I’m speaking from my personal experience of reading this and observing an undercurrent of contempt of males in society today; and being a male I find this offensive. Conversely, if the shoe was on the other foot dollars to donuts you would have issue if a broad stroke was used in labeling your gender in such a crude way.
Pretty sure the usage of ‘men’ by definition is a generalization and if I’m not mistaken is plural and yes it is your experience and I understand it is a poem and you did clarify that not all men are monsters. However, it doesn’t change the fact that a title containing one word could be interpreted as “this poem must be about me” and provoke hurtful sentiment. Was every other title that could have just as adequately summarized your position chosen already? I will never be able to fully relate to the hideous acts brought upon you and it is horrible which is understated but how can you expect me to try when you lump me into the group of perpetrators you are condemning? And this is how I feel which is probably trivial compared to how you feel but I am a member of your audience and why should I be subject to feel this way? Because I was born into the male gender and live in a world/society where there is and continues to be groups of people persecuted unjustly but I find this to be another form of persecution.
I began following you because I thought you represented a philosophy that aligned with mine; highlighting and exposing the myriad problems within society particularly in the social and political landscape. However, over time and reading more and more articles it has become clear your views don’t align with mine, at least not in the manner by which they should be conveyed — constructively trying to bring about change.
There is obvious hate in your heart in the manner you choose to respond to objection; with blind aggression and incendiary retort. I have never seen you even attempt to concede and consider a rebuttal to an article of yours. It is almost always met with a profane backlash, doubling down, overtly justifying your position while never offering a morsel of credit to a challenge; which at times are shortsighted but other times are valid.
In a number of your pieces (including this one) it is jarring how ruthless and insensitive you are to those who call your discourse into question, not unlike our current president. Why is this trait becoming more and more predominant within culture today? Maybe it is a product of the proliferation of forums through which this disposition is able to be disseminated. Either way it is toxic and counterproductive.
I see a lot of others here sharing your disdain, using the feminist cause as a civilly protected vessel to spew corrosive rhetoric and advance a harmful generalization on the opposite gender to fight the very toxic culture you aim to rectify. How can a just movement be cultivated, thrive, and propagate if the vehicle in which it is advanced is laced with hate and scorn?
The best way to dilute your own credibility is to respond in such a way. How do you expect to rally others in your crusade to expose the inequities in society to empathize with you if you so quickly and aggressively denounce individuals who try and raise a valid objection? Especially bringing to attention a notion that perhaps might be conveyed in a way where it can be interpreted as an indiscriminate and unfair indictment on a large group of people?
I believe that people wanting to evoke change with hate are often times no better than the cause they wish to change. If the cause is just but the methodology is not is it even change?
I understand your going for shock effect but you’ll never broaden your audience with destructive rhetoric, it just creates division not unity.
I hope this response will not be met with the type of contemptuous retort I’ve grown accustomed to seeing since following you. I am hoping I am articulating what I’m trying to convey effectively and just maybe I can convince you to try and fight your battles by building up not tearing down.