The article repeatedly argues that society has forced women to be submissive, to minimize their achievements, in self-perpetuating ways that saps their drive and confidence. It repeatedly points out the professional and social barriers that cause this and calls for social change, but asserts women need to be part of that change.

Agreed, this all makes sense and I see it in the article, too.

Your reaction was inflicting your own bias on this woman, because of her field, and misrepresenting her words entirely? As you continue to do here? I read the article as-is, a few times, and checked every source.

I'm not sure I entirely misrepresented her words, since her headline, opening and closing thoughts are still all indicating a central point about internal changes women need to make (which isn't entirely wrong, but definitely did bother me).

Yes, my reactive behavior was due to my experiences and bias, I can own that.

No one gets a pass for misinformation because they’ve experienced the toxic patriarchy. This is a women’s com. We ALL experience patriarchy.

I'm not sure what I'm saying constitutes misinformation as much as a kind of simplification (basically taking the article at its headline and conclusions, rather than including all of the nuance the author attempted to include to balance out their call for women to become more confident, aggressive, etc.).

And yes, we all experience patriarchy, but the reason I raised my personal experiences was to take ownership for my reactivity (which I poorly communicated, I admit), and to also provide context for why I might have taken the author the way that I did.

I’m not interested in fact-checking you anymore when we read the same short piece, as I’m almost positive you’re just doubling down at this point.

I'm definitely doubling down on the idea that the author's message is overall about how women should change and embody more masculine norms so they can take on leadership roles. Yes, she says more than this, but I still think that's an accurate summary.

But I don't want you to feel the need to fact check me at all, I'm sorry for the way I've approached this entire interaction - I was hasty, thoughtless, and reactive when I could have been reflective, patient, and open instead.

edit: Just gotta add that the divide between arts and science is arbitrary and made up. The most accomplished scientists have been notable philosophers, and vice versa.

Agreed, especially historically when science and philosophy were not as separate as disciplines, but in the context of contemporary academia this is not as common, primarily because the way a PhD specializes someone in a field, and the way requisite education up to that point is increasingly specialized as well. For example, if you are a physicist it's unlikely you are taking women's studies classes at any point during your college education, let alone other relevant classes that would make up a humanities education. Usually you get boxed into a science undergrad that may have opportunity for a few humanities electives, but in my experience STEM majors tend to try to get out of these as much as possible, and the required electives tend to be on vocational writing, rhetoric, composition, etc. and not focused on social theory, etc.

Regardless, I think that's too high of a bar (something I was trying but failing to communicate earlier) - I don't really want a society where scientists can't put in their 2 cents on social issues when it's the context of a commentary or op-ed, the concern I have is more when those scientists are taken as a serious authority and their (problematic) opinions start to get misinterpreted as coming from a place of expertise in those issues. I don't think that's happening here, though.

Regardless, sorry for the distress I created with my comments. I appreciate the time you have taken to challenge and respond to me, and for sharing the article in the first place - as you have pointed out, the author was more nuanced than the headline and first and last few paragraphs imply, and that's worth taking more seriously than I did.

I'll try to be better.