I sometimes wonder if people think through all the implications ...

What people often seem to notice when it comes it sex/gender in society as, I think, real issues where situations may not work well for those who don't quite fit existing norms. At the same point in time it seems to me that proposed responses to this often come close to the-worst-possible-thing-you-could-do-in-the-situation. I'm not quite sure that the situation I discuss below is quite the-worst-possible-thing yet it seems to me that it's a situation in which people have failed to think through the full implications of their actions:

What I'd assert above is that actions like those pursued like McKinnon create an incentive for men to be more assertive. Specifically in this case, unless you behave in a comparatively aggressive manner as a man you may be significantly more likely to be overlooked than if you were a woman - whereas if as a woman you were only willing to speak in a tiny niche of expertise journalists appear willing to dig (much) deeper to try to find you.

Men here seem to be left facing a lose-lose scenario. Unless they aggressively self-promote and claim competence they may be less likely to gain media attention from journalists than a female counterpart of equal competence behaving identically. Specifically the worst journalists in this regard would seem to be those claiming to be advocates for "gender equality". At the same time were men to conform then the result would seem to be feminist shaming for that conformity - with the gendered nature of shaming seemingly an underrecognized way in which women are able to assert power and influence.

In short I wonder if feminist myopia when it comes to assessing the full effects of interventions may backfire due to uncounted for incentives which may result in both increased male obnoxiousness and misogyny. That said, to draw from perhaps my all-time-favourite short paper How Complex Systems Fail, "all ... actions are actually gambles".