To perhaps gain a balanced historical perspective lamentably lacking in your writing, please read McGill University’s highly educated feminist writer Katherine K. Young and religious researcher Paul Nathanson’s three books: “Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture — 2002”;

“Legalizing Misandry: From public shame to systemic discrimination against men — 2006”;

And most recently Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man — 2010.”

Notice the dates and the by-lines?

Ms. Valenti, you are holding onto antiquated and precious but sexist stereotypes without educating yourself on highly academic but contrarian perspectives written more than a decade ago.

One cannot fight sexism by being sexist nor hope to heal the wounds between men and women through shame and blame on just men and men of one ‘race’.

Despite the sympathetic ‘tone’ of your writing, you are actually exacerbating the very tension which leads to the homicidal tipping point.

A quote from Young’s 2002 book:

1. Men are society’s official scapegoats and held responsible for all evil, including that done to the women they have deluded or intimidated.
2. Women are society’s official victims and held responsible for all good, including that done by the men they have influenced or converted.
3. Men must be penalized, even as innocent individuals, for the collective guilt of men throughout history.
4. Women must be compensated, even as undeserving individuals, for their collective victimization throughout history.
5. Every major female character is heroic, virtuous or both.
6. Every major male character is psychotic, evil or less than adequate or all of these things.
7. Until they develop the inner resources to fight back, either individually or as a group, female characters are the victims of men.
8. Until their true nature is revealed, male characters often appear to be charming, benevolent and trustworthy.
9. Evil or psychotic male characters are often eliminated through death or surgery and inadequate ones converted through contact with female friends into honorary women.

The point?

Ms. Young, like all good academics, was not swayed from her perspectives on what she witnessed in the popular culture of her time. She had scholastic integrity.

You should show the same and damn it, Young was writing in 2002!

If your current writing is the misandric litmus test, things have only gotten worse.