> probably

Your whole argument hinges on this word, you are not arguing in good faith, but rather, building a strawman. I'm not going to engage with this style. Thanks.

> I have no papers to show but I have been watching the debate from the sidelines:

> you are not arguing in good faith, but rather, building a strawman.

First strawman is not the word here anyway. That would mean I misrepresent others to make it easier to knock down their arguments.

That said, I'm not a native speaker and it probably affects the quality of my arguments.

I'll try to rephrase it as a thought experiment:

If one ask

- a random sampling of men to distance themselves from a tweet that says women should be chained to the kitchen

- and a random sample of women to distance themselves from a #killallmen tweet

how do one think the results would be?

> I'm not going to engage with this style. Thanks.

Your choice, for the benefit of everyone else I answered.

But I think it is unfair to say I argue in bad faith.

You are arguing a strawman, for the simple reason that the results of this hypothetical would be the same: The average man or woman does not wish murder or slavery on another person. If you live in a social web where this is not the case, that sucks. It's time to get new friends.

No, in fact now you are strawmanning me, creating a dumb version of what I wrote and tearing it down.

My point is that among mainstream feminists it is more ok to write even gross hate speech against men (#killallmen) than it is to write even bad jokes about women (they should be chained to the kitchen) amongst not-feminists.

I'm not suggesting mainstream feminists conspire to actually kill all men.