I think this might be the epitome of how the SJ narrative fucks things up:
This is Scott Aaronson's story of his struggles as a shy, nerdy guy.
This is Amanda Marcotte's reading of that story.
What's remarkable about the Marcotte piece - and what seems common in particular to feminist pieces, but also nowadays increasingly across a lot of left-wing commentry - is the utter denial of the possibility of failure at their end. The idea that Aaronson feels the way he does because feminism has failed in any way, whether through action, implementation or communication, is inconceivable; hence Aaronson, in not being entirely sold, must be a sexist asshole. I wouldn't say that Aaronson's comment is entirely enlightened, but it is emotionally honest, and his point seems to be that feminist rhetoric doesn't always seem to square with practicalities in the real world, or with the actions of women themselves. This would suggest that either the theory needs to be better, or the disparity explaining better, but this winds up being off-limits to Marcotte.
The Marcotte piece also seems to possess the other major implicit theme, that men need to improve, but women need do nothing whatsoever to change their outlook, and don't need to be encouraged either - that once men reject patriarchal values, women will magically change with them, because all women are feminists waiting to happen. Y'know, just like all poor people are socialists waiting to happen, and all atheists are Christians waiting to happen, etc., etc...
