zlacker

>>femfos+(OP)
There's a rhetorical pattern I see in many articles, this one included, that perpetuates the issue this article is trying to address: men are the problem. Before, it was men saying bad things. Now, it's that men aren't saying things at all.

"I’m not going to suggest a solution to the problem of men clamming up." If not, then perhaps that's the wrong problem statement, and solutions will become more readily obvious and suggestible when not coached as the problem of men.

That's as candid as I can make it, and I feel that I have to use a throwaway account to do so.

>>oirjjl+Cp
That's not at all the way I interpret the article. The author empathizes with the male investors, and justifies their behaviour. If anything, she's blaming society, not men.

>>bvaldi+Nv
The author literally calls it "the problem of men clamming up." Empathy or not, they're saying the problem is male behavior. This could be framed as "the problem of taking grievances to the mob" or "the problem of overattributing behavior" or anything that puts responsibility for change on some group other than men, but it does not. Whether they're to blame or not, men are the ones behaving incorrectly.

>>oirjjl+gx
> "the problem of men clamming up"

Even when phrased that way, I don't perceive that the author is _blaming_ men. The author is critical of the mob, and the dangers of being incorrectly perceived as sexist and ruining one's reputation. You may insist on your interpretation, and fixate your attention on a couple of sentences that ring the wrong way to you, but I think you are missing out on the nuance.