The author has identified herself as a polyamorous adult looking for a casual relationship with a man.

We know she is also married to a man.

This is an opinion piece, not a newspaper article looking at a particular issue.

The essay is also clearly defined as a rant in more than one place.

So.

If she’s talking about something she’s personally experienced in a clearly defined rant and has also indicated that she’s trying to find a dude to date ... by circumstance her rant will be applied to men.

But. It does not follow that she’s speaking about all men, even though she is speaking to men in general in asking them to rethink how they are approaching dating because of that 'if' caveat. IF they are doing these same things to women they are doing. IF they’re not, it doesn’t apply to them. Carry on with your life with her blessing.

She’s married to a man who didn’t ghost her or treat her like shit because he correctly realized she’s a person and not a blow up doll.

So actually, it sounds the same in your flipped script. Any women out there who act like this rightfully deserve to be checked on it. It’s a shit way to treat your fellow human beings and men deserve better than to be objectified and dehumanized just like women deserve better than what they get from bad actors on the dating scene.

But I wouldn’t expect many women to have this personal experience dating women. I’m sure some have, but it’s not going to be as common because heterosexual dating is the majority of dating relationships. Also, there’s not been a movement amongst women to trade PUA strategies to manipulate women when dating them. Men, sadly, cannot say the same. The biggest reason women are down in men is the past 30 years of wading through PUA and dating coach bullshit when dating.

Men write about this too. Do you blast them for not performativly #NotAllWomen when it’s already very clearly laid out in the article that they’re talking about a particular subset of a subset of a subset of women?