Are Women Oppressed in the West?

[Hirota]

http://www.ora.tv/unsafespeech/article/2016/3/23/the-evidence-against-safe-space - several studies linked in that article which have found avoiding the cause of trauma typically causes more harm than confronting it.

When you're seeking treatment.

Prove it is only limited to when seeking treatment.

And we all know, the purpose of going to university is to get treatment for your mental health issues.

The purpose of going to university is about learning new things, including that which conflicts with worldviews. Alas, this thread isn't limited to universities, nor is my evidence, so your argument is entirely pointless.

[Knask]

When you're seeking treatment.

Prove it is only limited to when seeking treatment.

Ok.

http://www.ora.tv/unsafespeech/article/ ... safe-space

Several studies linked in that article is only relevant in a treatment perspective.

And we all know, the purpose of going to university is to get treatment for your mental health issues.

The purpose of going to university is about learning new things, including that which conflicts with worldviews. Alas, this thread isn't limited to universities, nor is my evidence, so your argument is entirely pointless.

No, no, we don't disagree. You say that the best way to treat PTSD is to not have safe spaces. And since you go to university - and through life - for the purpose of getting treatment, you're right.

[Knask]

We also agree that someone suffering from PTSD or other mental health related condition should have treatment thrust upon them. Managing their illnesses just isn't good enough, we need to force them to get better!

[Hirota]

Several studies linked in that article is only relevant in a treatment perspective.

"Several," not all. Aside from your shitty grammar, you failed to prove your point.

We also agree

We do not agree. I know strawmanning is pretty much all you are capable of, but just don't.

[Jello Biafra]

Women as CEOs and bosses isn't gender conformance in women. As they themselves are deviating from the norm, they are more likely to permit it in others.

The problem with that argument is that feminism is full of people who support gender deviance in women and yet strongly hold certain stereotypes about men (like the idea that men are uniquely violent).

Perhaps so, but
Feminists have more positive attiudes towards men than non-feminist women.
Feminists are more likely to choose less stereotypically 'masculine' romantic partners.
As such, combined with the evidence I presented earlier about the general public being biased against women, I think that women, or at least feminist women as bosses and CEOs would be less likely to be sexist than the current status quo.

Which would be standpoints that would be heard in the mixed politics group. On the other hand, surely you'd not expect certain 'Republican opinions' from the Democrat-only, mixed gender group.

So the same-gender, mixed politics group would surely be more diverse in opinion (from both sides of the culture war.)

I feel like I want to say something about women understanding the needs for maternity leave and how childbirth affects the body would give them a perspective that men are unlikely to have, but I can't find the words right now. Hopefully I'll remember to come back to this.

Ok, I'll give you that one, however... (there is always a however)....in my experience, companies are very reactive on such matters and only institute policies when someone makes a big fuss over something like that. At that point, it seems to me that the gender of the CEO is relatively inconsequential, as many male CEOs just do the same damage control that a female CEO would probably do.

I did some research on this and couldn't find anything as comprehensive as I'd have liked. What I could find make it seem like we're both right.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/0 ... nt-policy/
The male CEO of American Apparel was accused of sexual harassement and eventually fired. A female CEO took over, and one of her first actions was to create a new sexual harassment policy.

The ones that are selected, are often chosen by their adherence to conventional wisdom* and usually because they have a strength that was their predecessors weakness.

* relative to the sector and/or history of the company.

Can you give an example of conventional wisdom in a corporation?

It's actually worse, the penetration has to happen with a penis. So that pretty much means that women can't commit the crime, unless they run around with a penis in their handbag.

Yikes.

Again, that opportunity cost is also suffered by the husband, when it comes to his relationship with the children and such. I object to trying to consider one kind of it and not other kinds, especially when it clearly favors one gender.

How do you think the opportunity cost of not spending time with one's children might be calculated?

[Jello Biafra]

Soo, now Cathy Young is a "feminist"???
I hope that's a joke

She identifies as one, or at least an adherent of "feminism or something else".

[Xadufell]

I wouldn't says women are oppressed. But they will be if Europe continues to be Islamized.

[Jello Biafra]

Generally thought by whom?

http://www.ora.tv/unsafespeech/article/2016/3/23/the-evidence-against-safe-space - several studies linked in that article which have found avoiding the cause of trauma typically causes more harm than confronting it.

Knask's point about treatment is valid. Confronting PTSD in a clinical setting with a therapist who believes what you have to say is going to help; confronting a rando on the street who denies that you ever had a traumatic experience is not going to help.

[Aapje]

Perhaps so, but
Feminists have more positive attiudes towards men than non-feminist women.

It uses the deeply flawed Ambivalent Sexism model. Basically, the model tests for a certain kind of political correctness and probably ignorance.

The study doesn't give it's actual questions, but if they are like these:

Hostile Sexism Items:
- Most women fail to appreciate all that men do for them.
- Women seek to gain power by getting control over men.
- Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.

Then the model conflates people's opinion about sexism in others with their own sexism (in other words, it conflates 'is' with 'should be'). For example, "Women seek to gain power by getting control over men" describes hypoagency in women. Agreeing with that doesn't mean that you like hypoagency, but rather, that you are a knowledgeable person who understands how women are taught to behave (on average).

The problem with these kinds of questionnaires is that quite often, they count people as 'not sexist' for sharing the opinion of the researcher. So it's basically a test to which cultural group someone belongs.

Feminists are more likely to choose less stereotypically 'masculine' romantic partners.

And more likely to be lesbian. Both can just as easily be argued to be hatred of masculinity or as being more accepting of gender deviancy. You can't just pick the explanation that appeals to you.

As such, combined with the evidence I presented earlier about the general public being biased against women, I think that women, or at least feminist women as bosses and CEOs would be less likely to be sexist than the current status quo.

How many of those CEOs are actually feminist? Marissa Mayer isn't, for one. You are making bad leaps of logic.

I feel like I want to say something about women understanding the needs for maternity leave and how childbirth affects the body would give them a perspective that men are unlikely to have, but I can't find the words right now. Hopefully I'll remember to come back to this.

AFAIK, at least as many male CEOs have children as female CEOs. Assuming that these people talk to their wives and have a little empathy, I think they 'get' the issue sufficiently.

Can you give an example of conventional wisdom in a corporation?

Bonuses improve worker performance and pay motivates people.

How do you think the opportunity cost of not spending time with one's children might be calculated?

Count the number of hours that the dad worked instead of spent with his kids and multiply by hourly wage?

[Aapje]

Soo, now Cathy Young is a "feminist"???
I hope that's a joke

She identifies as one, or at least an adherent of "feminism or something else".

Proof?

She doesn't identify as a feminist in her byline at the Washington Post.

[New Edom]

Perhaps so, but
Feminists have more positive attiudes towards men than non-feminist women.
Feminists are more likely to choose less stereotypically 'masculine' romantic partners.
As such, combined with the evidence I presented earlier about the general public being biased against women, I think that women, or at least feminist women as bosses and CEOs would be less likely to be sexist than the current status quo.

Why do you agree with this study? As with many such studies I find it highly questionable.
These are my issues with it.

1. Stuff like this:

Finally, Iazzo (1983) developed the Attitudes Toward
Men Scale, which measures women’s agreement with state-
ments about marriage, parenthood, sexuality, and work
as well as physical and personality attributes about men.
Scores from 28 feminists recruited from a local chapter of
the National Organization for Women (NOW) were com-
pared to nonmembers. Iazzo (1983) reported that NOW
members’ attitudes toward men were not significantly dif-
ferent from those of nonmembers. To our knowledge, this
is the only study that has measured feminists’ (defined by
their membership in NOW) attitudes toward men. The
present study adds to this and related studies by examin-
ing the attitudes toward men of a larger, ethnically diverse
sample of self-identified feminists...

What the hell are they even talking about? 28 members? This is a definitive study of something? And what were the questions they were asked? This 'study' is littered with such remarks and in that is typical of feminist studies that attempt to prove attitudes about things.

2. This bit from "The Present Study" section of the first link.

some empirical studies suggest that feminists might actu-
ally have lower levels of hostility toward men than nonfem-
inists. Therefore, feminist women and men were expected
to report lower levels of hostility toward men than nonfemi-
nists. Second, because feminists tend to hold less traditional
gender-role ideology and tend to be less politically con-
servative than nonfeminists..

Why do non-traditional attitudes suggest less hostility? They don't even address why that should be the case. And what do they mean by hostility? They don't actually describe any actions or words, so how can we know what they're even saying?

3. I cannot access the full study of the second without buying it apparently. However the abstract seems rather self fulfilling.

In fact both articles read like a Roman Catholic Theologian talking about why Roman Catholic charities are the best run. They read as though they are meant to reassure feminists and avoid seriously examining actual feminst behaviour.

So I'll ask you this: why do feminists so consistently fail to adress the issue of abusive women, and why do they so often treat men who wish to talk about how women treat men badly sometimes as pariahs? Do you agree with them that the numbers are so insiginificant that they do not matter? Or do you agree with some others who say that once patriarchy is dead and buried that problem will magially vanish?

[Hirota]

http://www.ora.tv/unsafespeech/article/2016/3/23/the-evidence-against-safe-space - several studies linked in that article which have found avoiding the cause of trauma typically causes more harm than confronting it.

Knask's point about treatment is valid. Confronting PTSD in a clinical setting with a therapist who believes what you have to say is going to help; confronting a rando on the street who denies that you ever had a traumatic experience is not going to help.

False equivalency - A "rando" on the street simply doesn't care about what trauma (alleged or real) someone has gone through. They are too busy listening to their MP3 player and doing their daily commute, or their weekly food shop.

[Jello Biafra]

It uses the deeply flawed Ambivalent Sexism model. Basically, the model tests for a certain kind of political correctness and probably ignorance.

The study doesn't give it's actual questions, but if they are like these:

Hostile Sexism Items:
- Most women fail to appreciate all that men do for them.
- Women seek to gain power by getting control over men.
- Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.

Then the model conflates people's opinion about sexism in others with their own sexism (in other words, it conflates 'is' with 'should be'). For example, "Women seek to gain power by getting control over men" describes hypoagency in women. Agreeing with that doesn't mean that you like hypoagency, but rather, that you are a knowledgeable person who understands how women are taught to behave (on average).

The problem with these kinds of questionnaires is that quite often, they count people as 'not sexist' for sharing the opinion of the researcher. So it's basically a test to which cultural group someone belongs.

The ambivalent sexism model isn't perfect, but according to the second link you posted, while one or two individual questions might seem off, all of the questions taken together, on the ambivalent sexism scale, seem to correlate with other sexist attitudes found in society.
Further, I'm not sure that it's the case that on average, women are taught to seek to gain power by getting control over men.

And more likely to be lesbian. Both can just as easily be argued to be hatred of masculinity or as being more accepting of gender deviancy. You can't just pick the explanation that appeals to you.

You picked an explanation that says that because the Ambivalent Sexism model is flawed, it produces invalid results.

How many of those CEOs are actually feminist? Marissa Mayer isn't, for one. You are making bad leaps of logic.

More women as CEOs will likely mean more feminists as CEOs.

AFAIK, at least as many male CEOs have children as female CEOs. Assuming that these people talk to their wives and have a little empathy, I think they 'get' the issue sufficiently.

I think you think too highly of people.

Count the number of hours that the dad worked instead of spent with his kids and multiply by hourly wage?

So would this mean a man whose wife as a homemaker would receive more time with the kids after divorce than a man whose wife worked and also did most of the childcare?

She identifies as one, or at least an adherent of "feminism or something else".

Proof?

She doesn't identify as a feminist in her byline at the Washington Post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Young#Views
She seems to be a feminist in the vein of Betty Friedan.

[Jello Biafra]

Why do non-traditional attitudes suggest less hostility? They don't even address why that should be the case. And what do they mean by hostility? They don't actually describe any actions or words, so how can we know what they're even saying?

They're referring to the Ambivalent Sexism model, which aims to measure sexist attitudes, both as expressed as hostile sexism and benevolent sexism.
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/asi/faq
The Ambivalent Sexism model correlates with the way the society is structured; the greater the inequality between the sexes, the greater the level of benevolent sexism. I'm assuming that 'tradtional attitudes' suggests the belief that the sexes are unequal; therefore someone who believes the sexes are unequal would have more hostile sexism towards the other sex.

So I'll ask you this: why do feminists so consistently fail to adress the issue of abusive women, and why do they so often treat men who wish to talk about how women treat men badly sometimes as pariahs?

Fear.
If society in general believes that women sometimes treat men badly, then (for instance) each of the two people in a relationship can claim that they were abused by the other. Because society in general believes a man when he says he didn't commit rape over a woman when she says that she was raped, there is a fear that society will believe men over women when it comes to the issue of intimate partner violence as well.

Do you agree with them that the numbers are so insiginificant that they do not matter?

No. Even one case of a woman abusing a man matters.

Or do you agree with some others who say that once patriarchy is dead and buried that problem will magially vanish?

It may, however I think that physical violence is a problem that needs to be addressed before patriarchy is dead and buried.

[Costa Fierro]

Fear.

Bullshit. If you knew anything about the world around you instead of this feminist claptrap, you would know that the justice system is hugely biased in favour of women to the point where men who defend themselves from abusive partners are arrested and referred to anger management classes.

If society in general believes that women sometimes treat men badly, then (for instance) each of the two people in a relationship can claim that they were abused by the other.

That happens anyway. The difference is, one person is believed and the other isn't. When a man is abused by his partner, no one believes that he is a victim, because men can't be victims. Society thinks that men are inherently strong and inherently powerful, which is why society teaches men to never hit women. So if he tries to stop her from hitting him or abusing him, the women can run to the police and have the man arrested.

So let me ask you this. When a man is hit by a woman, what the hell is he supposed to do? The police won't believe him. There are no men's shelters. His family might likely be manipulated and all his friends would think he is weak for being beaten by a woman.

Because society in general believes a man when he says he didn't commit rape over a woman when she says that she was raped, there is a fear that society will believe men over women when it comes to the issue of intimate partner violence as well.

Bullshit. Why do you feminists keep lying all the time? Society in general doesn't automatically believe a man when he says he didn't commit a rape over a woman. Society virtually believes a woman when she says she's been sexually assaulted or raped. There isn't any inherent "rape culture" against women whereby she has to fight tooth and nail to be seen as a victim. That is just bullshit feminists make to deny men the right of recognition as victims of rape.

No. Even one case of a woman abusing a man matters.

Clearly it doesn't. Quite frankly, this is nothing more than lip service. If society, and feminists by extension, gave one single fuck about male domestic violence victims, we wouldn't see the sheer lack of services, shelters and other support organizations that men do not have. We wouldn't have a society that doesn't care about male domestic violence victims, that doesn't believe that he is automatically the aggressor or the perpetrator of violence or the one to blame in every single domestic violence incident. We wouldn't have a justice system that only recognizes women as victims. It doesn't matter to society, it doesn't matter to you and it doesn't matter to feminism so spare men your crocodile tears.

It may, however I think that physical violence is a problem that needs to be addressed before patriarchy is dead and buried.

The patriarchy doesn't exist. It never has. The only reason feminists say it exists is so they can try and push for more sexist laws, more discrimination and more female "privilege".

[Jello Biafra]

Knask's point about treatment is valid. Confronting PTSD in a clinical setting with a therapist who believes what you have to say is going to help; confronting a rando on the street who denies that you ever had a traumatic experience is not going to help.

False equivalency - A "rando" on the street simply doesn't care about what trauma (alleged or real) someone has gone through. They are too busy listening to their MP3 player and doing their daily commute, or their weekly food shop.

Unless the rando is a bully looking to pick on someone else to make themselves feel better. Particularly if that someone else 'appears' to be gay or is a racial minority.

[New Edom]

Why do non-traditional attitudes suggest less hostility? They don't even address why that should be the case. And what do they mean by hostility? They don't actually describe any actions or words, so how can we know what they're even saying?

They're referring to the Ambivalent Sexism model, which aims to measure sexist attitudes, both as expressed as hostile sexism and benevolent sexism.
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/asi/faq
The Ambivalent Sexism model correlates with the way the society is structured; the greater the inequality between the sexes, the greater the level of benevolent sexism. I'm assuming that 'tradtional attitudes' suggests the belief that the sexes are unequal; therefore someone who believes the sexes are unequal would have more hostile sexism towards the other sex.

So I'll ask you this: why do feminists so consistently fail to adress the issue of abusive women, and why do they so often treat men who wish to talk about how women treat men badly sometimes as pariahs?

Fear.
If society in general believes that women sometimes treat men badly, then (for instance) each of the two people in a relationship can claim that they were abused by the other. Because society in general believes a man when he says he didn't commit rape over a woman when she says that she was raped, there is a fear that society will believe men over women when it comes to the issue of intimate partner violence as well.

Do you agree with them that the numbers are so insiginificant that they do not matter?

No. Even one case of a woman abusing a man matters.

Or do you agree with some others who say that once patriarchy is dead and buried that problem will magially vanish?

It may, however I think that physical violence is a problem that needs to be addressed before patriarchy is dead and buried.

Jello, you're just regurgitating Feminism 101. People believe a man who said he didn't rape over a woman who said she didn't? Since when? That's not really an issue. Feminists blow that out of proportion when ANYONE believes a man's innocence.

Let's look at the Stanford case. The woman got a huge outpouring of support fromt he media in general, from people on social media, from her family and friends. Yeah the sentence didn't go as pepole hoped on her side--but the guy's career was destroyed and he will always be listed as a sex offender. So basically society said he was a rapist but found the circumstances leading up to it murky enough to mitigate the sentence. I agree with this.

Let's look at the Ghomeshi case. Even though again the circumstances were murky authorities followed up on it even though a lot of the original accusations came from social media, and the failure of prosecution to prove the case came only after the witnesses perjured themselves or confused their testimony.

You can't have it both ways. You can have justice or you can have prejudice. What you are advocating here is prejudice on behalf of women. You basically just wrote that feminists are justified in ignoring the issue of abusive women, based on a philosophical lie proposed by women who don't want to acknowledge any social responsibility. Unless you can cite an example of any feminist pointing out how men ought ethically to be treated by women of course.

[Knask]

Fear.

Bullshit. If you knew anything about the world around you instead of this feminist claptrap, you would know that the justice system is hugely biased in favour of women to the point where men who defend themselves from abusive partners are arrested and referred to anger management classes.

If society in general believes that women sometimes treat men badly, then (for instance) each of the two people in a relationship can claim that they were abused by the other.

That happens anyway. The difference is, one person is believed and the other isn't. When a man is abused by his partner, no one believes that he is a victim, because men can't be victims. Society thinks that men are inherently strong and inherently powerful, which is why society teaches men to never hit women. So if he tries to stop her from hitting him or abusing him, the women can run to the police and have the man arrested.

So let me ask you this. When a man is hit by a woman, what the hell is he supposed to do? The police won't believe him. There are no men's shelters. His family might likely be manipulated and all his friends would think he is weak for being beaten by a woman.

If only people would, y'know, listen to him, and believe him...

[Frenline Delpha]

They're referring to the Ambivalent Sexism model, which aims to measure sexist attitudes, both as expressed as hostile sexism and benevolent sexism.
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/asi/faq
The Ambivalent Sexism model correlates with the way the society is structured; the greater the inequality between the sexes, the greater the level of benevolent sexism. I'm assuming that 'tradtional attitudes' suggests the belief that the sexes are unequal; therefore someone who believes the sexes are unequal would have more hostile sexism towards the other sex.


Fear.
If society in general believes that women sometimes treat men badly, then (for instance) each of the two people in a relationship can claim that they were abused by the other. Because society in general believes a man when he says he didn't commit rape over a woman when she says that she was raped, there is a fear that society will believe men over women when it comes to the issue of intimate partner violence as well.


No. Even one case of a woman abusing a man matters.


It may, however I think that physical violence is a problem that needs to be addressed before patriarchy is dead and buried.

Jello, you're just regurgitating Feminism 101. People believe a man who said he didn't rape over a woman who said she didn't? Since when? That's not really an issue. Feminists blow that out of proportion when ANYONE believes a man's innocence.

Let's look at the Stanford case. The woman got a huge outpouring of support fromt he media in general, from people on social media, from her family and friends. Yeah the sentence didn't go as pepole hoped on her side--but the guy's career was destroyed and he will always be listed as a sex offender. So basically society said he was a rapist but found the circumstances leading up to it murky enough to mitigate the sentence. I agree with this.

Let's look at the Ghomeshi case. Even though again the circumstances were murky authorities followed up on it even though a lot of the original accusations came from social media, and the failure of prosecution to prove the case came only after the witnesses perjured themselves or confused their testimony.

You can't have it both ways. You can have justice or you can have prejudice. What you are advocating here is prejudice on behalf of women. You basically just wrote that feminists are justified in ignoring the issue of abusive women, based on a philosophical lie proposed by women who don't want to acknowledge any social responsibility. Unless you can cite an example of any feminist pointing out how men ought ethically to be treated by women of course.

Don't forget Micheal Jackson. Even after two not guilty verdicts, people still believe he is a child molester. I'd honestly say we live in a Guilty-when-accused-of-rape-whether-you-did-it-or-not society. People just want to push their own agenda. As Laci Green paraphrased, Listen and believe.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

No, not in general. A bit stigmatized? In certain areas, yes. But by assigning "oppression" to that you are mitigating actual oppression, which is not the most progressive thing you can do.

[Costa Fierro]

If only people would, y'know, listen to him, and believe him...

They don't. Hence why reports of female-on-male domestic violence are not often reported.

[Knask]

If only people would, y'know, listen to him, and believe him...

They don't. Hence why reports of female-on-male domestic violence are not often reported.

We should work to change that. After all, one of the most radical things you can do to help men who have been victims of domestic violence is to actually believe men when they talk about their experiences.

[Costa Fierro]

They don't. Hence why reports of female-on-male domestic violence are not often reported.

We should work to change that. After all, one of the most radical things you can do to help men who have been victims of domestic violence is to actually believe men when they talk about their experiences.

We should =/= we can.

[New Edom]

Jello, you're just regurgitating Feminism 101. People believe a man who said he didn't rape over a woman who said she didn't? Since when? That's not really an issue. Feminists blow that out of proportion when ANYONE believes a man's innocence.

Let's look at the Stanford case. The woman got a huge outpouring of support fromt he media in general, from people on social media, from her family and friends. Yeah the sentence didn't go as pepole hoped on her side--but the guy's career was destroyed and he will always be listed as a sex offender. So basically society said he was a rapist but found the circumstances leading up to it murky enough to mitigate the sentence. I agree with this.

Let's look at the Ghomeshi case. Even though again the circumstances were murky authorities followed up on it even though a lot of the original accusations came from social media, and the failure of prosecution to prove the case came only after the witnesses perjured themselves or confused their testimony.

You can't have it both ways. You can have justice or you can have prejudice. What you are advocating here is prejudice on behalf of women. You basically just wrote that feminists are justified in ignoring the issue of abusive women, based on a philosophical lie proposed by women who don't want to acknowledge any social responsibility. Unless you can cite an example of any feminist pointing out how men ought ethically to be treated by women of course.

Don't forget Micheal Jackson. Even after two not guilty verdicts, people still believe he is a child molester. I'd honestly say we live in a Guilty-when-accused-of-rape-whether-you-did-it-or-not society. People just want to push their own agenda. As Laci Green paraphrased, Listen and believe.

Yes.There's apparently this terrible epidemic of slut shaming and victim blaming which is al the faulf of patriarchy. And to be honest, I used to sort of believe this. Sort of. Which is to say I thought it could happen and when it did happen it was badl. However I did not presume it happened in every case. Now i'm wary of that even because I've seen how accepting even that possibility seems to mean to many feminists and their supporters that it happens almost every time. So right now I'm skeptical of even the possibility of it happening some of the time, because so often feminists have gotten it wrong that I'm going to have to dig for information to a greater extent to find out something approximateing the truth.

[Aapje]

The ambivalent sexism model isn't perfect, but according to the second link you posted, while one or two individual questions might seem off, all of the questions taken together, on the ambivalent sexism scale, seem to correlate with other sexist attitudes found in society.

Those other 'sexist attitudes' are not objectively sexist:

For example, cross-cultural research has found that national averages on the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory are related to indices of gender inequality, such as having fewer women in positions of political power.

Having more women in positions of political power can be an indicator of sexism, when there is discrimination against men (affirmative actions/quota's). That sentence makes the assumption that more equal outcomes equates to lesser sexism, when it can just as easily be the result of greater sexism. The frustrating part here is the assumption that equal outcomes is equal opportunity, which is one of the key flaws in many feminist theories.

Further, I'm not sure that it's the case that on average, women are taught to seek to gain power by getting control over men.

It sounds a bit dramatic, so let me rephrase it as: women are more likely to ask for help and expect to get help from men, than vice versa.

The same thing, just presented in less loaded terminology. It's also relative, so it's as much a comment on male unwillingness to ask for help than on female willingness.

More women as CEOs will likely mean more feminists as CEOs.

Perhaps, but there are many different kinds of feminists. Given the selection process of CEOs and the specific path that those women walk to get to the top, it's quite possible that even if they consider themselves feminists, they won't be the kind of feminists that cheer on good work/life balance and things like that. Like power feminism.

My point is that you can't just assume that if a group more frequently has a trait, a selection from that group has a same trait. It depends on the selection criteria (which are not neutral for CEOs).

I think you think too highly of people.

So do you think that a woman who had an easy birth is more likely be sympathetic than a man who stood next to his wife who had a very tough birth experience? I strongly object to the idea that women will automatically have certain shared experiences and shared conclusions based on those experiences, while men have completely different shared experiences and shared conclusions.

So would this mean a man whose wife is a homemaker would receive more time with the kids after divorce than a man whose wife worked and also did most of the childcare?

Note that I wasn't actually proposing this, it was more of a thought experiment to show that's it's unfair to compensate for one thing and not the other.

In your example, the wife apparently (if she worked equal hours) accepted a imbalanced situation for some reason. The entire idea behind alimony (she did X, so he could do Y and vice versa) breaks down in that case. She didn't sacrifice her career for child caring, but apparently wanted to do both. If she found that already acceptable during marriage, then why would there need to be any compensation after divorce? The same for the man, he has no claim that he was prevented from doing equal childcare due to work, if he didn't actually have less opportunity to care.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Young#Views
She seems to be a feminist in the vein of Betty Friedan.

And CH Sommers. Young's opinions seem to be compatible with equity feminism and progressive anti-feminism, both of which are considered anti-feminist by contemporary mainstream feminism.

Personally, I don't think it is useful to lump people into a movement, when they are rejected by most of that movement. It becomes a bit of a joke, when a person X disagrees with 99% of the stuff that is done in the name of the movement and is still considered a member. At that point your generic label becomes so useless that the only sensible discussion can be had when you use more specific labels.