I’m not going to address much of the article directly, but I would like to address some of the undertones I’m perceiving in both the article and the comments he

I’m not going to address much of the article directly, but I would like to address some of the undertones I’m perceiving in both the article and the comments here. Additionally, I don’t hear this kind of thing said around here much… Firstly: Equality is not a zero-sum game, nor does it mean treating everyone equally (yeah). To address the first component of this – the effects of feminism for women do not need result in a net-reduction of freedoms and happiness for men. Patriarchy[1] screws both men and women, each in different ways. Patriarchy is why for a long time I felt compelled to be the strong supportive male and hide my weaknesses, despite the unhappiness these roles caused me. In other men it can manifest differently, perhaps undirected anger at the world, but not really knowing why. Or perhaps a numb feeling that you’re just doing what you’re ‘supposed to do’. I strongly feel that feminism and masculism (?) stand side-by-side. They are different entities fighting mostly the same enemies. Sometimes they will need to have talks and make compromises with each other, but it can still be a cooperation. I get the impression that much of the male disquiet with feminism is coming for a place of, ‘yes, but what about me’. And this is totally reasonable. However, the answer is not to criticise feminism. If you’re envious of your neighbour’s new car, the rational response is not to attack it with a baseball bat. Rather it is either a) deal with your feelings and be happy for your neighbour, or b) work hard, earn some money, and get your own awesome car. AFAIK we have nothing like option ‘b’ presented above[2], whereas women have been on this for c. 150 years now. If you want this, then get on it. To address the second component of my opening statement: Equality does not mean treating everyone equally. This may sound pretty ridiculous at first glance, and it also somewhat goes against the meritocratic principles often found in the tech world. Rather than treating everyone equally, I feel that equality should mean we strive to raise everyone to the same base level. To offer everyone the same basic opportunities should they choose the pursue them. Yes there are limits to our realistic capabilities in this regard [3], but most situations lie within these limits. Should we offer jobs to those who are unqualified? No. Should we allow people the opportunity to earn those qualifications? Probably. Maybe it is true women have a bias towards doing X and men have a bias to towards doing Y, maybe it is not. I don’t think I really care. If I – being suitably qualified – want to be a primary school teacher I should be able to do so without feeling I’m being given sideways glances for being male. Likewise, a suitably qualified woman should be able to be a construction worker without having to fight against harassment. Moreover, my housemate[4] should also be able to go to our local corner shop without a 90% chance of being harassed and a 25% chance of being followed home (we have the data). In my eyes, the original article has quite a lot of shaky logic and rather dodgy assumptions. I strongly encourage people to read it critically (for example, “But it has worked”? Maybe for the author, less so for my housemate and billions like her). However, I like that the article concludes that different motivations drive different behaviours between the genders, and that this situation is not necessarily moral or desirable. But I think this is only the start of the story. Why do these different motivations still exist today? To what extent are these motivations inherent, and to what extent are they socially received? I strongly suspect they are mostly socially received, and we therefore have it within our ability to offer change should it be desired. [1] I do believe patriarchy is both a thing and a useful concept, but I do not believe it is a conspiracy. Rather I believe it is systemic – an emergent property of the social system we arrived at. [2] The MRA is the baseball-bat-to-the-car approach, so not them. [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c [4] With her consent: She’s on here: hjfantaskis EDIT: God damn, I spend an hour writing this and then the post gets flagged!