Nitpick: find or point out minor faults in a fussy or pedantic way.
No, not really. What you call "seeking clarity" without EVER presenting your reasons to disagree and which is often attempts to pick at tautologies pick apart my straightforward nature does not come across as well meaning or even disagreeing.
It comes across as nitpicking.
And you have to appreciate the irony here.
Dude gets invited to a workshop to observe professional women who are professionals in his field.
A question gets asked which does not land well for him in what basically boils down to a "they're not performing womanhood to my satisfaction and I got feels about it" sort of way.
Those feels lead him to a belief he likely already has festering in the back of his brain. This belief has been causing him some undue anxieties, as all irrational beliefs do.
He writes an opinion piece about his big feels using those big feels and anxieties as "proof" that his biases against women in his profession is justified, completely tone deaf to the irony elephant in the room, given the profession in question.
And that's obvious to nearly everyone in the comments who don't already share those same beliefs and anxieties.
We all may have different parts of his opinion essay that get us there or that we thought were the biggest tells, some of us are prone to lists, but we all found the portions of his essay that don't track with reality, logic, experience, rational likelihood, etc.
Yes, it is futile to nitpick what you choose to see as contradictions when youre refusing to actually engage with them by simply stating where and how you disagree.
The author's account or anecdote is not based in truth, it is based in emotion. How he felt about a situation. I don't disagree that he felt that way. You feel what you feel. But stoicism, which you men are supposedly naturally better at than us women, is all about not letting your emotions overly inform your actions.
Forming an opinion is an action. It's not a passive thing that just happens (or, it shouldn't be).
His feelings, better filtered theough stoicism would have led him to better opinions where he wouldn't have embarrassed himself all over the internet hating on women like he did.
And there's some more of that irony. He's a professional too, in the field of mental health, is he not? He treats the opposite gender too, does he not? Did he not just put himself in the same boat as the women professionals he's criticizing for the exact same reason?
You have to blind yourself to the true nature of women's natural behavior and the universal experiences of womanhood to walk away with the conclusions he did. He got upset because those women didn't act the way he wanted them to act (as though they are dolls meant to perform certain ways for him) and concluded that they don't like men when they didn't do so, rather than be curious about why their hesitation might have been about something other than the centering of men.
