[abalashov]

I can only speak from anecdote, but, being of academic social background, I've known many women — some of impeccable "culturally liberal" credentials — who would and do say things like:

"But all they did was talk about her work, and left out the obstacles she's had to overcome to achieve it!"

There are even those who would, from a more niche women's studies angle, critique a strictly work-substantive biography for the "masculinised" psychological priorities it reflects and that it fails to capture the "unique female experience" or what have you. These are usually allied to the folks who bemoan the "medicalisation" of pregnancy by male technocrats, and with it the suppression of ineffable qualitative experiences of femininity that come with pregnancy and giving birth.

These are real things. The matter of a reasonably universal and inter-subjective conception of gender equality is unwieldy.

[dang]

Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[abalashov]

Sorry, that really wasn't my intent. I thought it to be germane to the issue at hand, though of course, the issues raised by the article participate in a larger ideological nexus.

[dang]

I believe you. It's just that we have a lot of experience with these tangents where discussions become both more generic and more ideological. If you imagine a 2x2 matrix of those variables, that's the flamewar quadrant.

[abalashov]

That's hard to argue with, because it's undeniably true. :) I'll be more careful.