Your completely ignoring the hamburger analogy makes it quite clear that you have no interest in participating in an honest debate.
If the author had said "all men..." then there would have been no room for interpretation. She did not, thus we are left to infer which men she is speaking about. You choose to interpret it as all men.
My point is that you are interpreting her statement incorrectly. Anything that follows from that is useless, a straw man.
That is why 'not all men!' is a worthless argument, and widely mocked. It is arguing against a statement that is not even being made.
Once you can get over that hurdle you will see that authors such as the one mentioned here are not attacking every man in the world. They speak only of the ones that fit the criteria of the negative traits they discuss. You will stop seeing their words as personal attacks, which they are not, and instead see them as the first step of progress. Step one, acknowledge there is a problem.
It's shocking to me that we STILL can't collectively as a society get past step one without people jumping in to defend men. as if we need to be defended!