I do encourage anybody to re-read the article and switch the words 'men' and 'women'; if it feels different, it's a sign that you share the same prejudice as the author.

Her bias against men is only made more explicit when additional context is provided. I'll quote her again and interleave some observations.

> I wove together a series of stories populated by the funny, feisty older women in European myth and folklore who I love so much

That is, she was giving a talk about European myth and folklore. Myth and folklore is often characterized by having unknown authorship, and at best mixing both fiction and non-fiction elements in them. For all we know, some if not all of the stories she loved so much were actually written by men. This will become relevant in a moment.

> In my nonfiction I’ve always been scrupulous about writing within the realms of my own lived experience as a woman, and I hate it more than I can say when I read books or listen to talks and performances by men who tell and ‘interpret’ women’s stories, and who are kind enough then to suggest to us ways in which our lives as women might be improved

So, in her non-fiction she holds herself to the standard of writing about what she has experienced as a woman, which is her choice to make. She then follows by chastising men who 'interpret' (why the scare quotes?) women's stories; presumably she is referring to the same European myth and folklore she was talking about a moment ago. Thus, she is plainly saying that she hates hearing opinions about European myth and folklore stories... when the speakers are men. She could have said "I hate hearing poor interpretations of women's stories", or "I hate the interpretations provided by Person XYZ", but she didn't, and the context paints a clear picture that it wasn't an accident. She is perfectly content blaming the group for the errors of the individuals, a hallmark of prejudice.

I find it particularly funny that she doesn't seem to even contemplate the possibility that some the stories she loves so much may have been written by men. Is it because they are stories about women? Is it because she likes the stories, and thus can't possibly have been written by a 'man'? Scare quotes added for dramatic effect. I can only speculate.

> I’ve never wanted to do the same to them

One has to wonder: has she actually received any criticism for sharing her views on male archetypes? Why would it be such a terrible thing for men to discuss women's stories, or vice versa? I can only see good things coming out of more people sharing their viewpoint on a subject and I'm glad that she shared her expertise.

> It’s easy to say, Well, if the men want their stories, let them go and find them

Why does the gender of the people telling the story and the gender of the people in the story such a critical factor in her opinion? Why not their age or their ethnicity? In her opinion, can an American or a Japanese share their opinion on European myths and folklore?

The simplest explanation for all the above is that the author is openly and proudly misandrist. That is my interpretation.

> You say you’re steelmanning, but begin by quoting how she was not how she is. You’re not dealing with her current views, you’re dealing with her precious and self-admittedly outdated views on the subject

Nope. She is not retracting in any way from those views; she is simply justifying why it is okay for her to share her opinion on men's stories; in her eyes it's okay when she does it because, and I quote:

> I’d like to stress that I’m writing this to encourage conversation and ideas around this subject, not to attempt to interpret men’s stories for them

So when men give their opinion about women's stories, they are 'interpreting' them (scare quotes in the original). But when she does, she is merely "encouraging conversation" (verbatim). What, exactly, is the difference?