Women and sexism.

[Aidannadia]

Well if you pick an issue i'm prepared to lay out why I think what I said is the case on that one.

I have a conclusion and I'll back it because I think it's right. After all, I can find facts supporting my point of view on any issue.

[The Neo-Confederate States of America]

Feminism is a neo-nazi matriarchist movement supported by obese mentally unstable women who hate men due to their social outcast status and inability to hold a stable relationship. Feminism is the largest cause of sexism in the modern world, an even larger cause than Islamic law.

Amen!

[Lordieth]

Why can't feminism be discussed as both an issue for men and for women? Considering it's an issue that involves both genders.

Because there's a sizable camp of people in the feminist movement actively hostile to discussion of mens issues and by extension hostile to men.
It isn't a safe space for male victims of traumatic sexism.
You've got two types of feminists,
assholes who are sexist to men, and naive people trying to force men into contact with sexists who will ridicule and belittle their experiences.

If you care about mens issues, you can't be a feminist and still be taken seriously. At least, you can't be just a feminist. I'll concede it's viable to be a feminist/MRA.

Because of the aforementioned group, feminism is not the place to discuss mens issues, and attempts to make it so are sexist in and of themselves, since they carry an implication that men who would prefer not to have their experiences dismissed are somehow wrong or questionable for prefering to discuss mens issues outside of the feminist movement. (Instead of, oh, I don't know, sick of the feminist movement being a useless shitpile when it comes to mens issues, or sick of being constantly belittled and attacked when trying to discuss those issues, as much as half of you insist it's a movement for it.)

Suppose Christians kept insisting that the place for gay rights to be discussed was inside megachurches and refused to accept otherwise, and were hostile to the idea of gay rights being discussed elsewhere shutting down those discussions with the justification that the only legitimate discussion of gay rights was in megachurches.
Or shut them down because gays are an abomination and don't deserve rights / gays aren't oppressed.

Either way, you'd have christians running around shutting down discussion of gay rights.
And half of them insisting christianity doesn't oppress gays.
Meanwhile ofcourse, preventing any and all progress on gay rights.
That's how completely stupid feminism is.

If you're a feminist and an MRA, that's acceptable.
If you're just a feminist who thinks feminism is the place for men too, you're a naive sexist.
If you're a feminist who doesn't think men have issues of sexism, you're just a sexist.

There can't be a discussion of mens rights in the feminist movement. It always devolves into a shouting match, because of the aforementioned group.
The group of feminists trying to force that to happen are just derailing mens rights to preserve their clubs legitimacy as an equality movement rather than a womens rights movement. They aren't doing it to help men. They're doing it in a self-serving manner. Rather than admit feminism is ill suited to it's purpose, they'd rather ignore reality and throw men under the bus to preserve their view of the movement and feel better about it.
It's sexism, all around. Varying types, and some less blatant. Some less malicious. But still damaging, and still worthy of contempt.

Misandrist feminists shut down discussion inside the movement very successfully.
Naive feminists shut down discussion outside of it by insisting over and over feminism is the place for the discussion and getting butthurt when people don't accept their insistence of that in the face of evidence otherwise.
The existence of naive feminism is a blight on our society. Stop peddling that bullshit and let men discuss their gender issues how they want to discuss them.

Maybe if feminists asked "Why do people not want to discuss mens issues with us?" they might actually make some progress, instead of "Why don't those people realize we're the place to discuss mens issues."
You are not entitled to annexing other peoples social movements, especially when half of you are actively hostile to the demographic.

I broadly agree with the points you've made, and of course I agree. My question towards Sagredo was mostly rhetorical, as I was interested in his/her response on the issue.

As I said in my original post, I think feminism is going through a transitional phase, and part of that may involve something of a schism between these two groups within feminism, which will likely result in another movement being born out of it. In much the same way that horrible acts are carried out in the name of religions and political ideologies, so must feminists speak out when members who identify within their group actively harm the message feminism is trying to promote, and distance itself from the radicals as much as it can, even if that means denouncement.

[Ostroeuropa]

Because there's a sizable camp of people in the feminist movement actively hostile to discussion of mens issues and by extension hostile to men.
It isn't a safe space for male victims of traumatic sexism.
You've got two types of feminists,
assholes who are sexist to men, and naive people trying to force men into contact with sexists who will ridicule and belittle their experiences.

If you care about mens issues, you can't be a feminist and still be taken seriously. At least, you can't be just a feminist. I'll concede it's viable to be a feminist/MRA.

Because of the aforementioned group, feminism is not the place to discuss mens issues, and attempts to make it so are sexist in and of themselves, since they carry an implication that men who would prefer not to have their experiences dismissed are somehow wrong or questionable for prefering to discuss mens issues outside of the feminist movement. (Instead of, oh, I don't know, sick of the feminist movement being a useless shitpile when it comes to mens issues, or sick of being constantly belittled and attacked when trying to discuss those issues, as much as half of you insist it's a movement for it.)

Suppose Christians kept insisting that the place for gay rights to be discussed was inside megachurches and refused to accept otherwise, and were hostile to the idea of gay rights being discussed elsewhere shutting down those discussions with the justification that the only legitimate discussion of gay rights was in megachurches.
Or shut them down because gays are an abomination and don't deserve rights / gays aren't oppressed.

Either way, you'd have christians running around shutting down discussion of gay rights.
And half of them insisting christianity doesn't oppress gays.
Meanwhile ofcourse, preventing any and all progress on gay rights.
That's how completely stupid feminism is.

If you're a feminist and an MRA, that's acceptable.
If you're just a feminist who thinks feminism is the place for men too, you're a naive sexist.
If you're a feminist who doesn't think men have issues of sexism, you're just a sexist.

There can't be a discussion of mens rights in the feminist movement. It always devolves into a shouting match, because of the aforementioned group.
The group of feminists trying to force that to happen are just derailing mens rights to preserve their clubs legitimacy as an equality movement rather than a womens rights movement. They aren't doing it to help men. They're doing it in a self-serving manner. Rather than admit feminism is ill suited to it's purpose, they'd rather ignore reality and throw men under the bus to preserve their view of the movement and feel better about it.
It's sexism, all around. Varying types, and some less blatant. Some less malicious. But still damaging, and still worthy of contempt.

Misandrist feminists shut down discussion inside the movement very successfully.
Naive feminists shut down discussion outside of it by insisting over and over feminism is the place for the discussion and getting butthurt when people don't accept their insistence of that in the face of evidence otherwise.
The existence of naive feminism is a blight on our society. Stop peddling that bullshit and let men discuss their gender issues how they want to discuss them.

Maybe if feminists asked "Why do people not want to discuss mens issues with us?" they might actually make some progress, instead of "Why don't those people realize we're the place to discuss mens issues."
You are not entitled to annexing other peoples social movements, especially when half of you are actively hostile to the demographic.

I broadly agree with the points you've made, and of course I agree. My question towards Sagredo was mostly rhetorical, as I was interested in his/her response on the issue.

As I said in my original post, I think feminism is going through a transitional phase, and part of that may involve something of a schism between these two groups within feminism, which will likely result in another movement being born out of it. In much the same way that horrible acts are carried out in the name of religions and political ideologies, so must feminists speak out when members who identify within their group actively harm the message feminism is trying to promote, and distance itself from the radicals as much as it can, even if that means denouncement.

Sorry, I derped on the context of your post.

[Lordieth]

I broadly agree with the points you've made, and of course I agree. My question towards Sagredo was mostly rhetorical, as I was interested in his/her response on the issue.

As I said in my original post, I think feminism is going through a transitional phase, and part of that may involve something of a schism between these two groups within feminism, which will likely result in another movement being born out of it. In much the same way that horrible acts are carried out in the name of religions and political ideologies, so must feminists speak out when members who identify within their group actively harm the message feminism is trying to promote, and distance itself from the radicals as much as it can, even if that means denouncement.

Sorry, I derped on the context of your post.

Not at all. You more or less expanded on what I would have said in response, thus saving me some of the trouble. It's that aspect of feminism that is toxic, and if the movement is going to progress, it has to be inclusive to men, or it will forever be tarnished with the stereotypes caused by the extreme.

[Forzona]

Is this seriously what I think it is?

[Chessmistress]

Yes. I haven't followed this user too closely, but they were definitely doing a lot of that in the FGM thread. Their contributions start here.

Also, they have a nation called TERF, which speaks for itself.

...

I'm sitting here trying to think about how to process the content of the OP and this information (in particular, the willingness to associate with the term TERF) and I'm, uh, failing... And, I mean, I only read just the linked posts, let alone whatever else.

Maybe you should try to ask me instead of sitting and thinking about my businesses

Personal bad experiences. That's why I created TERF. Experiences unworthy of further details.

I posted with TERF just only a single post, due an error, as described in the post.
My post was about the fact someone writed women are lazy. That's ludicrously sexist, so much that I forgot to switch to Chessmistress.

I'd actually challenge everyone here to find me a sexism issue that effects women that couldn't be solved by ending sexist treatment of men. (In the western world, at least.)

(By the way, i'd also say that some mens issues are caused by sexism against women.)

Interesting. Let's talk about your men's issues. Apparently that's the subject now.

Indeed, it seems we have even the meninists now, not just only pro-porn "sisters".

There's also the research suppression on male victims of rape and DV.
(Straus exposes it.)

https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei= ... on+strauss

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comm ... _suppress/

"menaregood" and "avoiceformen"? Really? These are your "unbiased" sources?

And someone dare to say Feministing and Jezebel are biased...

There's also the male crisis in education and the fact women are performing better than men, which could be seen by meninists as women oppressing men.

Fixed
And I even hugged you...

Then there's the due process shenanigans in US universities and utilizing the rapist=male narrative. (Most teachers and students are women.)

These female teachers and female students are really oppressive...
Or, maybe, it maybe due the fact 99% of rapes are performed by males against both women and males?
Seriously...apart from statutory rape, that's just another thing and still very rare, have you ever heard of a female student raping a male student?

From RationalWiki
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Men%27s_ri ... ous_claims

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rape_apolo ... gatives.29

Rape apologists frequently accuse women of misreporting rape, or "crying rape" to get what they want (like an abortion). Accusations of rape against partners or other acquaintances are sometimes disbelieved by others and perceived as a spiteful reaction to some other grievance. And indeed, no one is demanding the abandonment of innocent until proven guilty; people like Tawana Brawley and Treva Throneberry[wp] do exist, and genuine false accusations have an extraordinarily damaging impact on everyone involved (c.f. Brian Banks[wp] and the Duke lacrosse case).
However, just as there are false positives with rape allegations, all of which are unacceptable, there are numerically many more false negatives (rapes not officially reported). Statistics show that rape is dramatically under-reported. Even in places where people are not actively persecuted for being raped (on the pretext of it being adultery, failure to scream loud enough, or similar bullshit), there is still an enormous amount of stigma typically associated with people who come forward as victims.[2][3][4] The fact that a lot of rape go unreported has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of how common false rape accusations are, aside from the fact that people may worry that if rape reports are greeted with greater skepticism, victims may become even more reluctant to report rapes.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Blaming_the_victim

Blaming the victim describes the attempt to escape responsibility by placing the blame for the crime at the hands of the victim. Classically this is the rapist claiming his victim was "asking for it" by, for example, wearing a short skirt. Until recently, blaming the victim was largely how most rape victims experienced the investigation and litigation into claims of rape - often leading to women and men becoming unwilling to report it. It was not uncommon for a victim of rape to face a defense attorney who asked the victim about her (or, in the rare cases that a male victim went to court, his) sexual history, sexual preferences, drinking habits and even social status, all to paint her as less of a victim. In 2013, a Montana Judge said a 14 year old rape victim was equally responsible for her own rape because she "seemed older than her chronological age"[1]. A perfect example of blaming the victim.

That's a VERY neutral source, not feminist at all.
Since you seems to feel so hurted by my supposed misandry, I salute you with another hug
do not dare to say I'm not friendly towards meninists.

[Aidannadia]

I saw somewhere(Granted, it was a biased source) that the definition of rape in many studies is simply "forced to envelope" and that the 1% of rapes done by women in studies refer to a woman forcibly penetrating a male in some way.

This source said that rape cases in which someone is "forced to penetrate" are often put under "other sexual harassment."

Can someone back this up with an unbiased source?

[Ostroeuropa]

A terf, a sex-negative, and a misandrist.
I forsee no useful discussion to be had.

The first link is google to multiple websites showing Straus' work.
The second link is to reddit summarizing that work.
I'd consider "All the google results." to be a fairly unbiased sourcing.

As for the rest of your post, it's pretty blatantly sexist. I'll leave it for someone else to clean up, i'm already too bored.

[Hirota]

That's a VERY neutral source, not feminist at all.

It's better. It's not particularly neutral (and thats because RW doesn't try to be neutral), but it's better.

[Genivaria]

Feminism is a neo-nazi matriarchist movement supported by obese mentally unstable women who hate men due to their social outcast status and inability to hold a stable relationship. Feminism is the largest cause of sexism in the modern world, an even larger cause than Islamic law.

This looks like something quoted from Fundies Say The Darndest Things.

[AiliailiA]

A white person living in a black suburb is a "minority" and if they experience discrimination it will have the same negative effect on them as white-on-black discrimination by a white majority elsewhere. And I would say, just as negative an effect on wider society: as in either case it drives the minority person away and ends their attempts to integrate.

Racism doesn't necessarily have to be seen as something negative, provided it isn't taken too far. it is no one's fault what racial group they are born into, but one can still choose to embrace their place in the world in acknowledging what race they are. I'll admit as much that integration is among the things of highest priority that I want to sabotage, in order to ensure that the racial communities where I live largely stay distinguishably separate from each other.

"I want to sabotage integration" is about the most despicable opinion you could present to me.

I have never liked your opinions, and you know that. I have been moved in the past by pity for you, because a person who wants to live out their life in the community, the state, the nation they were born into, always the same, will always be disappointed. Your obsession with race is an abstraction of your fear of change. You will be disappointed, even if your community keeps the racial segregation you desire until the day you die. Your society will change, and that will be punishment enough for you.

You've tied yourself to the rack. Feet in the past, head in the future. I can't untie you (I don't know you, I'm not your family nor your friend, nor your lover nor your priest). Untie yourself, or suffer on the rack.

[Chessmistress]

A terf, a sex-negative, and a misandrist.

Sex-negative? That's a mislead.
Reality is: against pornography, not against sex.
Pornography is the opposite of real sex, and it fuel rape culture, it depicts women as sexual objects.

“A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual.” - Gloria Steinem

"Sex-positive" term is just a mislead, a fiction created by the sex industry - in fact it means "pro-pornography".

“The Western sexual revolution sucks. It has not worked well enough for women.” - Naomi Wolf

Naomi Wolf is not a radical feminist, you know?


TERF doesn't means hatred of transexuals: it just only means don't think they can fully share the experiences of women-born-women.
TERFs think every issue transexuals have will be solved with the abolition of gender.


Misandry? Where? Really? Please, just try to quote something from me that seems hatred towards men.

[Genivaria]

A terf, a sex-negative, and a misandrist.

Sex-negative? That's a mislead.
Reality is: against pornography, not against sex.
Pornography is the opposite of real sex, and it fuel rape culture, it depicts women as sexual objects.

“A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual.” - Gloria Steinem

"Sex-positive" term is just a mislead, a fiction created by the sex industry - in fact it means "pro-pornography".

“The Western sexual revolution sucks. It has not worked well enough for women.” - Naomi Wolf

Naomi Wolf is not a radical feminist, you know?


TERF doesn't means hatred of transexuals: it just only means don't think they can fully share the experiences of women-born-women.
TERFs think every issue transexuals have will be solved with the abolition of gender.


Misandry? Where? Really? Please, just try to quote something from me that seems hatred towards men.

Sex negative sounds pretty accurate for you.
And equating pornography with genocide is the height of insanity.

[Ostroeuropa]

*yawn*
Feelz based reasoning is inferior to empirical study.
Pornography prevents rapes.
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/ever ... _rape.html

But nevermind, you've got your gut based intuition and a victim narrative to work off, and damn the consequences, even if it's more rapes.

As for misandry, it's basically your first post in it's entirety.
And the 99% bit where you erase male rape victims.
And basically everything you posted about men in education.
I'm done with you by the way. Feel free to counter argue but response will not be coming.

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

Sex-negative? That's a mislead.
Reality is: against pornography, not against sex.
Pornography is the opposite of real sex, and it fuel rape culture, it depicts women as sexual objects.



"Sex-positive" term is just a mislead, a fiction created by the sex industry - in fact it means "pro-pornography".



Naomi Wolf is not a radical feminist, you know?


TERF doesn't means hatred of transexuals: it just only means don't think they can fully share the experiences of women-born-women.
TERFs think every issue transexuals have will be solved with the abolition of gender.


Misandry? Where? Really? Please, just try to quote something from me that seems hatred towards men.

Sex negative sounds pretty accurate for you.
And equating pornography with genocide is the height of insanity.

It's not Poe's Law...there's a law about nazis and arguments on the internet.

[Forzona]

Sex negative sounds pretty accurate for you.
And equating pornography with genocide is the height of insanity.

It's not Poe's Law...there's a law about nazis and arguments on the internet.

Wasn't that a wolfenstein plot?

[Genivaria]

Sex negative sounds pretty accurate for you.
And equating pornography with genocide is the height of insanity.

It's not Poe's Law...there's a law about nazis and arguments on the internet.

Godwin.

[Ostroeuropa]

Sex negative sounds pretty accurate for you.
And equating pornography with genocide is the height of insanity.

It's not Poe's Law...there's a law about nazis and arguments on the internet.

Godwins law.

It's not Poe's Law...there's a law about nazis and arguments on the internet.

Godwin.

Fuuuuuuuu

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

It's not Poe's Law...there's a law about nazis and arguments on the internet.

Godwin.

It's not Poe's Law...there's a law about nazis and arguments on the internet.

Godwins law.

That's it.

Arguments like this tend to lend themselves more to it than others. Strong emotions on both sides, lots of indoctrination and external societal pressures. Microcosms, hug-boxes, and personal experiences.

I'd prefer an actual conversation, rather than sloganeering, myself.

[Genivaria]

Godwin.

Godwins law.

That's it.

Arguments like this tend to lend themselves more to it than others. Strong emotions on both sides, lots of indoctrination and external societal pressures. Microcosms, hug-boxes, and personal experiences.

I'd prefer an actual conversation, rather than sloganeering, myself.

OK I'll try and get us on track.
I think the system of Patriarchy does great harm for both men and women by placing them both in unrealistic expectation bubbles according to their gender.

The typical response to men being physically abused by women is one such example.
Ever watch that episode of What Would You Do?

[Sagredo]

And if you're an MRA, and scornful of any feminist who isn't a feminist/MRA? Finding them "acceptable" at best.

What are you then, Ostroeuropa?

So eager to label feminists as sexist, what are you?

I'm a gender abolitionist.
I'd also accept being called an MRA, but don't identify as one. I think gender is ultimately a social construct that will be eradicated once/if sexism and gender roles are eradicated, and that this is a positive thing.
You'll notice I pointed out the behaviors feminists engage in that are sexist, and why they are sexist. I also provided a way they can avoid this.
If you disagree with why the behaviors I pointed out are sexist, you can argue it.

The reason i'd consider feminist/MRA acceptable is that I think the feminist movement is too tarnished at this point to be worth identifying with, what with the research suppression and such.
Identifying with a movement that enabled widespread societal oppression strikes me as pretty suspect. But if you also identify as being for the rights of the group that movement has historically oppressed, that's acceptable. Just a bit strange.

"Gender abolitionist" sounds good. Be prepared to die trying though (I mean, die of old age before it happens). Most people like their gender, and most of those people have biological sex to back their gender. Even some of the transgender people will oppose.

You get into telling people their gender is a "choice" and you'll meet some resistance. I mean, a lot of resistance. You'll die trying.

Fight the fight that matters to you, by all mean. Die trying, and I'll honor you. But in the meantime, there are practical people like myself who are more concerned with getting rapists in jail, preventing unfair dismissal, ensuring equal opportunity of employment regardless of sex (or gender), and some compromises of government legislation which temporarily advantage women to redress their historical disadvantage in employment.

I'm also in support of some 'compromises of government legislation' to temporarily advantage men in matters of child custody, child care, and early childhood education. Paternity leave, equal employment based on qualifications and competence not on gender (I'm aware of the 'pedophile panic' which makes men very suspect applicants for any job involving children). And most of all, I agree with you that the law is terribly biased in the investigation and prosecution of rape. There is a sexist standard there, favoring women, and it should be fixed.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. "Gender abolition" is the perfect, don't let it be a roadblock to practical measures which would reduce human suffering in the meantime. Targetted measures to reduce the harm of sexism either way. Build the democratic coalition which can get that done ... don't be a futile idealist on the side lines.

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

That's it.

Arguments like this tend to lend themselves more to it than others. Strong emotions on both sides, lots of indoctrination and external societal pressures. Microcosms, hug-boxes, and personal experiences.

I'd prefer an actual conversation, rather than sloganeering, myself.

OK I'll try and get us on track.
I think the system of Patriarchy does great harm for both men and women by placing them both in unrealistic expectation bubbles according to their gender.

The typical response to men being physically abused by women is one such example.
Ever watch that episode of What Would You Do?

I have, indeed.

My only problem with labeling it "Patriarchy", is that there are many, many women involved in keeping gender expectations at the state they're in. It's only partly adequate as nomenclature.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's it.

Arguments like this tend to lend themselves more to it than others. Strong emotions on both sides, lots of indoctrination and external societal pressures. Microcosms, hug-boxes, and personal experiences.

I'd prefer an actual conversation, rather than sloganeering, myself.

OK I'll try and get us on track.
I think the system of Patriarchy does great harm for both men and women by placing them both in unrealistic expectation bubbles according to their gender.

The typical response to men being physically abused by women is one such example.
Ever watch that episode of What Would You Do?

On what basis do you attribute this to patriarchy instead of say, cultural memetics?
Does culture often stay bound within institutions?
I'm well aware of that time the civil rights movement was imposed top down, for instance.
No, seriously, whence the notion of top-down culture?

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm a gender abolitionist.
I'd also accept being called an MRA, but don't identify as one. I think gender is ultimately a social construct that will be eradicated once/if sexism and gender roles are eradicated, and that this is a positive thing.
You'll notice I pointed out the behaviors feminists engage in that are sexist, and why they are sexist. I also provided a way they can avoid this.
If you disagree with why the behaviors I pointed out are sexist, you can argue it.

The reason i'd consider feminist/MRA acceptable is that I think the feminist movement is too tarnished at this point to be worth identifying with, what with the research suppression and such.
Identifying with a movement that enabled widespread societal oppression strikes me as pretty suspect. But if you also identify as being for the rights of the group that movement has historically oppressed, that's acceptable. Just a bit strange.

"Gender abolitionist" sounds good. Be prepared to die trying though (I mean, die of old age before it happens). Most people like their gender, and most of those people have biological sex to back their gender. Even some of the transgender people will oppose.

You get into telling people their gender is a "choice" and you'll meet some resistance. I mean, a lot of resistance. You'll die trying.

Fight the fight that matters to you, by all mean. Die trying, and I'll honor you. But in the meantime, there are practical people like myself who are more concerned with getting rapists in jail, preventing unfair dismissal, ensuring equal opportunity of employment regardless of sex (or gender), and some compromises of government legislation which temporarily advantage women to redress their historical disadvantage in employment.

I'm also in support of some 'compromises of government legislation' to temporarily advantage men in matters of child custody, child care, and early childhood education. Paternity leave, equal employment based on qualifications and competence not on gender (I'm aware of the 'pedophile panic' which makes men very suspect applicants for any job involving children). And most of all, I agree with you that the law is terribly biased in the investigation and prosecution of rape. There is a sexist standard there, favoring women, and it should be fixed.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. "Gender abolition" is the perfect, don't let it be a roadblock to practical measures which would reduce human suffering in the meantime. Targetted measures to reduce the harm of sexism either way. Build the democratic coalition which can get that done ... don't be a futile idealist on the side lines.

Look, i'm fine with taking steps toward it. That's fine with me.
Thing is, you seem to think that the reason women are viewed as irresponsible or incapable of doing business to the same level as men as sexism against women and not, say, linked to the fact that they are impossible to hold responsible for things.
I bet you if you started jailing women at the same rates you do men, started campaigning against female perpetrators of domestic violence, stopped with the whole women are victims narrative (Which signal boosts them being kind of useless and pathetic), and you know, showing women can be held responsible for their actions that, shocker, people might start seeing them as responsible.
There is no need to give them a temporary boost. They have one in other areas.
They're just butthurt they're paying for it in others.
Well, if they want to be viewed as responsible and competent, how about we start by... treating them as responsible and competent, instead of simply demanding people view them as such.

Perhaps if there weren't consistent campaigns showing women absolutely insistent that even opinions with which they disagree victimize them and make them feel unsafe, then people wouldn't think women are too incompetent to be let near the boardroom.

Catch my drift?
Womens problems are just the result of sexism benefitting them in other areas.
You don't get to have your cake and eat it.
The pay gap, by the way, is mostly a myth. So... yeh.
There is however a dirth of female top-end businesspersons.
But the male thing in employment? That's real.

Eliminating the ways sexism benefits women will eliminate the ways it negatively impacts them.