>>4785
>>4786
I see your point, bad example. For what it's worth, there are some genuine OG punks out there that are really into anarchism, rebellion and everything else that punk entails, and they absolutely loathe posers, phoneys and and those that treat it as image instead of ideology (where the image happens to trickle down from).

When a man signals/peacocks that he belongs to specific subculture or tribe, there's more of an expectation that he can express authentic commitment to that group, that he genuinely abides by the groups values. Men get tested on this way more. It could even be DnD or some other spergy niche, you must know the minimum level of jargon to have stable communication and interaction.

When a girl joins one of these subcultures it's "tee hee go easy on me silly boys". Can you name any non-gender-specific subcultures/groups that women are known to genuinely embody that group's ideas where men do not?

It's the basis of the girl gamer vs real gamer, femanon vs real anon, girls who code vs real programmers. This is beyond "beliefs as attire", it's about the flanderised representation of another group as fashion, e.g. women who dress "goth" but have none of the internal traits associated with "goth". The only ideology founded by women seems to be feminism, and it talks exclusively about women, women made a group to talk about themselves instead of a productive and creative project outside themselves.

With "female rationalists", I've found them easier to bait emotionally and to dazzle with the jargon than seeing them respond in a way that suggests they have learnt rationality and consistently embody some of its ideas.