This is one of the main problems with most social movements, they make perfect sense on the macro level but they fall apart at the individual level when they hit individual psychologies. If you want to be a feminist you have to argue for women to go to war, or for men not to go, or at least fairness in the selection process. It goes against the psychology of most men (who want to protect) and most women (who aren’t violent) but that’s beside the point. You can’t have a social movement which proclaims equality under one set of circumstances but refuses ti see the reverse argument.

If you’re going to argue to protect young women from predatory men in society because their brains aren’t developed, you also have to argue to protect young men from pornographic content and opportunistic porn sellers. Even if such a thing seems unfair to the sexual liberation of the marketplace.

These things are logical arguments because if we rely on how we feel about things, we simply repeat the ingrained belief structures we proclaim to want to change. Equality and equity are difficult to achieve and to conceptualise outside of our biases. It’s why intelligent people should argue more. :o)