I'm quite enjoying, in a bitter, shall I laugh or cry, kind of way, the insistence that because no woman screamed, ran away, burst into tears or stormed out on the entry of the poster's father, no distress or difficulty for women (that matters) existed.
How many times has a man tried to insist that no one in the women's facilities knew he was a man because no one said 'that's a man'? And was baffled at the idea that women do not do anything to upset or annoy a bloke they are scared of or uncomfortable at the presence of, they just keep their heads down and get the hell out of there.
Fgs, identity is all about performativity.
Women have actual, real issues. It's only mad, insane and ugly sexism that means unless they have demonstrated to the last decimal place sufficient difficulty and distress and barriers (peer reviewed, signed in triplicate, buried in soft peat and stuffed in the filing cabinet in the disused toilet with the sign beware of the leopard for a decade or three) that men may permit that there is perhaps an issue. In essence: if the woman did not create a problem so that the MAN experienced it as a problem for him, no problem existed.
Women however are exhorted to believe whatever this man happens to want, because he has feelings. And inner beliefs. And they should not only be very very caring about this but revolve their sad little meaningless lives around him and his needs. And not to get angry or shrill about the utter inequality and appalling double standards of this that says they are merely subhuman NPCs in male lives to some really misogynist men.
Any shred of sympathy I had left is gone. Decent men are not this horribly sexist.