That just reminded me about this interview I heard the other day. The author is embarrassed to admit that until she interviewed men for her book, she didn't think men had a significant emotional life, didn't think they experienced tenderness or hurt like women, and were essentially one dimensional. I find that quite shocking.  

I thought quite a lot on and off yesterday about this question, without coming to any really satisfactory conclusions. I always get anxious about gender stereotyping, as I think the genders have far more in common than we have different, and I loathe the Mars v. Venus assumptions about gender.

With that proviso, my main feeling is that men often have a default position of assuming an outward air of authority or control, knowledge, and invulnerability in the situation at hand. Sometimes it's a true reflection, other times not. Women have tended to the opposite default. So its more comfortable and empowering (though not necessarily always better) for women to not have to deal with that kind of behaviour in particular groups or meetings. If the behaviour (either by men or women) also shows a disregard or high-handed approach to what is happening between people, or what the group is trying to achieve, it becomes overbearing, obnoxious and patronizing.

Henry has a genuine intellectual authority, but it's coupled with being an introvert. Perhaps most importantly he didn't seem to feel the need to exert control, or do things for the sake of his own importance.