I tried to interpret your earlier post, because you used ambiguous language that struck as coded. You're still doing it, in the way you directly and indirectly try to lay claim that our social and economic outcomes are owed to "nature", rather than any discriminatory behaviors.
I don't know how much of it is environment and how much is nature, but I lean toward toward nature, simply because nature explains how we got here. I come across as ambiguous because I understand society is a reflection of human nature, multi-faceted with both men and women interacting with it in ways that shape the sociopolitical landscape , saying that men oppress women and that's all there is to it is a bit too one-dimensioned in comparison.
Discrimination doesn't come out of nowhere. There has to be a reason for it.
I didn't like the feminist explanation for that, it seemed a bit too simplistic for my liking.
You should watch a documentary called The Paradox of Job Choice. It's about how in Sweden a country as close to a true equality as any country can get. Where the government virtually simps to include women in anything and everything , women still choose to pursue pink jobs. At what point, is that not nature? I don't think equality should come by forcing someone into a position they don't want. I don't think we'll ever get to the point of existing in a starship troopers fantasy.
You're playing the intellectual slight of hand game, where you deny the existence of a socially disadvantaged group, in order to further burden them w/ a claim of "true equality". This approach is discriminatory in itself, because it allows you to position attempts to regulate discrimination as the true discrimination, because a disadvantaged environment doesnt exist. Bottom line is that equality is not a reality for women. Our society has been a continuum of white male-imposed dominion, which history bares out.
I don't think the men on this board are much more powerful than their female peers. I think the only difference is that society doesn't coddle men the same way as it does for women, so men are often treated as agents and fully in control of what may come with their lives regardless of their actual power. The fact that no one wants to attribute the disproportionate number of men incarcerated and among the homeless populace to sex discrimination is nothing short of amazing. How can that not be the product of anti-male discrimination?
Now if you want to talk about dudes at the top creating an insular "ol' boys" culture then I'm in agreeance with you. That needs to change but I don't think most women in the western hemishpere are second class citizens to men . Quality of life outcomes should reflect this. You compare women to blacks but women as a whole outlive men across the board, men and blacks don't. in that respect and many others, men are closer to blacks.
Just because I disagree with the feminist interpretation of the facts, doesn't mean I'm denying or conspiring against women.
Im not sure of the relevancy of your last paragraph. Im simply acknowledging the actual sociopolitical environment we live in, which certainly operates with male privilege.
Female privilege also exists in spades. Just because our leaders tend to be rich white males doesn't mean that priviledge extends to all males. When I look at the inner cities, I don't see a lot of male priviledge. It's an apex fallacy.
"
