I'm starting to lean towards saying things like "what's the problem with men?" because despite being a man, and knowing lots of good men, a startling brand of malicious behaviour comes from our side of the table and there doesn't appear to be any good explanation for the what-is-practically "brokenness" of these guys. And why bother suggesting "not all men"? because it's like saying "but there are good guys out there" which there are... but that's kind of just validating the fact that, in general, a lot of men are/were raised with insane entitlement problems and inability to rationalize other people's behaviour, which means the point stands regardless.

When a friend tells me about how she got kicked out of a dudes house in the cold at 3 am because she wouldn't sleep with him, my reaction isn't "this particular man is a douche", it's "what is wrong with men" because I feel like this sort of entitlement is so prevalent that it feels like genetically men come with some predisposition for their brains to just be flawed and not come to rational conclusions and be prone to violent outbursts, like "warrior gene" stuff.

And furthermore, if you suggest changing men by crispring out a warrior gene, those same men will tell you you're gonna feminize the next generation into pussies and whatever else they come up with. The reason they do this is because they're so invested in their masculinity as presented by their belligerence, that coming off as masculine justifies the actions. And if the actions are justified because they're "masculinated" by them, and masculinity is something to be desired by society (according to them), then removing the warrior gene will weaken our society by rendering us less masculine. It's an interesting paradox.