I thought that footnote was odd. It&#x27;s acknowledging widespread sexism (implying that (almost) all public conversation about women is confrontational - or leads to a confrontation, presumably in contrast to most other public conversations (about men)) -- and calls for <i>feminists</i> to acknowledge that not all women wants to be&#x2F;are confrontational?<p>The whole idea of fighting for equal opportunity is so that <i>everyone</i> can be more of who they are, and not have to fight more than anyone else to be heard, because of race, gender, sexual preference, social standing or any of the myriad of things we are so great at holding against people for no good reason.<p>Anyway, just as with the last time few times PG found himself in a minefield of mostly misguided political correctness -- I think this simply shows his general style of pragmatically voicing his thoughts, without much concern for overall social analysis. I for one welcome that, even though if read in in a certain light, he can sound anything from quaint to prejudicial (not so much in this article).<p>But he&#x27;s not alone in that -- any neutral voice in a in-equal society can be seen as being oppressive -- of supporting the status quo.<p>I also see how people can get tired of being expected to fight, when all they want is get on with their work. It&#x27;s a perfectly natural reaction. It&#x27;s quite horrifying to see one of the more powerful women of Silicon Valley (?) not dare to be interviewed for fear of how her message will be twisted though. If anyone needed confirmation that there&#x27;s a long way to go to equal opportunity in management, that surely is it.