Yeah, that's something I've never been able to understand, even in principle. Misogyny, by definition, necessitates the willingness to sacrifice maximally ruthless efficiency under completely ideal circumstances and for objectively no reason. So does overy other description of prejudice, while we're at it.

Edit:

Okay.

I realize this may have come off somewhat ostentatious, or at the very least, hilariously overly worded. I should explain that coherently, or something approaching that, I guess.

To put it plainly, and to keep using misogyny as an example: if the most efficient person for the job is a woman, the job should be given to her, and that's it. Not that I wish to imply my brain's normally wired, obviously, but that's honestly something I don't "get" about the entire concept of misogyny, or, like I said, about any kind of prejudice named individually. I, personally, care about the objective outcome and nothing else, at least within reason. If the goal is realistically attainable without anyone's feelings getting hurt, then under any normal circumstances, that is exactly what should happen. If the goal is unattainable barring the direct violation of basic human decency and/or the law, then that's what we're not gonna do because clearly some bigger issue exists, and clearly whatever that is needs to get dealt with immediately. That's about the extent of it, though, frankly. As far as I'm concerned, whoever has the best idea should say whatever that is out loud, and then whoever is the most highly capable of implementing said idea properly should do so; as long those things happen in that order, as long as no one wastes anyone's time, and as long as nothing else that doesn't need to happen does, it really doesn't affect me personally one way or another, and who gets credit for what is precisely none of my business nor should it be.

It's simply a technical matter that no one properly interacts, conducive towards getting from point A to point B in a straight line as fast as is humanly possible while doing so correctly, as a misogynist, or as a racist, or what have you, if only because that's not logically possible. To maintain one's own prejudice is to know, to understand, and to acknowledge the mindset that makes people objectively good at getting things done, and to deliberately act contrary to that mindset by demonstration. If I were prejudice against women, I would functionally sabotage any and all women I may work with, either consciously or subconsciously, or both, and to some extent that actually would matter at the end of the day, I would make any and all women I may work with less effective at their jobs in so doing. Same thing if I happened to be prejudice against anyone whose skin doesn't look like mine, and I happened to work with someone whose skin doesn't. Et cetera.

I feel like I just wrote an entire essay about effectively nothing; sorry. This is just something that's always driven me up the wall, in case somehow that's not obvious. I just don't understand—again, within reason, of course—why anyone in their official capacity would ever care about anything other than the job, or why almost everyone I've ever worked with has made the whole thing totally personal or tried to.

This is a fascinating analogy, and I couldn't agree more.

I'm a lady, and think that the expectation that men ought not be too emotional is absolutely damaging and unreasonable and am not sure how it still persists.

Thank you.

What does “second shift” mean here? Is it related to emotional baggage?

Yes. That's exactly why it's always pissed me off when women I've worked with have had a kid one day and immediately returned to work the next. I expect all women who have the option of taking maternity leave to use it, and I find that expectation perfectly reasonable. "Society" agrees with me about that, at least to a certain extent, clearly; were that not the case, no such thing as maternity leave would even exist.

This is precisely why I use certain words deliberately or not at all. No one ever calls anything "peace" that doesn't describe the monopolization of violence by those with whom they already find themselves in agreement.

I can see this being a useful strategy. A lot often falls on my wife. But it's like fighting an uphill battle to help. She asks for it, but if I take the initiative, often she just gets annoyed with how I did it. If I ask her she gives me a list of way too detailed processes for menial tasks. It just makes me feel like an employee. Like, girl, I love you, but I know how to mop my house. What is this transforming cleaning tool you're using and why are you handing me a page with 12 steps of instructions? Just let me mop the damn floor how I know to do it.