I found the language the author used to describe each interesting. The "masculine"/"feminine" dichotomy seems to cause those in group B to take offense, in my experience, due to the "cultural norm to think masculine is strong/good and feminine is weak/bad". I like the "bro"/"inclusive" dichotomy because the "bro culture" is now a short-hand for "toxic" so those in group B feel "superior" (_such a bad word but not enough coffee yet_) and are then able to have a discussion about the dichotomy itself.
Something the Wife and I have butted heads against and something I had wished the author would have spent more time on was the dolling out of "responsibility points" during a disagreement. I, in group A, think that as long as I'm not saying "I will hurt you", I can _say_ whatever the fuck I want and you just need to get over it. I think this is how _everyone_ feels, even those in group B, but group A is just open about it. The Wife, however, feels that I should be responsible for what I say that isn't a part of the "group thing" (_once again, an emotional word to get my point across but a tad too far, I know_).
Example: If I say "I dislike your shoes", the Wife has _every right_ to be upset. However, I should not be held accountable/be given "responsibility points" for that. It's on them for being hurt by me not liking their shoes.
Just because I said something that hurt someone's feelings doesn't mean I'm _responsible_ for their feelings. If that is the case, what is stopping _any_ of us saying "You not giving me everything I want hurts me"? If _emotions_ are the end-all, be-all of importance, isn't being emotional until you get your way the ultimate strategy?
I am rambling now. Great article, timely reading for myself. Hope to see more conversation about this and to learn how I can be a better ally to culture B without having to give me my own desires/ideologies in culture A.