On the surface, your requests seem reasonable.

Your reply says more about your deficiencies than the article’s content. In fact, what you wrote says nothing about the advice offered, but rather what you thought was being offered. People are only responsible for what they say. They are not responsible for your inability to properly read and interpret what is said.

On the surface these requests “seem reasonable” because they are reasonable. Your added layers of imagined malice and “misandry” are issues of your own to work through, not the writer’s. I also imagine you were not this piece’s target audience. Which is okay, but definitely something to be mindful of in the future when commenting rather than assuming a piece which omitted any watering of men’s ego flowers equates to an “attack” on men.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.