The misnomer is to categorize it as a form of intelligence. The ability to empathize and manipulate intended responses by others is probably a skill but it would only be related most purely to intelligence in the spectrum of the degree of psychopathy. I'm not sure this is something one would want to draw attention to. Clinical psychopaths have skill in the area of manipulation of others without the confounding variables of their own emotions or even empathy.

This is one where I think you're letting intellectual rigor override common sense. That some people are better at dealing with other people, and are rewarded for it in the marketplace, seems plain as day to me.

To be sure, but there is definitely a category of intellectuals who have crafted a sophisticated pseudoscience around it with very little scientifically sound backing and a lot of junk science. It would have been OK to just say it was intuitive and generally well understood that some people are more successful at interacting with others to achieve their desired outcomes.

I think in general females would be better than this but they also have less grasp of male group dynamics or how males percieve and reason. They can pick up on individual behavior cues, responses and patterns better in general but that is more a learned skill of inputs and outputs versus understanding of why.

I personally think what they refer to as emotional intelligence is actually a mixture of charisma and leadership ability. Usually, the first part of that is innate to the individual, and you can build the second to some degree. We all have those friends or coworkers that are just natural at getting people pulling the same direction even in difficult situations. The vast majority of people are incapable of doing such things.

infinity ag said:

---

The summary is that Reshma Saujani founded Girls Who Code and was probably one of those women who pushes for women at the cost of men. Until she had sons. Now she worries about men.

Why is society leaving men out? I see so many programs to help women, but none to help men. I have a son and a daughter and I am worried for my son. Men are still valued in society for their income and job title. Women are not. Society is actively trying to undermine men. Women find it much easier to become VPs in companies, I have seen this myself.

Is it because the people in control are also simps?

I Founded Girls Who Code. Now I'm Worried About Boys
https://time.com/7286184/worried-about-boys/

Quote:

---

A few years ago, I gave what I thought was the perfect commencement speech at a women's college. It was my feminist manifesto. The ultimate mic drop after years of fighting for gender equality as founder and CEO of Girls Who Code. I walked off the stage feeling electric.
My two little boys ran up to me, gave me a hug, and then, my oldest son Shaan pulled me aside.
He asked, "Mommy, why do you always talk about girls? How come you never talk about boys?"
At the time, I totally dismissed him. I thought, He's little. He doesn't get it.

But now, as diversity pipeline programs like the one I've spent my career building are systematically dismantled and women's fundamental rights are rolled back to chants of "your body, my choice," all by and in the name of men, I see that I was the one who didn't get it.

I spent years teaching girls to be brave, not perfect. But I barely considered how we need to teach boys to be soft, not just stoic. To connect, not control. To imagine a version of manhood where strength requires empathy, vulnerability, and care.

While we were pushing our girls forward, we were leaving our boys behind. And now, they're struggling.

Boys and men are less likely to turn to their communities for social connection and support. Less likely to go to college. More likely to die by suicide or overdose. Too often, instead of being met with care, they've been manipulated and handed division. Not just by podcast bros, but by a government that's actively stoking the divide for their own political gain.

The biggest problem we face right now isn't just climate, healthcare, or AI ethicsit's disconnection. Disconnection across gender, race, class, even reality itself. And that disconnection is blocking progress on every issue we care about.

We've all been sold a con: that progress is a zero-sum game. That when women rise, men must fall. That when someone new gets a seat at the table, yours disappears. And we're so intentionally divided we can't see we're all losing in this game.

Disconnection isn't just a consequence, it may also be the goal. Because powerful men from Silicon Valley to Pennsylvania Avenue know that if we don't see each other, we won't stand up for each other. If we're too busy blaming each other, we'll never imagine what we could build together.

And while we've been distracted, our boys have been searching for connection and finding it in the worst places. Small men with loud voices who hold court over internet echo chambers, like Andrew Tate, offer them simplistic answers for all of their complicated fears and insecurities. Man up. Toughen up. Win at all costs. And those answers are harming boys and men. We failed to offer them belonging, so they're grappling for control.

The question we've avoided for too long is: What conversations should we be having with our boys?
The issue at hand won't be solved with better messaging, another podcast, or a new influencer to follow. We are not going to out-algorithm the "manosphere." We need a deeper response. A braver one.
Yes, we need structural change. We need schools that teach emotional literacy alongside academics. We need public investment in youth mental health. We need a "Men Who Nurse" and a "Guys Who Teach," pipeline programs that can offer boys real pathways forward in fields that desperately need them. And we need to build social media platforms and governmental policies that aren't driven by isolation and outrage.

But most of all, we need connection. Especially at home. Because no policy can replace what happens across a dinner table or on the walk home from school. We need to start asking our boys better questions. How are you feeling? What's been hard for you? Who do you trust? What scares you?
And when they struggle to answer, we can't shut down. We need to help boys and men build the language necessary for them to live full, happy lives. We need to show them that we, too, can change and grow. That means moms showing that care and empathy are signs of courage. And it means dads, especially, stepping in with presence and vulnerability to say, "I love you. I'm proud of you. I cry too."
And we need to tell our boys that the loudest voices with the simplest answers are often the most dangerous. Instead, real power listens, real might is judicious, and real leadership invites doubt. Often, real bravery sounds like, "I don't know, but let's figure it out together."

The story we've told our boys that power is a pie, and we have to fight for slicesis a lie that has broken their ability to connect with others and with themselves.

Let's be clear: this isn't about ignoring girls, or pretending their fight is finished. It's about building a future big enough for both to thrive because opportunity is not zero-sum, progress is not zero-sum, and empathy is not zero-sum.
Boys today don't need perfect parents, perfect systems, or perfect answers. They just need people willing to listen to them and who choose to care about them, even when it's complicated

---

Grok's summary

Quote:

---

Summary of "I Founded Girls Who Code. Now I'm Worried About Boys" by Reshma Saujani (Time, May 19, 2025)
Reshma Saujani, founder of Girls Who Code, reflects on her past focus on empowering girls and her growing concern for boys, prompted by her son's question about why she emphasizes girls over boys. She acknowledges that while advocating for gender equality, she overlooked the struggles of boys and men, who face increasing disconnection, lower college enrollment, and higher rates of suicide and overdose. Saujani argues that societal narratives framing progress as a zero-sum gamewhere women's gains mean men's lossesfuel division and harm both genders.
Boys, she notes, are vulnerable to toxic influences like Andrew Tate, who exploit their insecurities with simplistic, harmful ideals of masculinity. Saujani calls for a deeper response beyond better messaging, advocating for structural changes like emotional literacy in schools, mental health investment, and pipeline programs for boys in fields like nursing and teaching. Most critically, she emphasizes fostering connection at home through open, empathetic conversations with boys about their feelings and fears.
She challenges the notion that power is limited, urging parentsespecially fathersto model vulnerability and care, and to teach boys that real strength lies in empathy, listening, and collaboration. Saujani stresses that supporting boys doesn't diminish girls' progress but builds a future where both can thrive, as empathy and opportunity are not zero-sum.

---

---

She's still utterly clueless and completely rejecting masculinity. She still views her sons as defective women and does not realize that they are very different, at a fundamental level, from her.

We should have been embracing masculinity at its core and getting these boys into things that appeal to them that allow them to get dirty, use their hands, build comraderie with other boys, learn discipline, to at times let loose, and more. Getting in touch with their feelings is **** women do, this is something men never do and never will. This is honestly the fastest way to get a woman to dry up and lose all sexual attraction to you.

She's setting her sons up to fail miserably and become the worst kind of men. The kind that hates women with a passion and wants either nothing to do with them or just wants to dominate and abuse.

She doesn't mean well, she's just angry men are pushing back. She'd turn her sons trans immediately if she could.

The concept I think is more broad. It is really depth of empathy and then the ability to use varying approaches to make use of empathy and knowledge to achieve an outcome. It applies to individual interactions as well as group dynamics. Can you get a child to clean his room? Can you calm a frantic friend over some perceived personal crisis? Can you convince your spouse to spend money on a new sofa? Can you get your friends to go to your favorite restaurant for dinner. That sort of stuff.


It isn't that this lady doesn't possibly understand how to work with males. It is that she doesn't understand males are not and can't be like females in how they reason, emote, and in motivation and purpose. They can't be made to function as females because they are not females. There are distinct deep biologically driven differences that do affect behavior and perception.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

The misnomer is to categorize it as a form of intelligence. The ability to empathize and manipulate intended responses by others is probably a skill but it would only be related most purely to intelligence in the spectrum of the degree of psychopathy. I'm not sure this is something one would want to draw attention to. Clinical psychopaths have skill in the area of manipulation of others without the confounding variables of their own emotions or even empathy.

---

Emotional intelligence is different then intelligence. This is easily observed in real life. You could call it something other then emotional if you want. Maybe interpersonal intelligence. But the point still stands that it is a skill. It can be improved.

One could argue the main challenges of autism is the a lack of emotional intelligence. A crippling misunderstanding of group dynamics and social awareness.