From a "matriarchical society" perspective, that wouldn't be my problem to solve or even think of. Power implies responsibility. In that frame of reference, the article is a jab to other women, which makes HN a poor audience pool for this kind of discussion and a weird choice.
From a "we woman screwed up and we don't know what to do but we don't want to go back to the way it was" perspective, well, shit happens. I should assume this is not the case, because it would be hypocritical to concoct a text alluding to that while complaining about emotional openness. It's probably not this scenario.
I think this more as a low-stakes kind of "let's make fun of the inversion of roles" situation, which is what it probably is. Men can't complain about feeling alone or emotionally distant. If they do, they'll sound like what they criticized in the past. It's a simple reversal.
The obvious conclusion a hypothetical scumbag male would propose is some kind of balance, in which such reversion reveals the need for a more balanced role. However, this frames the discussion into a "hetero first-world problems" that desensitizes and angers many other audiences, therefore it makes no sense to pursue in the world we currently live in.
This multi-emphatetic commentary could be seen as a way to avoid the discussion completely, and "not making a choice", which is indeed a problem. However, if empathy to how multiple audiences would interpret the situation is seen as weakness, I think there are more problems we need to solve before opening the discussion about emotional vulnerability in men.
I think this can be effectively solved with some generations men who progressively fail to fill increasingly difficult shoes to fill. It's fine, let us be the rethorical sacrifice (not speaking for every men though).
One might interject to my reply as "You said nothing, you fight for nothing", and I would answer "Precisely!"
From a "we woman screwed up and we don't know what to do but we don't want to go back to the way it was" perspective, well, shit happens. I should assume this is not the case, because it would be hypocritical to concoct a text alluding to that while complaining about emotional openness. It's probably not this scenario.
I think this more as a low-stakes kind of "let's make fun of the inversion of roles" situation, which is what it probably is. Men can't complain about feeling alone or emotionally distant. If they do, they'll sound like what they criticized in the past. It's a simple reversal.
The obvious conclusion a hypothetical scumbag male would propose is some kind of balance, in which such reversion reveals the need for a more balanced role. However, this frames the discussion into a "hetero first-world problems" that desensitizes and angers many other audiences, therefore it makes no sense to pursue in the world we currently live in.
This multi-emphatetic commentary could be seen as a way to avoid the discussion completely, and "not making a choice", which is indeed a problem. However, if empathy to how multiple audiences would interpret the situation is seen as weakness, I think there are more problems we need to solve before opening the discussion about emotional vulnerability in men.
I think this can be effectively solved with some generations men who progressively fail to fill increasingly difficult shoes to fill. It's fine, let us be the rethorical sacrifice (not speaking for every men though).
One might interject to my reply as "You said nothing, you fight for nothing", and I would answer "Precisely!"