Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

Essentially every tech firm is run by a man, yet, they were not awarded those jobs because they are men. They tended to get them by founding those companies successfully, or being very early employees who did major successful initiatives. The US President has always been a man, but that's because the men always win the votes, not because the competition is tipped in their favor.

On the other hand, in some countries there are now laws forcing women into corporate boards. You have to have women there even if they did nothing to deserve it.

> It’s institutional misogyny, it’s morally bankrupt, and it needs to change

This is so far from reality you need to do some grounding exercises. Institutional misogyny would look like written down, formal and openly acknowledged mechanisms that systematically block women from certain opportunities. Can you write down a list of such things? Probably not because in the west, no such mechanisms exist. The same is not true in reverse, where there are actually many such mechanisms that specifically grant women those opportunities by banning men from competing. Board seats, all-women selection lists in politics, recruiters told to only search for women, jobs that are earmarked only for women, laws that grant women child custody by default, the US VP being selected because it had to be a black woman and so on.

People like Andrew Tate get audiences because it's completely accurate to say our society is institutionally misandrist. To claim the opposite is to simply replace reality with ideology, which is always dangerous.

Straight, white men have the privilege of being taken seriously, of being heard. The further you drift from that "ideal" mold, the less seriously you are taken. The roles that men fill in society are filled because people don't attach negative connotations to what those people do or say, and therefore leadership roles are massively disproportionately filled by men.

There are so many more qualified women in this world that could do as good of a job, if not better, than the men who are leading, but those women are never given a chance because of their gender.

People like Andrew Tate get an audience because hatred is easy to fall for, and misogyny is sadly all to common in western society. Our society not only is not misandrist, it's actively pro-men in so many ways, on so many levels, that the mere notion that the playing field should be leveled gets thought of as "misandrist".

If you're a healthy straight white man and you're struggling in western society, it's got nothing to do with other people; it's firmly a you problem. Andrew Tate gives those people a way to pretend it isn't their fault, but that's all it is, pretend.

Sons, I understand based on my observation. The husband thing is a new data point for me.

I think you are asking me a very emotionally charged and complex question, that I can't really answer over the internet.

But I'm going to try . . .

I stand by my original answer, having a son changed my perspective on boys/men for nearly everything. We are different. My view point on feminist policies changed because of my son, but also from my experiences in the real world outside of the university bubble. I was probably the most feminist in university, but softened heavily after my brother's suicide. Then working for a long time now, it's clear that 95% of women and men are just workers subject to whims of the rich in america.

As to your specific points about men and women, I have no idea. I suspect the normal curve and percentages in relation to ones culture matter a lot there. But I do think there is bit of overthinking there. When a woman says she wants a sensitive man, the hidden part is she wants a sensitive and handsome man. I think this is the same for both women and men, but I could be wrong. When men say they want a "gamer"/"nerd"/"etc, I assume they also mean "x" and cute.

Also I suspect the vast majority people women and men do not understand themselves. I work with very very smart people, but its extremely common to see people not understand their own emotional reactions, traumas and desires. I agree most standard human behavior is extremely selfish. If you understand this, its also clear why "asymmetrical" responses like what wpietri means are extraordinary dangerous to society.

IMO modern society's biggest failure is thinking we are better than our predecessors. Modern society lacks understanding or refuses to admit our animal natures and worst behaviors need strong cultural safeguards to be reigned in. I don't think we will ever be able to force people to be enlightened and you can't force empathy. Sometimes I really fear I'm stuck in hell.

> Ending inequality requires asymmetrical behavior.

Sure there's a small delta between what you say and what others claim you say. Unless they verbatim repeat what you say there will always be a delta.

Don't pretend to don't understand the point they are making and address it.