I'm not sure I feel threatened by "feminists", even though there are a few oversensitive types (in my view) who would gladly ignore nature and testosterone and all things male - condemning it as "patriarchy" in a pithy takedown. The 1 line I liked out of Andrew was "This is where they are as hostile to Darwin as any creationist." Yes indeed, some are hostile to informed scientific dialogue around uncertainties and even certainties. Larry Summers tried to address what we know and got fired for it. #MeToo started off with some obvious sane reactions, and then partially got sidetracked into more of the "no means no" becoming "you need an enthusiastic yes", an unlikely turn in evolution, at least for a large proportion - we like being wishy-washy, and of course males are partially wired to be pushy and obnoxious. How much, whether that's good, what *should* be restrained, etc, will be debated for some time. Hopefully with some resolution.

I did think that American Psycho was the perfect movie for last year's election cycle - and filmed by a woman, no less - she got it, what made us males bizarre and tantalizing and controlling, why the Trump Alpha does succeed, oblivious to its own flaws.

As for Hillary, I think much of the reaction was mass hysteria and hallucination. Even now the rumors of Hillary drinking her own urine or attacking Bill's mistresses or running pedophilia rings or other supposed nefarious deeds resound - and most of them still don't make sense. Condemned for attacking your husband's mistresses? That used to be obvious, limited only by gun and murder laws. Much else is strange - maybe some kind of Rorschach test of society, but I tend to find her a canary in the coal mine - the more people got wound up about her, the more society was melting down and drawing hardened lines. That's not to say I think you have to like her or you're on the wrong side, more that she's some kind of cultural bellwether. Was she destined to be hated as the first serious female American politician? Forget Denmark et al - as even HIllary noted, we're not Europe - we're still exceptional, with all the plusses and minuses that brings. will we some day tone down our intolerant, dominant maleness as a halfway point between gender equality and still pushy, I-want-to-succeed-at-all-costs maledom?

This whole thing about diluting the achievements of "white males" *is* pretty galling, as it continues on and on. Yes, Columbus and Cortez were assholes, but so were the Aztecs slaughtering other tribes & sacrificing thousands to implacable gods, as were the Florida coastal native tribes that enslaved the shipwreck Cabeza de Vaca for 10 years.as he continually escaped further to the east trying to find his shipmates in Galveston. There simply haven't been a lot of nice tolerant people throughout history except for recent times, and matriarchal periods under Catherine de Medici, Russia's Catherine the Great, or Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth I weren't exactly pacifist sewing clubs without significant bloodletting (including the long imprisonment and beheading of Mary Queen of Scots). And modern liberalism and the recent spate of economic and scientific success are largely from more whitish societies in Europe and the Americas, with a bit of Asian up-and-comingness in a very different environment (and so far still not a leading one philosophically/politically/etc.)

But the last few years has assumed (for some) that the white male dominance had subsided, that soon we'd be speaking Spanish with all the immigrants as somehow an improvement over the guys who invented the transistor and the internet and psychoanalysis and modern agriculture (Norman Borlaug et al), ships to the moon and so on, vs. Latino haciendas and endless revolutions.

Additionally, some people seem to think that human progress is a matter of moderation, rather than annoying people spending all-nighters or long marches trying to make things work and lording it over others. Sure, there might be some balance somewhere, but I've yet to see restraint and calm as the greatest factor to innovation. And yeah, a lot of that comes from testosterone. And Andrew notes that black males tend to have significantly more testosterone than white males, but in this area like with Larry Summers, we have to tiptoe carefully - it's okay to say blacks or females may excel over whites or males in a number of ways, but you're in hot water to imply that there might be any inherent weaknesses or suboptimal characteristics in evolution. It's a bit like Lake Woebegone - all the women are smart, the men good looking, and the children above average.  So yeah, we're hostile towards Darwin, because there can easily be societal outrage, now focused as massive social media outrage, over pointing at any less-than-salubrious ideas about any of a dozen or more subsets of humanity - including white males, of course (hey, there was another high school shooting today, by a white male I believe - go team! [oops, his name is Cruz, so while he's probably classified as white even though Hispanic, so don't know if technically he's "ours"]). It's like that Youtube skit between millennial HR hirer (son) and aging boomer (father) - "don't you guys get a trophy for everything you do?" But it's been like that for a while - our society is fragile, so we tamp down some of the more difficult discussions about some of our more obvious failures. A few think the solutions are obvious - throw money at them, or education, or put more of X, Y or Z into power, or.... but a lot of lines look the same no matter what we do. I live in Europe, where stereotypes abound, often one might think for a few good reasons combined with usual exaggerations.

So yes, the current phase is interesting - we seem to be wanting to fix a lot of perceived imbalances in a hurry, often without having the moorings and consensus and the resources to carry it out - in fact, the folks against many of these cheery visions seem to be much better at harnessing the tools of power - perhaps partially due to, we might think, our tactics and strategies in attempting to wield power. It should be no joy to realize that the only reason we have a chance of regaining power in November is because the other side has been so over the top and criminal that the average person has started to think it not sustainable - but with even 3/4 of the outrageousness, they'd happily vote the status quo, i.e. against what we think is the intelligent natural way.

Add a major gender makeover, and things may indeed get loony. Even women can be quite hesitant about other women in power, or maybe we'll overcome that as a holdover from the 60's/90's/since forever...