Again you’ve put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the kind about not listening to men. Your defense of men is anti-woman in that (for just one example) you have advocated for no punishment for men who commit harassment and abuse because they weren’t raised to know any better. This is what you said, “We cannot punish the aggressors and then change the social programming.” You’ve taken the classic patriarchal (dominance hierarchy) perspective that in order for someone to win, someone else must lose. You’ve chosen for men to win and women to lose. Meanwhile, I’m for everybody winning.
I have a pre-existing relationship with Jennifer and we are planning a published further discussion of this topic. That’s what that was about.
Your interpretation of history and law is taking place in your own mind entirely removed from facts, science, and reality. Me personally, I’m happy to learn more about a topic I’m interested in, even if it challenges what I already believe or think I know. I don’t have the patriarchal need to win. For example, I didn’t realize that such a high percentage of sexual assaults of men were perpetrated by women. I know that there is a tendency towards under-reporting of that, and men have faced shaming and such when trying to get help in those instances. But I consider the sources that you cited credible and it’s something that I’ll continue to explore. That’s why my response to that was that it’s something we need to be talking more about.