It does and it doesn’t, if that makes sense. I didn’t remember all the details, like I said. I just remember my reaction and why. I don’t remember if I noticed the author was female or male at the time.

It makes no difference in how I read and took the article. Women can be misogynists or advocates for patriarchy as well. In fact, when you’re talking about Himpathy and all the little nuances around that, it’s going to be predominantly women who push that agenda. When we’re teenagers and are sexually assaulted for the first time, its our mothers who say, "what did you do to make him think it was okay to do that to you?" or "well no wonder, I told you not to leave the house in that get up. You look like a slut. What did you expect?" or "you should wear a dress. That tells men you’re a lady. Men don’t harass ladies. They know better."

Feel me? So in that regard it makes no difference the author was a woman. It was still coded language designed to provoke protective feelings for men to excuse them from accountability and responsibility for their actions and/or their emotional and mental landscapes.

Does this make me angry as a woman? Yes, absolutely. Women are not pacifiers for men.

But.

It makes me angrier for men. Yes . It’s true. Here’s why. 1) Men are not babies. They are adults. They don’t deserve to be silenced any more than women do. Think about it. What do pacifiers do? They distract a baby from distress so they’ll shut up and stop whining. Ok, and why is the baby in distress? Ok, and did the distraction fix the condition that’s causing the distress? No? So, what’s going to happen once the baby isn’t distracted any more?

2) I see this as a theft. In the same way that "benevolent paternalism" stole from women, this steals from men because it’s "benevolent maternalism". It infantalizes them and deprives them of the opportunity to grow beyond dominance hierarchy programming. It keeps them there in what’s hurting them by shutting them up.

Does this mean never show men any compassion or empathy? No. Of course not. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that we need to be careful that what we’re calling compassion and empathy isn’t actually coddling that maintains the status quo. The compassion and empathy come when they’re doing the work (male or female). It’s not adding on to their burden during that time frame, cheering on successes, offering a hand back up at failures, basically rooting them on for the journey. It’s in thousands of little moments and not missing the big moments too. It’s in being present through someone’s struggles. That’s how you help someone through a toxic mindset.

Not shutting them up and shutting them down.

A lot of women, meaning well, fail to understand the difference between compassion and coddling. Other women really latch on to benevolent maternalism as an expression of divine motherhood or maternal martyrdom. When you get down to it, both of those are a form of female superiority ideology. And that is not equality or equity.

Those ideologies harm. They are a warping of the sacred feminine in the same way that patriarchy is a warping of the sacred masculine. They harm everyone. Reject them.

I will generally push back harder against a woman espousing inequality in the name of feminism or manipulatively playing to false gender dynamics than I will a man. I let a lot go. I don’t respond to most of what I read, male or female. But when I push back, I push back more often against men espousing misogyny. I push back more sharply against women warping and misrepresenting feminist/humanist ideology that’s really edged toward female superiority, divine motherhood, or maternal martyrdom.