John Gabriel's Greater Internet F*&kwad Theory explains it succinctly (language warning): https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/325/699/4fc...

I think it's precisely because of that collectivism, which leads to much harsher punishment of outliers.

Hmm, I always thought conformity-culture was the cause of social accountability of outliers. My go to example for this is the highly individual valuing, yet Patagonia vest wearing finance bros. Conformity without collectivism. It's a thing and it's much more insidious than the collectivism-conformity script we got growing up.

Yes, accurate, with tacit approval of the masses, too. Which makes things even worse.

I always thought that the more you repress aggression and competition, specially in human males, the more it will end up being expressed anyway, but in bursts or in passive-aggressive ways. Of course, this is just a personal hypothesis.

This is self-evident, especially in the West. Girls are getting further and further ahead in education because they are obedient, and not unruly and full of energy like boys. And no one gives a shit. It's instead touted as some victory for feminism or something.

Unfortunately that bites them with a lack of confidence and taking risks in the future. However that is mainly due to patriarchy and internalised misogyny in my experience.

Problem is that the "feminist" label is so simplistic as to miss all nuance ala: all that is "good for women" is "feminist".

Is being successful in school good? yes. Is being successful in later life good? yes.

So you cannot consider the "successful school dropout". "risk taking" is the missed nuance, or "it has to get worse before it gets better"/"break a bone to set the leg" etc. Instead you have the only "feminist" path as (cherry-picked populations of) girls doing well in school and successes later in life, even if those don't necessarily/naturally correlate.

If you really wanted to capture that nuance, you need the kind of discussions Jordan Peterson has wrt personality/behavioural traits and their impacts on differences in outcomes; but you can clearly see how much hostility (in the name of feminism) he receives for that.

The funny thing is how he's accused of (sex/gender) essentialism, even if backed by stats/data, despite the advocated feminist alternatives being also full of essentialism (and just-so narratives), just ones seen as more culturally palatable.

It may also be elevated self-doubt when doing something logically sound but overall risky over an extended period without social validation, and not patriarchy or misogyny.

Why would that affect women more than men?

>The stereotype of those cultures is sort of passive, and accepting of the status quo. And yet, when anonymous, the fangs come out, if not even more pointed.

I think because can be a better replacement for yet in this sentence. Repression very often leads to higher intensity.