Morpheus: Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me.

I don't know how each of you guys got here, but for me this little passage from The Matrix describes in a nutshell the nagging feeling at the back of my head I had ever since I was old enough to question what I was told when it came to men and women.

I grew up in the 80s/90s in a leftist household, and was continuously exposed to the progressive narrative regarding gender of that time. Either directly through my social environment or indirectly through media. I was so thoroughly indoctrinated that I internalized it, yet simultaneously was forced into resorting to cognitive dissonance to reconcile the contradictory nature, both because the inherent logic of several related statement was mutually exclusive, and because they were hard to reconcile with my everyday experiences.

I heard all the time about how boys and girls, men and women were totally and perfectly equal mentally, yet at the same time I was exposed to a constant barrage with how better women were across the board. When someone grudgingly admitted that men outperformed women in some regard, this was generally dismissed as the consequence of a male-centric education and preferential treatment (mind you, this was in the 90s, when this was already in full swing).

I also heard the claim that of course no one said that women were morally superior to men, yet for some occult reason whenever gendered psychological profiles were pitted against one another, women were unanimously attributed positive traits (when negative traits were exposed, these were usually interpreted as the consequence of self-loathing due to the influence of the patriarchy - in other words: when me suck, it's men's fault, when women suck, it's also men's fault).

The thing is: card-carrying bluepillers, so-called "progressives" (actually regressive leftists) are practically in love with the idea that they're oh-so-super egalitarian. That both genders are fundamentally equal in potential and should also enjoy equal treatment and representation, and that they are the ones who most thoroughly embrace and promote it. However, my position is that they not only tolerate or willfully blind out misandry while being overly sensitive when it comes to misogyny, no, they actually demonstrate susceptibility the same double standard while simultaneously masturbating over how enlightened they are (regardless of the fact that their positions are neither logical nor egalitarian). It usually looks like these examples:

1) People skills

There's a general consensus in society that women by and large are better in social settings than men. That they're more intuitive, have an easier time connecting with other people, are better at reading social cues, better at subtly influencing another person's opinion instead of using a brute force-approach (with "brute force"-approach I don't mean using threats, but trying to dominate a debate by "winning" through better arguments instead of actually convincing the other party) etc. It also wouldn't really be controversial if I said that by and large, men are more susceptible to feminine wiles, female sexual signals etc. than vice versa. And finally, it also is very obvious that men are stronger than women and more prone to use physical force to solve their problems than women.

Now what we have here is a list of traits that praise women on the one hand and deride men on the other. Most people wouldn't object that these statements generally apply.

However (unless we assume that women are morally superior by default and flawlessly angelic people who would never prefer the easy way, which of course "no true feminist" would ever do - at least not explicitly) the logical consequence of this would be that women are better at manipulation and also more likely to employ manipulative tactics in their relationships and in everyday life. That they use displays of vulnerability, sexual signals etc. to goad men into doing their bidding, simply because they can (and men generally don't do it simply because they can't). That they're doing it because they're able to and because it's the easiest way for them to get what they want (certainly easier than threats or physical force)... in short, that they are more manipulative than men.

However, unless you really want shit to hit the fan, you shouldn't say that. Why the different reactions? Simple: saying that women are more intuitive, have more fine-tuned social sensors etc. is a positive description. Casting them as better manipulators is a negative description, therefore misogyny, therefore it has to be wrong.

2) Being on the spectrum

This is tangentially related to the prior point: the higher propensity of males for social ineptitude which also materalizes in a higher propensity for being on the spectrum. Saying this - "men are more likely to be on the spectrum" won't be perceived as offensive, let alone factually incorrect. Saying that "autism is the extreme male brain" didn't summon shitstorms or cost Simon Cohen his job. While female autists or aspies exist, stating that men on average score higher on the autism quotient spectrum won't be met with opposition. Why? Well, it isn't a net positive that differentiates men from women, it's actually the opposite. Therefore "progressives" and card-carrying bluepillers can live with that.

However, the other side of that particular coin is that ranking higher on the the AQS correlates with better performances in STEM-related fields.. This means that even if we assume that otherwise the capacity for math is evenly distributed regardless of gender (I don't, but let's simply assume for the sake of the argument that it's the case), the fact alone that you have more men who rank higher on the ASQ should already raise some questions regarding the veracity of the statement that women and men perform equally here. But good luck trying to get a fervent bluepiller to admit (if only to himself) that the genders aren't perfectly equal and that women don't have exactly the same potential as men on average. Why? Because it is a net positive that differentiates men from women (a net positive that's actually the flip side of a net negative), and as a consequence bluepillers can't live with it.

3) Work

Or let's bring up something else: women and their relation to their work. On average, they prefer jobs with a communal/social focus, and value a healthy work/life-balance more than men. This is usually framed as women being more down-to-earth, having more reasonable preferences in life, being more social and giving than men etc. (that men choosing to pick better-paying fields and working overtime is also due to them having to build up SMV that way is another matter).

However, not only the 77c/$-gap can be largely attributed to these priorities, there's also another imbalance that's affected by this: high status positions. For some reason, the leftist idea of a just and egalitarian society is that women should have a roughly 50% representation when it comes to CEOs, politicians etc. Mind you, I am not questioning that the glass ceiling exists (or has existed), but that the epitome of fairness, the much-praised parity, actually is fair. These high-status jobs usually have the unfortunate condition that you have to spend an awful fucking lot of time working. Like 80 hrs/week or even more - which means that ambitious people of both genders can kiss their work/life-balance goodbye, and since women are less likely to be willing to do this, the natural consequence is that you end up with more male applicants than female ones for these positions, plain and simple.

This means that even if the potential is perfectly evenly distributed among said applicants and the selection process is absolutely fair and gender-blind, you'd automatically end up with more men in power than women, which is something the advocates of gender parity simply ignore. Fairness is 50:50 and anything else must be the patriachy at work. I don't know whether they do it because reality is too inconvenient for their narrative, or because they suck at basic logic, or both, but that's how it is.

And so on. The thing is: in BP-land, some positions are ok to have, while others aren't. So it's totally PC to comment on male shortcomings. But the corresponding perks that come with it, which women don't have (since they also lack the shortcomings)? Can't exist, everything has to be a perfect 50:50 symmetry (unless the actual numbers would make women look good), and don't you dare even thinking anything else. In the same vein, it's equally PC to mention traits that illustrate how great women are, yet the same bloops who wouldn't hesitate a second to endorse statements like that go in full denial mode when the downsides of these traits are brought up. These of course can't be right.

The reason for women performing worse, for women being underrepresented in some fields or position are as a rule extrinsic and never intrinsic. Feminists externalize the responsibility for female shortcomings but internalize the responsibility for their successes - even when both are two sides of the same coin. It doesn't matter whether something is true or false, whether it's logical and reasonable or outlandish and an asspull. What matters is whether it conforms to axiomatic progressive beliefs or not. They extensively pay lip-service to the idea of the genders being equal, but in reality they adhere to a very Orwellian interpretation of the term.

This, dear sirs, is the gynocentric narrative of the inferior male: Both genders are equal, but one is more equal than the other.