All right, fine! Fine.
Since I've already said too much, I guess there's not too much harm in saying more, even though I get to present my side of it selectively. You can get hers by asking. Readers can't, but there are probably approximately zero, so it perhaps doesn't matter too much.
Please invite Elle to counter my points, if you'd like. I feel bad bugging her, also feel bad criticizing her without a response, and also agree that I've said too much to leave hanging, but--look, saying more isn't going to make it better. I messed up originally. There's kind of no way to fix it now. Sorry.
Here's a long and painful example of me getting close to nothing out of one of Elle's stories, to a significant degree because we aren't even understanding each other, but in part because what she references is inadequate to support her claims and she is not getting as much she says out of the references that she cites. And this is NOT a claim that is some oblique derived thing for which you can't possibly have solid evidence. It's pretty straightforward: do men have a propensity towards violence or not? A tough question, but not the kind of vague thing for which evidence can only provide subtle hints. This is a key question regarding patriarchy in society because it informs whether aggression naturally develops and needs to be controlled, or whether you just need to stop eliciting it via patriarchal norms.
Here's my first reply, wherein I explain the methodological problems with her article that prevent her from reliably reaching the conclusion that she's stated: https://ichoran.medium.com/you-dont-need-war-to-have-violence-84c727b06923
If I'd understood her perspective better at the outset, this might have been more productive of an exchange. It really isn't great on either side, honestly. I don't know if you care to chase it all down. I don't recommend it. But if you want to see a clear example of why "just read Elle's stuff!" isn't perfect advice for me personally (or anyone who wants to maintain a skeptical attitude about all claims, I'd argue), well, there you go.
To summarize my criticisms, she conflates war with violence, claiming a lack of violence but while only providing evidence for lack of war; she posts a bunch of stuff, I read all of it, follow basically all the references, find the support lacking for the claim about violence and say so, but try to disengage anyway saying it's on me to make my case and I don't want to. She pushes anyway ("Bring the goods or shut the hell up."), so I make an abbreviated but still lengthy case: https://ichoran.medium.com/as-i-mentioned-i-dont-have-the-time-for-a-serious-rebuttal-which-would-take-many-hours-abdec5d6683b.
Things do not get better from there; I think I was pretty fed up after specifically being asked to justify my position, only to be blown off with basically do-your-homework and counterexamples-don't-mean-anything.
Anyway. This is the problem with me trying to learn things from Elle. I follow her citations from herself to herself to Peter Gray and dead-end in authority and/or things I can't check; follow more citations to Ferguson who ends up saying something weaker than is needed to make the sub-point (which itself is too weak to make the main point); and so on. And this is about one semi-tangential aspect of the issue!
If I want to know about the evidence for evolution, or for climate change, or the arguments against God (or for God), or for personal liberty, or why smoking is dangerous, or even whether systemic racism exists or not, I can, perhaps with effort, find a pretty compact introduction that links to high-quality evidence or argumentation that makes it clear what is known and what isn't; provides a source for me to cite to get other people up to speed. With the anti-patriarchy strain of feminist thought, I've never been able to find anything close, and what Elle presents is interesting but doesn't make a solid enough case to do the job. I think I would need some drastically different approach to make interacting with her useful in that regard.
Anyway, again, I want to make clear that I think Elle's stories are useful and that she does a far better than usual job of supporting what she says. But the overinterpretation of evidence renders the stories lacking the strength of justification that late-stage feminism needs to have its anti-patriarchy-as-the-key-step tenet be a clear goal instead of a speculative ideological stance, and if there is a way through dialog with Elle to strengthen the justification, I clearly am a long way from finding it.
I also want to make clear that I don't think this is remotely academic in the "but-you-didn't-dot-your-i's-and-cross-your-t's" sense. I think that there is a very great risk that the anti-patriarchy feminist stance is perniciously wrong for three reasons: (1) if it incorrectly views male violence as induced largely by cultural acceptance of patriarchy rather than intrinsic factors and/or tribal subculture, the focus on dismantling society-wide cultural norms that sculpted male violence may result in worse violence; (2) by focusing on entire ways of thinking like "patriarchy" rather than on specific objectives (like those promoted by NOW), it may direct advocacy effort into an impossible battle that would better be used for making real improvments; and (3) by using terminology that sounds like it's about men while actually meaning a collection of largely repudiated anti-social behaviors that needn't necessarily be male-specific, it will unjustly disparage men and organize them into tribal opposition when they should be supporting the goals.