See..... THIS is the sort of debate we need. And yes, you're absolutely right, I did say that. I think the problem here is that the path of refusal is more alluring than the path being provided by the furthest reaches of feminism. I'm talking about the Human Revolution argument. For young men to refuse to accept the responsibility for their grandfathers, their grandfather's grandfathers and the entirety of everything bad that has happened to women (as a starting point) is a big ask.

I think a lot of men need guidance on how to be good men. I think a lot of young men are - but there's confusing messages about what that looks like in practice. Is it women's job to make men do that? I don't think so. But the extremes of the echo chamber aren't making it easy for the moderate men to fill that space. On the other hand, they're making it very easy for Andrew Tate et al to be incredibly appealing.

Our disconnect on this issue seems to be about whether you think men and women are separate systems or whether they're the same system. I think it's the latter, you seem inclined to the former. What men do affects what women do, but conversely what women do affects what men do. The extremes of each group carry disproportionate energy for the direction of travel and both need to be jettisoned from 'feminism' as a movement so progress can be made in the centre. The alternative is MGTOW and 4B, which might be a solution, but I don't think it's a viable solution - and I think the two groups would (in the fullness of time) go a bit Tate-Solanas and turn militant.

We'll see. :o)