Being a male does not mean I’m responsible for the past actions of my sex, nor the current actions of other blokes.
The notion of an individual representing the entire history of a group to which he or she belongs (by default) is the kind of conceit that’s widespread and not useful.
Here’s a way to look at this. If you’re a female with bad experiences of men in your past, that’s not a good thing. Your natural bias is to project such a history upon both all other men and your own future. That skew isn’t helpful to you, and it isn’t accurate.
The fact is that the actions of a small, finite number of men treating you poorly isn’t a male fail; it’s a number of people who did so. Women can treat you in just as rotten a way, but it’s the nature of the interaction that’s different.
On other words, any female-to-male relationship is loaded, no matter its length or intensity. Because humans look for patterns, the reaction is: I’ve been wronged by four men, therefore all men are going to wrong me.
A more logical way to think is to look upon each interaction with a member of the opposite sex as a spin of the roulette wheel. There are certain parameters within which the game is played, but the outcome is independent of what went before.
Except that in life outside the casino, it’s not. Can you spot the flaw? In roulette, each spin has no link to any previous events. In relationships it’s the common denominator that will influence the outcome. What’s that thing that’s the same in all of your relationships?