Let's have a language context lesson then.
Let's say I have several big baskets at a farmers market full of assorted varieties of fruits and vegetables. Let's say that I make the observation that in the pink basket, all the apples happen to be honey crisps. Does that mean that out of all the baskets....the blue ones the green one, the yellow one, the purple one that the apples in those baskets must also be honey crisps? Or might there be some red delicious, granny smiths, galas, etc in those other baskets?
We can logically infer that there weren't as many honey crisp trees in the orchard and whoever picked those apples for market happened to have the pink basket. One picker, one basket, one or few trees. Or perhaps, all the honey crisps had been selected by a single buyer so they all went into that buyer's basket. Etc. Something reasonable and logical.
Likewise, she did not say what you accuse her of saying. She did not say that at all.
What she said was that when women write about women's loneliness (that's the pink basket), there's ALWAYS going to be responses (it was you this time, amongst others) to that article deflecting the point of the article, centering men, and suggesting/wondering why women are seemingly unconcerned with men killing themselves because after all...that's the honey crisp.... I mean, important thing.
You're also overly hung up on the word ancillary. Bit baffling, but we've already established some problems understneing context.
Ancillary has 3 definitions. We know she didn't mean the second one, serving as a supplement or addition, so we can discard that.
The first one means subordinate, secondary, or subsidiary. That's where you landed; heaven forbid men should have to take a back seat or wait their turn on anything. We can see that first definition fits the context relatively well....but remember we have to look for BEST fit within the context of use, not just any fit.
The third definition of ancillary means directly related. Well how about that??? Yael actually used the word related near that term and elsewhere.
So which one do we think is the BEST fit here? Secondary or directly related?
It's going to be 'directly related'.
Ergo, she also did not suggest what you accuse her of there either. In fact, twice in the article she said the exact opposite of what you accuse her of. Straight out, plain English and everything, no "hard" words.
She's saying that male loneliness is as related to the heteronormative romantic relationship structure being designed in such a way as to create loneliness as women's struggles with loneliness and unhappiness within those same structures, NOT that male loneliness is less less important or secondary.
Fuck's sake.
