No, we do value men. But we don't value men for the things you would want us to value them, or the way you would like us to value men (which is basically deference). And we expect reciprocity.

I'm aware of the supposedly "innate diferences" we have. But I look around and see more similarities than diferences. And plenty of people who doesn't fit that descriptions. Not just that, they suffer because they don't fit. So they do their best to fit even when that means giving up part of who they are.

Considering that in a few generations women have passed from being the ones who programed ENIAC to be considered "bad at programming", or all the other things that we supposedly weren't good at, and now have women working on all those things. Well, evolution takes millions of years. So chances are that those "innate" differences are not that "innate" but learned.

People have diferences. Trying to make them fit into little boxes, limits them unnecesarily. And it might be harming men more than you think. After all, a talented young men that is good at something deemed femenine, might never develop his skill. Worse, the very thing that might have made him shine, would make him feel inadecuate.

No, feminist aren't the ones with a reductionist aproach. You are the one who insist that all men are one way and just one way.

By the wat, all the men droping their jobs and studies to play video games show that some men doesn't like pressure and rather have escapism. You might want to consider that for some men, competition and presure is bad. The low tolerance to frustration also shows that for some men, challenges are not what they need. Just look around, do you really think that the pnes who drop out need more challenge?