Ah, there it is: I was ‘triggered’. That’s cool, John, because so were you. You guys seem hell bent to make a conflict out of something that is a far cry from conflict. You see, most people caught on to the fact that feminism is a legitimate cause, aside from extremist phenomena -feminist and maninist alike- which is bound to occur in any cause. But that’s OK, too, because our true colours and real merits reveal in our moments of acute adversity. You’re trying to downplay and twist things by saying that it is not complaining, but merely pointing out the reality of the fact that men are disproportionately slaughtered. Yeah, John, why do men do that to men? That is what feminists ask, too. You know, those men are their sons, brothers or husbands, too. Have you read the post to which I was indirectly responding? Because it seems that either you didn’t really read it, or you’re trying to downplay it and ‘correct' the turn of the post in which the author was accusing another writer of not understanding or appreciating masculine traits. ‘Disproportionate slaughter' is a turn of the phrase meant to deflect and change the course of discussion, but other than using it to ‘debunk feminist narratives’, you aren’t really doing anything to change the harsh reality of man slaughtering, you’re only picking fights.