I also liked how "risk taking" was in the toxic group, while "courage" was seen as a positive. Right alongside "leadership".
So, be courageous and lead, but don't do things that require courage or put you in a position of leadership.
They're saying that men end up constraining themselves. Men could achieve a lot more without the constraints of masculine social mores.
Like what? Let's say men are now compelled by social mores to be (more) aggressive risk takers, drive themselves to compete, achieve more and take leadership positions. Leaving aside how incredibly wrong such generalization is, let's assume it's exactly correct. And let's consider a hypothetical where men aren't compelled to do any of that - what would allow such men to "achieve a lot more" while avoiding taking risks, rejecting stoic values of perseverance and hard work, despising leadership and drive to succeed (whatever their definition of success would be), what would be the mechanism of it?
36 page paper, summarized and simplified to be printed in something mass market. It's pretty clear that what's listed are meant as a combination of things, even in the summary.
It can be, certainly. But not always, and quite possibly not even usually, depending on what is meant by "achievement". Failing to encourage achievement can also be harmful. The problem here is that one-word summaries of detailed positions aren't useful, and only lead to semantic arguments.
I have a hard time with people who believe everything in life is a competition. At work, they have to get ahead. At home, they still have to get ahead. When they eat breakfast, they have to do it better than you. We need to teach people to work towards society's ends, rather than their own.
That would be a "pathological" form of competitiveness
I do too. But what I've noticed is that those types of people tend to get ahead in their careers at most companies I've been at. And with some companies -still- doing stack ranking, I guess that behavior is encouraged.