perfidy

Interesting.

Sure, men were a good idea. They were a good idea when the world needed immature, aggressive,  reckless, “overemotional” brutes who could hunt and plow.

Describing men, in opposition to women, as "overemotional" is new to me.  I've been somewhat insulated from the effects described in the post I linked - working in IT.  IT remains a predominantly male preserve.

Would it be completely un-PC of me to note that we've seen a drastic decline in innovation in nearly all fields, over the period that women have increased their role in the workplace, save only in the two fields that have not seen a vast influx of women?

Maybe "immature, agressive, reckless, 'overemotional' brutes have some value that isn't currently recognized by the leading lights of our culture.  In fact, maybe if we rephrased that description to, "confident, assertive, daring, passionate men" we'd see more of it.  One (among many) of the reasons that we've decided to homeschool is the treatment of boys in the public schools - whenever a boy acts like a boy, they generally get prescribed ritalin, and they are indoctrinated into viewing their own nature as "immature, aggressive, reckless, 'overemotional' brutes.  I have no brief against women in the workplace, but not at the cost of training boys not to be men.

And while I'm on about it, a little emotional stoicism would likely do us all a lot of good.  Except for Jerry Springer and Oprah.  A rebirth of emotional stoicism would kill them.