(1) This is the most vacuous and wrong thing you wrote
> men can think women are people too
Implying that I do not think that women have agency.. What a ridiculous and exacerbated claim.
(2) All you're doing is giving normative advice about what men and women's identities should look like.
Not whatsoever... are you kidding me... it is descriptive analysis; neither normative nor prescriptive
(3) You're claiming that women will always be unhappy with partners whose identities depend on their partner, and you're also saying that it's unacceptable for men to do that.
No, not always. First off, heterosexual women. And I'm not saying unacceptable; quite the opposite. Read the original post I made; think.
And for happiness and identity, I just said, there's a single point of failure. I mean.. we're on a hacking forum, I thought that people would grasp the metaphor.
And as in industry and academia, I think it is better to design a system (the psyche) that functions for happiness. Zen.
(4) There are no logical arguments being made here. It's pure misogyny.
That's totally ridiculous, I'm not a misogynist, I resent being called that, and I absolutely do not categorically hate women. This entire thing implies the possibility of a sexist expression and display.. from you.
I may vaguely fear women as they are mirrors of nature. Read the post I made. But I do not hate them: I have too much respect for their value for that. Anyway, generally in day to day life, I approach things on a situation by situation basis. I don't have any hateful misogynist goal or agenda. Cui prodest?