Ideological feminism has this notion that men and women do happen to have different genitalia and reproductive cells, but every other difference you notice or hear about is the result of socialization. Tacit exceptions to this rule are made for too-obvious differences like lactation, height, etc, but these are treated as superficial and not worth mentioning. If you dwell on any of these, it's suspicious.

But we don't just happen to have different genitalia. The two sexes go back about 500 million years, well before the first humans or even protohumans - or for that matter, the first primates or mammals. Since not just prehistory but prehumanity, the sexes have existed and often looked and behaved quite differently.

Saying this, especially if you're a man today, sounds like rationalizing. But it isn't rationalizing anything. It's a blank statement that's almost impossible to deny.

Seeing the tree of life and human history, is it peculiar to acknowledge or accept aspects we can't overturn (and would we want to, and if so, why)?

The fact women and men have a few different physical features is seen as this inconvenient excuse for patriarchal oppression. It has been misused that way on both ends. But women and men have a few different physical features for a reason - actually, for many reasons.

Importantly, there are good reasons a gender-based division of labor appeared in early societies and persisted.

That may sound like rationalizing, but is it? The word "good" is a matter of opinion, but the presence of factors critical to survival individually and as a species is not. Today we have vastly greater understanding of where all this comes from biologically and how it works. It's curious that a sizeable chunk of the rhetoric acts as if we know less than before, or not any more.

Past cultures evolved, adopted, and maintained gender roles because they believed that was best, and because on some level, it seemed to work and made sense to them. They looked around nature and saw countless examples of sex/gender differences that did not appear to have anything to do with socialization.

We view evidence of these roles today as this dirty thing, this deep moral failing, even this institutionalized malice.

I don't quite buy it.

I know oppression is real, and I know it has existed since prehistory. That no one can deny, nor do I know why anyone would want to deny the fact, other than feelings of defensiveness, complicity, or guilt.

But the reactive, auto-moralizing angle - it's almost as if a matriarchal society would by default be good, and a patriarchal society would by default be bad. I even feel this way myself. Quite deeply, sometimes. But matriarchy is not inherently more equitable than patriarchy - unless we posit that women are better at being equitable when in power. And you know what? I'm willing to believe that. But it's a bit of a contradiction to the ideology, isn't it? And the difference in tendencies toward violence is not adequately explained by socialization, in my opinion. You could hypothesize that socialization covers and explains any such difference. And I don't think you'd be entirely wrong. But you wouldn't be entirely right, either - again, in my opinion, judging by the evidence I see. (Is it immoral to make one's most honest assessment of evidence and say so? It seems to me that anything less is a better candidate for immoral, if anything. But I'm not driving that last angle, just suggesting some perspective.)

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. It's a helpful mental trick.

Thesis: men and women are fundamentally different and belong in different roles because of natural aptitudes.

Antithesis: men and women are identical except for genitalia (and whatever physically apparent differences we can't deny), and any other difference you see is the result of socialization, oppression, or, usually, both.

Synthesis: I don't need to spell it out, do I? You're an intelligent person. It isn't black and white. People are people and that's always important. Let people be who they are. Understand each other and work together. Don't oppress. Don't tell people who they must and must not be. Don't belittle or mock or discourage or harangue people for stepping outside your preconceived notions for them. Harm is the measure of evil, including psychological harm, and safety and learning the measures of justice. Be welcoming to people who are different from you, because you want to be welcomed when the time comes that you are different.

If men and women are equal but not always the same even in overall pattern, then where one gender/sex shows a tendency toward a flaw that the other overcomes more easily, that suggests a similar breakdown somewhere else, with the tables turned. If women in power are less violent and more equitable and compassionate than men, on average, then somewhere else, can't we imagine that men might do better than women, on average, without oppressing anyone?

If we accept that possibility, we understand why past cultures had the divisions of labor they developed over so much time and so many generations. Were they perfect? Of course not. Have we grown out of that overly simplified phase of history? Or course we have, thankfully; anyway, we're growing out of it. But I decline to hate past generations at large for failing to discover and promulgate our current sensibilities. They were where they were. We are where we are. If the arc continues, we'll look pretty mean and stupid in turn. It's best to extend the olive branch both ways.

(Note: I am not insisting on any non-physically-obvious average difference or natural tendency as a fact, here. That's for science to hash out. What I'm doing is insisting on the possibility, out of concern for truth. To brush these thoughts aside as if they didn't exist, and deny biologically likely possibilities as if the ideology and an attendant moral sense in themselves proved such average natural differences with relevance for life direction couldn't exist, would make me feel intellectually dishonest. We can be considerate and support each other's freedom and pursuit of happiness without dishonesty. To put it another way that's more down to earth, if I notice guys tend to act one way and girls tend to act another, I could ask myself the question: is it natural, is it socialized, or is it in the mind of the beholder, ie, am I just falling for a stereotype and seeing what I expect to see? Or is it some mix of all of these? Typically I might guess the latter, but I would be extra careful about falling for a stereotype. Regardless, I can and maybe should ask that question because I do not automatically know the answer. And in any given situation, I'm willing to bet, if you're honest, neither do you. You don't know. We have opinions. And there's some science. But until science answers the question, any plausible hypothesis should be open. And if the hypothesis remains open today, I'm willing to forgive someone who didn't know what I don't know hundreds or thousands of years ago, at least for just not knowing, and maybe thinking they know, like many people who don't actually know.)

Anyone could be wrong about anything. So yes, whatever you're arguing about, you could be wrong about it. You don't even have to analyze that. You could. You're an anyone, and it's an anything. End of story. Admit it. If you can't, that means you might be less likely to be right, not more likely. It means you're clinging, clenching, inflexible, in defensive mode.

I think most people when they're young get ideas like strong, quick, resilient, sharp, pretty, handsome, flexible, healthy, and slim attached to their identities. Maybe not all of those, but a good number. As you age, you lose part of your identity, because these qualities you took for granted as yours - even if you tried not to - begin to vanish.

It's difficult to reconcile what you are with what you were. If you are lucky, you haven't taken these things too much for granted, and you have taken care of yourself and others well, and you have advanced in many areas, which offsets the losses.

There are two reasons you might feel everyone else is a bull in a china shop. First, you are mistaken. Second, you have a special and true sensitivity.

It can be tough to figure out which. And there are plenty of shades of gray.

I consider it a kind of weakness in constitution when someone notices imperfections I've noticed too, but then they can't see any further.

For example, I'm pretty acutely aware of spelling and grammar issues as I read. It isn't something I can just turn off. It's very distracting trying to read sloppy text. However, if someone sends me an essay, story, script, or poem, I will work around my tendency to glom onto the surface defects. I might edit the text myself as I go. Or I might just make extra effort to see past the proverbial grime on the window.

I would never read something and call it crap simply because it has surface issues. If the thing had any kind of promise, I'd be looking for that, and I'd probably notice it.

There are times I've stopped reading an ebook because of a typo, but I wouldn't leave an angry review of that edition (if I wrote a review I would mention it), nor would I think it has anything to do with the quality of the substance, even if the typo definitely came from the author and there were many other typos. This stuff is trivial. You get it right so people can focus on the good stuff. It has little to do with the good stuff otherwise.

Someone with poor grammar might not be a good stylist with language, but then again, they still might.

The closed-mindedness that does not even imagine otherwise angers me, but I recognize it too is just another imperfection.

No matter how great a piece of fiction is (or anything else made by humans), someone out there is saying it's overrated.

"Overrated" is an overrated comment. "Overrated" according to who? You mean you don't like it as much as others do. Ah. Well why didn't you say so? It sounds so much less pretentious when you tune up the accuracy of your statement.

I'm almost always a little dismayed by the attitude of people who will approach something that has succeeded wildly, who will try it out, not like it much, and then prance about calling it "overrated" to anyone who will listen.

I suppose it might be. But why would I trust your judgment on that unless you're showing other signs of good judgment? And in fact, why would I trust your judgment on that? No matter how classic, there will be plenty of these naysayers. They never seem to notice how predictable and unmeaningful their presence is.

Why are you so sure that you got everything out of it that's in there?

Why do I so constantly find myself grasping works and their strengths and weaknesses far better than what these supposed connoisseurs display?

People say "overrated" usually to excuse themselves from making further effort. Only very rarely is it the conclusion of exhaustive analysis. On the contrary, it's a sloppy self-congratulation. Everyone else thinks this is great, but you know better, you intellectual slayer, you.

It's almost comical how easily people fall for their own weaknesses, thinking those weaknesses belong to someone else they're talking about.

By all means criticize. Just try to do so intelligently and with a little humility and open-mindedness.

You can tell that many people think criticizing something proves it's bad and the critic is smart.

When people dismiss a whole thing because they're quibbling over details or exaggerating imperfections, that just seems lazy and egotistical to me.

I'm a teacher. Any half-decent teacher is attuned to many wide spectra of possibility. A young violinist, for example, could be inexperienced and not very good at A, B, or C, but still talented and amazing at D through M.

Most people who proudly denounce expressive works, for example, do manage to point out a few items that aren't perfect. But they often seem rotten at spotting the value of challenging works and the various (obvious and unobvious) upsides to what they are so sure they rightly scorn as fatal flaws.

There's nothing quite like a vicious, badly written, brief, half-assed review declaring the stupidity and emptiness of a work that has inspired multiple brilliant writers through entire careers, and many others besides. For someone who happens to genuinely love that work, how exactly does the reviewer think their (shall we say) effort comes across? It's odd being told you're stupid for seeing many things another person missed - by the person who missed them. They could say this experience made them feel stupid (a thing I consider very respectable and relatable to say), rather than project that insecurity everywhere else. It's just a bad look to call others stupid when you clearly don't understand yourself.

These things aren't black and white. Any feature has functional and dysfunctional implications, and all of this varies with purpose, context, mood. The fatal flaw for you might be the spark plug for someone else. It takes a little humility to recognize this.

It's like certain reviewers (probably most, actually) assemble a checklist in their heads, and then they play whackamole with whatever they can grab, trying to feel good about themselves by pointing out "fatal flaws." Meanwhile the creators prove them wrong by putting those fatal flaws in stunning and enduring works, sometimes all the stronger for willingness to discard a narrow-minded checklist.

These people not only wouldn't spot a diamond in the rough. They try to destroy large, beautifully cut diamonds out of ego. Fortunately diamonds are hard and tend to survive petty hacking.