I so want to agree with you, because you are addressing an issue that is profoundly real and concerning to millions of American women. But to tackle this issue, you advance an argument that flies in the face of the most important principles of the American judicial system and would clearly violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adoped by the United Nations.

You assert that it is valid to say “All men do X” until a particular man demonstrates or proves that he does not do X. In other words, in your way of thinking, a male is presumed to be guilty until he proves himself to be innocent. The burden of proof lies on the accused, not the accuser.

That type of thinking—the presumption of guilt falling on an entire of class of people defined by some immutable characteristic— has been used throughout history to justify hatred, segregation, discrimination, slavery and even genocide.

I agree that many men exhibit the behaviors that you deplore and seek to eliminate. But why not say that? Why do you feel it helps your case to indulge in overstatements of this sort?

The angry responses by many of your readers indicates that your approach is not only deficient from the standpoint of our legal philosophy, but also counterproductive if you are actually seeking to win converts to your point of view.

I think that you have something important to say, but please give more thought to how you have chosen to say it.