Gosh, this was fun. A little too spicy in the middle with the frustration for my liking - but I did enjoy the back and forth. Love a deep comment thread, it's where all the cool kids hang out.

For what it's worth, I think you both have a point. I do think there is an emergent form of misandry kicking in, the same sort of 1970s dismissive attitude men had towards women is being mirrored in the way SOME women are talking about and to men. This is far more likely to cause distress to sensitive males and to younger males who are more emotionally vulnerable and who are also more likely to experience it from younger females who haven't calibrated their feminism properly.

That said, it is not the job of women to help men resolve this; this can be resolved by men but they have to be allowed the space to try and fail. Andrew Tate is a bellend, but he's a convincing one and his message appeals in the absence of strong messaging to the contrary. If the choice is between Tate's 'fuck it all and do what you want' and 'try this, but you're going to get critiqued anyway' it's a much harder sell by non-Tate'ian men.

Look closely at the emergent ladies club on Medium. Look at the voices being promoted and the things that get pushed, applauded and clapped to death. Where's the nuance? Why is the writing of people like Elle not flying off the shelf as quickly as work by Katie Jgln and Ossiana? Both of whom have blocked me for politely pushing back on their work. There is an emergent set of voices hijacking the feelings of women - those feelings might be based in frustration and they might be justified but I'm not convinced they lead anywhere but bad faith conversations.

Perhaps that's why you're more likely to play the 'bullshit' card earlier than I tend to in comments. You patriarchal competitive winner winner chicken dinner player. Hehehehehe.