The author is a woman. Which seems typical these days with regards to articles talking about men. Or maybe it's just that more sociologists are women (?).
[1] http://www.asanet.org/research/stats/gender/graduate_enrollm...
BTW, this is a hell of an article. It describes an "intransigent masculinity," yet women are not supposed to let men define their femininity?
And it blames mass shootings on "masculinity." But take a look at this hocky-stick graph of the frequency of the history of mass-shootings in the U.S. [2]. There's something more than "masculinity" going on here:
[2] http://thesocietypages.org/feminist/files/2015/07/Mass-Shoot...
So it would make sense that more sociology-styled articles are indeed written by women.
Still anecdotal though.
It seems to be that some things that are female dominated at lower levels, like undergraduate studies, might still be either more gender balanced or male dominated at higher levels, like research. Whether that is due to a glass ceiling or whatever else, I don't know; you'd have to ask a sociologist about that.
90% female undergraduate (approx 36 girls, 4 guys including me).
Around 80% female postgraduate.
About 75% male lecturer/senior lecturer/professor.
One of our lecturers brought it up, and I suggested that it might be due to more guys doing psychology in the past, but he refuted this, saying that the gender skew had been like that since he started in the field.
My only real explanation for this is unconscious/institutional sexism.
In the spirit of gender equality, it shouldn't in any case. ;)
People get stupid around gender. If this were an article about christian and muslims, no one would blink at using the religion of the author to help decipher intent.
On top of that, you have to consider that social sciences (including economics) are "Schrodinger objects": as you observe and describe them, they change. Once you understand that, you can leverage the dynamic for personal or political gain, which is extremely common.