[etjossem]

Take a look at what you wrote. You're not attempting to explain a difference in the standard deviation of male and female test scores - backed by data - in an exercise of positive scholarship. Putting aside the hilariously sexist conclusions other people drew from that data, you are not Larry Summers.

All you're doing is giving normative advice about what men and women's identities should look like. You're claiming that women will always be unhappy with partners whose identities depend on their partner, and you're also saying that it's unacceptable for men to do that. There are no logical arguments being made here. It's pure misogyny.

And maybe I'm the only one in this thread who has the balls to call you out. Newsflash: men can think women are people too. Now go read about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test - it's fascinating.

[nomedeplume]

(1) This is the most vacuous and wrong thing you wrote

> men can think women are people too

Implying that I do not think that women have agency.. What a ridiculous and exacerbated claim.

(2) All you're doing is giving normative advice about what men and women's identities should look like.

Not whatsoever... are you kidding me... it is descriptive analysis; neither normative nor prescriptive

(3) You're claiming that women will always be unhappy with partners whose identities depend on their partner, and you're also saying that it's unacceptable for men to do that.

No, not always. First off, heterosexual women. And I'm not saying unacceptable; quite the opposite. Read the original post I made; think.

And for happiness and identity, I just said, there's a single point of failure. I mean.. we're on a hacking forum, I thought that people would grasp the metaphor.

And as in industry and academia, I think it is better to design a system (the psyche) that functions for happiness. Zen.

(4) There are no logical arguments being made here. It's pure misogyny.

That's totally ridiculous, I'm not a misogynist, I resent being called that, and I absolutely do not categorically hate women. This entire thing implies the possibility of a sexist expression and display.. from you.

I may vaguely fear women as they are mirrors of nature. Read the post I made. But I do not hate them: I have too much respect for their value for that. Anyway, generally in day to day life, I approach things on a situation by situation basis. I don't have any hateful misogynist goal or agenda. Cui prodest?

[etjossem]

> And for happiness and identity, I just said, there's a single point of failure. I mean.. we're on a hacking forum, I thought that people would grasp the metaphor.

I agree with you on this. Regardless of gender, it's probably not healthy to have all of your identity defined by your partner, for exactly the reason you mention. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codependency.

But codependency can happen to all genders, and it's equally harmful for both men and women. When we break that cycle and start defining ourselves by our own free choices (rather than someone else's), it's immensely empowering. It's called agency.

> Implying that I do not think that women have agency.. What a ridiculous and exacerbated claim.

> That's totally ridiculous, I'm not a misogynist, I resent being called that, and I absolutely do not categorically hate women.

Some stuff you wrote was misogyny, because it supported the idea that heterosexual women (categorically) ought to be defined by someone else if they want to be happy. The original comment claims an identity based on independent choices is good/advisable for men, but not for women.

To be clear: I'm calling foul on that statement, not the person behind it. I recognize that you can change your mind about it at any moment, and I also recognize that you're more than one post on HN. I'm not going to slap a label on you.

> Anyway, generally in day to day life, I approach things on a situation by situation basis.

Good. In the future, it's probably best to make this your advice up front, rather than try to speak for what heterosexual women want as a whole.