This is the most bizarre exchange I've ever had.  You, someone I don't even know, claiming to be a woman, are criticizing me, a man for "saying negative things about men".   Frankly, I don't think it's all that negative, and, as a long time white male, I'm pretty comfortable in my habits and the habits I've observed in most other men my entire life. 

As for evidence, just google "why men don't listen to women." [This article is pretty funny.](http://www.norwichbulletin.com/article/20100504/News/305049947)  I doubt you'll find intelligent answers to this from googling the above, but there are many many sources talking about the phenomenon I'm referring to.

And as far as "harmonizing" goes, if any man takes offense at statements I have made about men, I already don't respect his claim to masculinity.  That's the thing though, to most men, a man complaining is kind of disgusting, most words that come to mind are sexist in nature.  The men you hear bitching about women having more rights than men, simply haven't learned to man up, they're beaten down little victims that deserve a little sympathy and a lot of tough love.  Those poor guys need better role models, not you defending them.

It's very interesting to me too. ^.^;

If you look at the exchange I'm having right above this conversation, you'll see that I am not particularly defending men, and to be completely honest...I suspect I generally am more careful not to hurt women's feelings and tougher on men. I just have issues with stereotyping and looking at entire groups in a negative way. I think the way your sentence sounds when we switch the noun says a lot about how negative it is. You're a white male, and you believe what you said. But is it inconceivable that another white male would disagree with what you said? Of course plenty would. And not all out of defensiveness or bias; some just from simply not feeling it's true. So I don't think your habits, observations, or opinions can substitute as hard evidence, or that you can claim to know this just from being male.

I googled this "men not listening" phenomenon. It took more digging than I expected. The strongest consensus is that men are *different* listeners. [This article](http://midjerseychamber.org/now-hear-this-men-and-women-listen-differently/) talks about how men are focused on problem-solving when they listen. [This study](http://articles.latimes.com/2000/nov/29/news/mn-58786) found that, in a passive listening task, "As they listened, a majority of the men showed exclusive activity on the left side of the brain, in the temporal lobe, which is associated with listening and speech. The majority of women showed activity in the temporal lobe on both sides of the brain, although predominantly on the left." [This](http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/12/08/study-the-brains-of-men-and-women-are-different-very-different/#64812b6e1d0c) discussion of brain scans says that, "When you talk, women are more emotionally involved – they will listen more." [This study](http://discovermagazine.com/2005/nov/men-hear-womens) simply said men process women's voices like music. But [this one](http://gulfnews.com/news/europe/uk/women-are-better-listeners-study-says-1.1290574) I think is the kicker, as it blankly states that the parts of the brain connected with listening are more prominent in women. So I apologize, it's not so subjective, as you say.

That said, I still question the way you used this fact. How strong is the difference? The brain scan study said that most of the differences between each gender's brains are very minor. So it could only function as a gross generalization, and it would be all too easy to assume anytime a man checks out while you're speaking that this is to blame, regardless of whether that might be true in each case. That's the danger of a stereotype/generalization, *even when it's true on average*. Nobody wants to live their life being told, "Well, what can I expect from a man/woman." Second, listening and reading are two completely different things, and most of what my article discussed, as well as the article in itself, involve reading. (I was unable to find statistics on gendered reading, although I did find that women read more books and men write more, which mirrors the listening-talking stereotype.) 

Third is this question of harmony. In consideration of a lengthy article discussing both men and women being at fault in various ways and entreating everyone to stop engaging in so much hateful speech and finger-pointing, you replied, "It takes a very special woman to be able to tell a male over 12 years something he doesn't want to hear without being ignored," which is a *very* extreme extrapolation of the evidence we both linked. There's men being less skilled at listening closely than women, and then there's men ignoring everything a woman says unless she is very special. Further, it's much like commenting, "It takes a very special man to be able to tell a woman something she doesn't want to hear without her getting all emotional." The phrasing, the choice to engage in more gender accusations (you being male, in my opinion, doesn't improve it much), these are the kinds of things that aren't going to make anyone go, "Oh, you're right, I better listen more." And this whole concept that if someone has a problem with what you say or think, they're not a proper man/woman, is a lot of what's fueling these issues. Nobody seems to be trying to actually get along. Where is the consideration of what will actually help bring people together, in all issues in the world? It's like children. This problem with men and woman is not a light matter. It ruins people's lives. Was your comment designed to teach, inform, empathize with, or help men? Or were you just throwing out some criticism of men, the same way the commentator above was just throwing out some criticism of women, in the misguided belief that I'd be on your side? 
I appreciate your thoughts and how much effort you've put into recognizing the shortcomings of your gender. I just think there's a difference between necessary truth and insults, and I think the way you phrased and grossly exaggerated your comment brings it closer to the insult category.

>  I just think there's a difference between necessary truth and insults, and I think the way you phrased and grossly exaggerated your comment brings it closer to the insult category.

In the words of Loius C.K "I'm a white man, you can't even hurt my feelings."  I realize you're coming at this from a different place.  I don't think highly of other men being offended by generalizations about men, especially ones that seem utterly commonplace to a member of the group in question.  

My original comment was only to suggest that there are many subtle unconscious habits, which may be changeable.  Those habits are what form the actual framework of gender dynamics.  I was hinting that focusing on the actual arguments in question might miss the broader problem and solutions.  I still don't think that anything I said was objectionable to the group in question, I think they're thick skinned.  Turning the phrasing around doesn't really work when the group in question would't take offense.

>this whole concept that if someone has a problem with what you say or think, they're not a proper man/woman, is a lot of what's fueling these issues.

No, it's not.   Being offended or hurt by meaningless words is the problem, not the speaking or writing of the words.  It's the one acting the victim that's the problem.   If you believe yourself to be the victim, you can justify all sorts of horrible behavior.  Wars are never started because "we want their oil."  They're started because "they're a threat to us."

I'm not talking about whether people's feelings get hurt. I'm obviously not out to avoid truth, ugly or otherwise. I'm talking about being effective. Insulting people is ineffectual. And I'm talking about caring about and listening to people instead of just insulting them and dismissing entire groups out of hand. In short, I'm talking about meaning well.

Sexism isn't about one gender. Going out of your way to stereotype and criticize all men is bad, too, unless you've got some real point to make. You've so far claimed that men ignore most women, that men who get offended by negative stereotypes about them are not masculine, and that men are more thick-skinned than women. I think you're too focused on stressing the differences of the genders instead of seeing people as people. Do you go through life constantly marking men and women this way? It seems counterproductive. Whether or not they're true, these claims just don't seem very useful: people already know they ought to listen to each other. It's one of the many elements of being good to one another that we're taught as children. Instead, why not ask what our similarities are? Where do we agree? How can we get along? How can you highlight other peoples' flaws without pissing them off? It's not easy, with any gender.

So when it comes down to it, what we have here is that you feel that the style of my article is not effective, and I feel that the style of your comments is not effective. Which means one thing: we both want people to improve. I'm a little concerned that you might think it's only men who have areas for improvement, which is the exact kind of polarization I wish I could demolish. Everyone has flaws. Every group has flaws. Feminists and anti-feminists need to come together on their common ground and see one another as fellow human beings.

"Meaningless words" is a really weird way to reference your own words, especially after saying those words were, "hinting that focusing on the actual arguments in question might miss the broader problem and solutions." But putting aside how words have force, I know what you're referencing. I think it's actually more of a feminist problem right now for people to be offended by the slightest words, although overreacting and being deeply offended by free speech has been noted as a standout trait among millennials in general, as I mentioned in my article. 

Again, I'm not supporting coddling anyone. There's a difference between speaking harsh truth and dredging up unnecessary facts that are insulting. For example, studies have shown that women have more development in the emotional areas of their brains. So if you're arguing with a woman and she gets mad or sad, you can remind her, "Well, you're a woman, so it makes sense you're upset. What? I'm just stating a fact." There's a time and place for certain facts. There's a way to use them effectively and a way to use them simply for self-satisfaction. Imagine if ten commentators remarked on this article, and every single one included negative gender stereotypes, as has been the case with the two commentators who have remarked. Add all of those stereotyping comments up, and what do we have? A convincing set of arguments? No. We have an inflammatory set of beliefs that emphasize differences and thus are much more likely to drive people apart. 

You're focusing on how someone being offended by your comments would be their problem. But that's not my point either way. I'm focusing on how that kind of focus doesn't work, no matter how it makes people feel. Your original exaggeration, if I look at my male friends, is a little offensive to me personally, simply because it isn't true of any of them. You can state that men are scientifically less likely to listen. But you have to make that relevant and you have to present it in a way that men could actually consider. I'm obviously no expert on the topic, but flinging out exaggerated criticisms seems like a really bad method. 

And for the record, wars are so very much started for oil and greed. It's just that the story the government tells people is focused on threats (Iraq). Wars are also started to supposedly improve people, like bringing them democracy or saving them (Vietnam). But I don't want to flip topics so extremely.

So let me take my own advice and seek common ground. What do you think is an effective way to help feminists and anti-feminists get along better? How can bigotry and sexism be decreased among both men and women? And how can we do this in a way that embraces science and rationality rather than perverting and distorting them?