zlacker

Are you trying to get at the fact that while this is supposed to be empowering to women, it necessarily implies that there are material differences between men and women in how they interact socially? Following this line do we conclude that it is morally inconsistent (with modern "totally equal" egalitarianism) or that it espouses a less popular "equal worth, but not equal treatment" ethic? Or maybe this is just a way to bootstrap communities with less maleness baked-in but that can eventually accept men once their cultural norms are established?

>>Y_Y+(OP)
I think you are moving in the right direction - there is a strange and confusing double standard with gender diversity. Note that I am talking about averages here not individual women.

Women and men are different -> This justifies different outcomes in certain areas such as tech but promotes diversity due to the fact that they think different and could provide a much needed alternative viewpoint in a homogeneous environment. (this is mostly my perspective)

Women and men are the same -> Then there is a problem with the outcomes being different but the diversity argument goes away because men and women view and interact the same. If this is true we have to forcefully equalize all professions to 50-50. This also doesn't make sense in the context of leap - if men and women are the same why do we need environments that are for one gender or the other?

As far as bootstrapping less masculine communities I'm all for that but the execution of it might turn a bit bizarre when you start letting men in.