think antagonism is effective or helpful, especially in what I'm trying to communicate to my fellow men in this piece. Incidentally I find it awfully similar to jaded right-wing activists who choose hyperbole and extremism over reasonably trying to find places of compromise with people who have different values from them. It's frustrating and polarizing, and I think we collectively can raise the level of our conversations with each other by having less of it. Not everyone will agree, but this has been my experience.