The right response to reactionary reprisals is not, to my mind, for us to become increasingly placatory and apologetic for the advances already made. Instead I would like us to insist, with as much force as necessary, that parity with men is not a treat benevolently bestowed upon us, nor a kindness that can now be rescinded.

I see this sentiment a lot, but I am of the opinion that the better course of action is for women to pickup historically “male” roles. Picking up the bill in restaurants, making the first move approaching love interests not just “hints”, protecting their family from physical threats (in the presence of a male partner) etc.

By moving away from “women can do these” to “women are expected to do this too”, the argument that women are the weaker sex will be greatly eroded.

Instead I would like us to insist, with as much force as necessary, that parity with men is not a treat benevolently bestowed upon us, nor a kindness that can now be rescinded.

(emphasis added)

Yes, but I don’t think a lot of people are ready for this. As soon as someone’s like “Maybe when someone threatens to kill you, you should hit them first” it’s all “violence is never the answer” and “We have to compete in the marketplace of IDEAS”

At some point, people are going to need to fight for respect and rights again. And that might mean putting people like Tate in the ground.

However, claiming that boys are only seduced by misogyny because of class issues and the misuse of identity politics is manifestly inaccurate. (emphasis mine)

I’ve never seen anyone, including anyone this author cites, say that they “only” are.