Human Revolution didn't show up to this party - and i don't suspect she will, this is important to note. I like HR, but she is very much a bellwether on what is happening in the angry/misandrist end of the feminism discussion.
I have a few thoughts... my first is 'patriarchy', which I've always struggled with - because it seems to mean anything that people want it to mean and suffers a bit with confirmation bias. We can ascribe negative things to it and positive things against it, though we rarely ascribe things the other way around. It's become a bit of a 'go-to' answer for all of the problems of the world. If only we could just overcome this damn patriarchy.... but liberal democracy and feminism itself emerged from patriarchy (even if you count tolerated opposition to patriarchy as an emergent property of the same - which I do)- so I perhaps see the terminology a little greyer than most and dislike its overuse as a sort of philosophical boogeyman.
Ultimately, I think the methodology used by feminism is flawed - and I get shouted at fairly regularly by SC and others because of this. The reason I think we should be pushing in the opposite direction is that both your last article, and this article focus increasingly on the differences between the two sexes. You talk about the 'dehumanisation of the other' towards the end of the article, but you have spent much of the precursor subdividing women and men into separate genital camps as a lens by which to view the problem. I don't believe it will work.
A large thrust of what I argue on this site is that leaning into identity as a way to solve problems exacerbated by identity doesn't help. Anti-racism writers lean into skin colour, feminism leans into sex, mens rights advocates lean into masculinity, trans-activists lean into the LGBTQ+ language - there's a psychological safety that comes with that, because it allows us to primarily speak to those who are already inclined to agree - but it comes at the cost of the alienation of 'the other', whether that's white people, men, cis people - whomever is outside of the targeted language.
I think we should be looking at the problem more holistically and problem solve at a level beyond where we're at now. So for example, your 'appearance based judgement', I think that's human nature - the root problem here isn't the behaviour of others, it's the sense of shame emerging from the position taken by others. You can't slut shame, age shame or fat shame people who can't be shamed. You're tackling the wrong problem by asking women to go against their natural instincts - and men also do this to each other (and often internalise it far more dangerously by not co-regulating their feelings with other humans). The correct push is instead to work out how to help children avoid feelings of shame. If people are fat, they are often (but not always) unhealthy.... that's fine, they can become healthier, if people are extroverted and want to show their bodies off that can be seen as 'slutty' - but rather than throw away this judgement from the subconscious of more conservative people, we should be looking at the knock on effects on feminism of things like porn/Onlyfans and Instagram - does liberal ideas of taking your clothes off and having sex with everyone help or hinder the global empowerment of women. I don't know the answer, I'm just posing the question.
Quite often feminism and the push to 'dismantle the patriarchy' is reactionary and couched in both gendered ideas and emotive language. I don't think either of these things help.
Sorry for writing an essay. :o/
