Here's the pattern I've observed in these forums over the months:

Somebody says something like, "Why is it always men who ... ?" or something similar, and follows by making insinuations about men.

It's inflammatory on top of being an over-generalisation on men, and usually spiteful.

But no moderation will happen, usually. Because it was made politely, I guess. Ideally, this line of thought should have been cut off immediately, either by outright removing the post, or an immediate response from a moderator stating that this line of thinking is inflammatory, so that others know that the offending post has seen moderation action. But all too often, the post remains, and no moderation action is taken.

Then the other side, seeing that the offending post is still up, replies in a similar fashion, "Women are ... " that's just as inflammatory as the first post.

And only then does moderation happen, chastising both sides for not being civil. Just take the present case. That post was disrespectful of men, made over-generalisation about men, and opening insinuated that men only wanted to satisfy their own selfish desires, ignoring his own. I could have reported his post and moved on. But I knew no moderation would happen, just as no moderation has taken place with regards to him.

So, sure, I'll henceforth report passive-aggressive behaviour like that post, as I used to. But as past cases of moderation actions will attest, posts like those will persist unmoderated, and the cycle of vitriol will follow. It'd be great if passive-aggressive behaviour that over-generalises certain groups based on their immutable characteristics and makes insinuations about their tastes, preferences, etc could have seen moderation action before the return fire.