[techblueberry]

Yeah, it’s very strange to me that the starting premise of some of these articles seems to be masculinity is UFC and femininity is The Real Housewives. Most men I know, and certainly over a certain age don’t want to work for a frat boy culture. I’ve worked for plenty of men who exhibit ruinous empathy and plenty of women with excess ambition, and I’d say the dichotomy of ambition - empathy is wrong. The best leaders of either gender have both.

I do also love how she glossed over her example of how men were better at reconciliation and less likely to cancel culture because men were conditioned for war in which “ The point of war is to settle disputes between two tribes, but it works only if peace is restored after the dispute is settled. Men therefore developed methods for reconciling with opponents and learning to live in peace with people they were fighting yesterday.” Like completely glossing over the fact that first they felt they had to kill thousands of people? And do you think it was the people who fundamentally differed in ideology that reconciled with?

Then like: “Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade”

Almost every leader eventually learns that leading through influence is much more powerful than leading through authority, gender be damned.

But it’s also just got more holes than Swiss cheese. Sure I love classical liberalism and the ideas of rationality, but per some of her own arguments, this isn’t the natural state of things. Most men in most cultures just wanted to club people over the head to win arguments, not engage in rationality. Most kings just wanted their way, not to deal with an objective legal system. And per her own arguments, are men Socrates or Bluto?