Yes, we should try to shed light on the non-feminist-approved truth of sexual dynamics, but I'm afraid the only men who will do so are comedians like Bill Burr who could be dismissed as unserious provocateurs when they make entirely accurate points; and gay men like Milo and me who are more or less unaffected by what women think of our views, at least until it leads to doxxing and harassment campaigns. (But at least Milo has remained unfazed by these tactics.) I honestly don't think most straight men allow themselves to be honest about what they know persistent gendered norms. A quintessentially feminist explanation for this denial would revolve around that "toxic masculinity" that they want to eradicate, but...can you really say feminism allows men to be less stoic? A cursory look at feminist shaming tactics and privilege blindness says, "No."

Women who talk about toxic masculinity repressing men don't actually want men to talk about their own experiences and feelings; they want men to talk more about women's experiences and feelings. It's the political reductio ad absurdum of the power dynamics of heterosexual relationships, really: a man must defer to his wife's/girlfriend's feelings, and male politicians must defer to feminists' feelings.

But the "brutal" truth is that that the world works best when men's problems are handled by men, and when women's problems are handled by...well, men; they're more impartial leaders across the board, and I think that's pretty much a matter of evolution. It's an empirically robust fact that can't be perfectly explained in purely rational terms because the number of variables involved in the functioning of a society is too great. My best guess for the main cause of this is that it is impossible for fundamentally nurturing people to accept that they can't be all things to all people and unite disparate groups in a cause. Most women therefore fail at considering the needs of more than a handful of people at a time, which is why feminist groups are always collapsing and/or having to restructure themselves after failing to obtain perfect consensus on a goal or point of ideology.

In any case the fact that it takes arbitrary quotas to get women as involved in leadership as men should make this ring pretty true—I just don't think most people (men or women) are prepared to take off their blinders. I just never had any blinders on because I never had a reason to privilege women's opinions over anyone else's, let alone over the plain truth.