And I responded to that comment in the following terms:
Your rhetorical style is not politically efficient, and your declaration of sentiments is not in line with the policy of this blog. Nevertheless, you are quite welcome to your opinion, and I will not censor you.
However, I would refer you to the four points of rhetorical discipline, which are:
1. Discreet utterance
2. Tonal mastery
3. Narrative frame
4. Message Discipline
One needs to be firing on all four of these cylinders. You lack fire altogether on cylinder no. 1, and partly on cylinders 3 and 4.
The complete manual of rhetorical discipline is available at the following link, and I recommend that you study it:
The Practice of Rhetorical Discipline
I might also wonder if you are a feminist provocateur, engaging in false flag tactics. We get a lot of that nowadays, now that the conflict is heating up and entering a new phase. They will do anything they can to prove that non-feminist people are 'violent misogynists', and they love nothing better than to point to words such as yours, in proof of "why the world needs feminism".
But the truth is exactly the reverse. Words such as yours should be cited in proof of why the world does NOT need feminism. "More feminism" will only spawn more of the very same attitude which you are expressing here. And that is is precisely what the feminists wish to see happening, because it will validate them and pave the way for...that's right, more feminism!
The very last thing they want to see, is less of the attitude you are expressing here. They love it when people talk that way, and they can't get enough of it.