Pretty sure that's a terrible comparison...

Once again, I wonder why certain of my points were responded to, and others ignored as if I'd said nothing. And you even legitimately surprised me this time, coming back with arguments that I haven't seen before.

Yes. Logically, one man could impregnate many women. However, most societies have operated with more males than females. In medieval England, there were close to 1/3 more males. You keep hypothesising groups on the brink of extinction.

Because humanity was on the brink of extinction at one point. I genuinely think that a lot of our reproductive behaviors are explained by the genetic bottleneck 50,000 years ago. It put us into emergency fuck-or-die mode, and in evolution, nothing is removed unless environmental factors select it out. We are a primate species with the reproductive strategy of mice. Our genes are geared towards putting quantity of reproduction above all else. I think this instinct would trump all socialization, except in cases where having a larger male population increased the likelihood of group survival.

No. Some researchers say there are no appreciable differences between male and female brains.

Which researchers? Not these ones.

I'm not sure what the truth is, but we have to challenge our biases when ~1/2 of the population paints their face every day before leaving their house (though men and women historically have worn it), and when 80% of a world superpower's politicians are male though ranks 72 in the world for representation in parliament.

The former is an example of a "gender based fashion trend", and the latter is an example of hardcoded biology. When certain gender norms fluctuate widely between eras and cultures, we can assume they are arbitrary, created and reinforced by socialization. When humans act in the same way across eras and cultures, including cultures never in contact with one another, genes are a more plausible explanation. And I think that, as humans began using more reason and less instinct, more and more socialized gender roles popped up, using social pressure to force us to keep on unthinkingly following our genetic roles, despite the fact they were already long obsolete.

I'll hazard a guess, as I don't have a comprehensive answer, but perhaps its got something to do with where all societal trends originate - might is right.

Sure, that's a factor. But why, if men are in power, do men still think victimhood is emasculating? Why would they not favor their injured brothers over the inferior womenfolk? Why would be be legally and financially responsible for her actions? Why would marriage laws be structured to give her so much of his money during a divorce? Why would she have the right to walk away from pregnancy but not him? Why wouldn't women's crimes against men be treated more harshly than the reverse? Why would they have EVER made it illegal to beat and rape your wife? If men are really in power, it seems like they're missing some awful huge opportunities to oppress women even more than they could be doing. So why?

Raises lots of questions, yes. I watched it a while ago and the trend is very interesting in these countries with high metrics for gender equality yet still typical representation in gendered fields. Its certainly not entirely comprehensive.

No, but I'm glad we've both seen it. I don't think it's gospel, but I do think it's incredibly important to highlight an unpopular viewpoint that few people want to admit is supported by rather a lot of data.

To be clear: I don't think sheer numerical equality is important. I think all workplaces should be open to anyone, and should be accepting of people from groups not often seen there. But to try to force diversity where it is unwanted is immoral. Women should not be forced out, nor should they be forced in. Give people the opportunity, and the ability to point out discrimination, and then put the choice in their hands.

Consider this study of women in scientific research globally. The spread is all over the place

Actually, to me it looks pretty consistent that, across the world, women are usually 35-65% of researchers.

Time will tell what strategies are effective for sparking female interest in these fields and removing the biases that exist (i.e. more likely to be considered for research and offered higher starting salary for putting 'John' on resume opposed to 'Jennifer').

Why is it that when it comes to increasing diversity, it's only ever about getting women into fields that are lucrative or have some sort of desirable prestige (like soldiers and firefighters)? Why is there not equal amounts of attention paid to increasing the number of male teachers? It seems like the moral panic over pedophilia is a much more immediate bias keeping men out of this field.

Who is oppressing men? Other men?

Traditionalists of either gender. It is not just the politicians that oppress, but the social pressure put on by the culture around us.

You're confusing class oppression with male oppression. If women weren't seen as subservient to, incompetent or immoral working beside men the story would be different.

Why do you keep talking in "either/or"? It's both. Under patriarchy, women are viewed as children, and men are viewed as machines. Women are considered as mentally and legally irresponsible as infants, and men are expected to protect and provide for them. Patriarchy is a literal term: a society of fathers. It forces men and women into the role of the ever-responsible Daddy and the helpless, innocent Daughter.

Note in the comments mention of Mule Scavengers, Radium Girls (having your jaw rot away is totally safe, as factory owners were aware), Matchstick Girls etc."

The article you link to says that mule scavengers were children of either gender. I've read about many different examples of people getting radiation sickness because at the time people didn't understand that radium was dangerous; this did not just happen to women. And the matchstick girls were just workers from one factory out of many, all of which likely mistreated their workers regardless of gender. YOUR EXAMPLES DO NOT PROVE YOUR POINT.

Linked are all female dominated fields.

No they are not. Categorically.

Gosh, it's almost as if ALL working class jobs of that era were rotten and dangerous, and you haven't shown me one scrap of evidence that the jobs women did were worse than the jobs men did.

Yes they are, but they occupy different work. They are overwhelmingly garment slaves and seamstresses, cleaners (note Latina women earn least of all races), social workers and sex workers - in fact, the numbers of female homeless would be higher if so many weren't pimped out, or turning to prostitution with no other financial recourse. They work shitty jobs for even less pay than shitty jobs typically occupied by men (albeit, less dangerous), and in many cases are trying to provide for children.

None of that proves your point. Those are all awful jobs, yes. But they are all jobs inherently less dangerous than jobs typically done by men. Again: coal miners, assembly line workers, soldiers, police, firefighters, power line workers, garbagemen, deep sea fishermen, lumberjacks, etc. And the majority of danger from prostitution comes from its illegality: in places where it is legal and regulated like any other job, the women are far better off.

You are still showing me evidence that proves the opposite of your conclusion. You're telling me women had terrible, shitty, dehumanizing jobs. I'm telling you that men had terrible, shitty, dehumanizing jobs plus a much greater risk of injury and death.

Why has your gender historically had more rights than the other? I know your answer will have something to do with 'moar responsibilities!', which apart from falsely conflating conscription with voting rights which I debunk below, you fail to show with any unique examples.

What responsibilities? The responsibility of men to protect women, both her honor and her body, and the responsibility of husbands to financially support wives and children. Those are some pretty goddamned huge responsibilities. And along with being called upon to die for the greater good, they define a man's role. Look at history: when have women ever been socially pressured to defend men from attacks, verbal or physical? When have women ever been expected to be the breadwinner?

The whole premise of suffragettes was that they could do whatever men could, and wanted to be seen as autonomous individuals with the same opportunities to control their fate.

I get that. I'm not against that. Hell, I consider that heroic. I just want them depicted realistically. As I said, and which you did not respond to, women were just one of several groups denied the vote. It was primarily about keeping the vote for the rich and the white, trends which continue today in the gerrymandering and poll-tampering of modern politicians.

I'm not sure, but I argue that has historically been the case.

Then go back and read my paragraph above about all the ways men in power COULD be giving themselves even more advantage over women, and yet mysteriously they are not.

Thanks for the link. Will give it a look.

You are welcome.

/r/MensRights Thread Link - i.imgur.com