Because she’s not talking about the anthropology. 😉 So the overall take home message comes across differently.

Here’s Yael: Here’s how patriarchy is damaging and hurtful. Here’s what would be better. Here’s why.

The reader can absorb passively and agree…yeah, that would be nice or not. They can sympathize or patronizingly chuckle, digitally indulge her without getting involved. The equivalent to a paternal pat on the head and, “you’ll learn". Involvement is their choice. It also is divorced from history. It presents as a way to evolve beyond and into something more, if they agree.

Here’s you: Patriarchy is a poor social construct based on past and continuing violence. It’s not the natural order of things as you’ve been led to believe. It’s a choice that came with the rise of agriculture that can and should be undone. This proof here (insert links) shows that everything you think about being a man is a result of early work done by Victorian era schmucks stroking their phalluses all over academia. You’ve been wrong about yourselves your whole life and don’t even know it.

The reader cannot absorb the article passively, nor can they choose to remain uninvolved. It’s a provocative and direct challenge to their id. They feel like they are placed in the uncomfortable place of having to defend their life, their mind, and their very right to exist. The article theme is not divorced from history which means humans have chosen to become something less than what we were before and that choice was violently forced by men onto women.

Obviously, that’s a bit much. But that seems to be what they walk away with. Writing jointly across your body of work about sex/relationships and anthropology means they get an article with a side of cognitive dissonance. Most people need to feel okay about themselves to function. When that gets challenged, they get defensive.

~

Also, just to be clear, I don’t disagree with you about Patriarchy. You do excellent, excellent work. Most of our historical social construct beliefs in circulation fall flat to basic common sense anyway. Like that women scream so that men can come save them from large predators when they’re off hunting or occasionally flint knapping. Mostly hunting with great risk to themselves. We can’t ever forget the great risk they take on for our benefit.

Men are invested in that notion. I laugh every time I hear it because it really is absurd. That’s offensive to men or, bare minimum, hurts their feelings. So they balk. Still, the notion is absolutely ridiculous and falls apart with the slightest bit of common sense. Point out the very obvious and practical reasons why that can’t be right and watch what happens though, they’re invested. It’s too wrapped up with their self identity as a man. They need for us to need protection to define themselves and their self worth.

~

None of this is an argument against your boob theory btw. Men aren’t a monolith any more than we are. They can react the same way but for different reasons. This is my best guess alternative.