Again Elle, dialogues are far more effective and productive if you're even a little bit interested in listening to what the person you're talking to is saying instead of sermonising and insisting (incorrectly) that anything but unequivocal agreement is "pushing a narrative of aggrievement."

It's why you hilariously incorrectly think I was the one saying "that most women want to control men with sex and that they'll dump a man as soon as a richer taller one comes along."

It's why you didn't realise that I had, in fact, asked you for "details about what we all can do to confront the problems in our social system." Details you still haven't offered.

And it's why you haven't even noticed that you've turned this conversation about the issues men and boys face into an object lesson in the limitations of group essentialism. Because you're not interested in thinking seriously about the experience of men and boys. You just want them to behave as you think they should with no curiosity about why they don't. At least not beyond a few laughably simplistic stereotypes.

Again, if your "40 years of scientific research" came to the conclusion that "a key element of male bonding is denigrating women," or that "jock culture" is representative of men in general, or that a "core aspect" of being a man (for anything but a tiny sliver of men), is dominating others, then that research is trash. And if you think that just because I'm a man, I haven't spent time thinking and reading and learning about these issues, well, I'm not surprised based on the evidence so far.

So please stop flattering yourself that you've attempted rational discourse. You haven't. You've attempted to preach some rather nonsensical things to somebody who is willing to listen. But who isn't willing to be the only person listening.