Will matriarchy replace patriarchy?, page-273

>The issue is not that but who thinks they ought to hold the power and set the rules.
That's always the way it's been though, has nothing to do with gender.
Even if 100% of our government was women, it would still mean that the vast majority of women have 0 political power, just like the vast majority of men. So.. eh?



>Much of the debate has been around women following a particular set of gender rules.
I don't agree that's it at all, really, I see it more as a game of identity/ tribalism.
Give some examples?



> It seems you think if women don’t follow those rules they aren’t cooperating?
No, that's not what I think at all. What I see as "non cooperation" is the demand for power or advantage while not accepting obligation or consequences. (this isn't limited to women obviously, nor does it apply uniformly to women, it is just sort of the zeitgeist of power politics in our culture today)
I don't have a problem with "I want to play this game too" but I do have a problem with "change the rules of this game so I can win"


For example, you don't like it when "people ask you to justify your thinking".
So you'd like the social rules to change such that no one questions your conclusions?
(I'm not being rude to you here, I want to get to the bottom of this offence).

I mean, you don't like it, but, do you follow that rule in your own life and question no one?
A doctor - can't be questioned? You just go along with their decision?

You're challenging EVERYONES thinking here in this thread, aren't you?

>What about the possibility that it’s men who aren’t cooperating if they object to that change?
Men always cooperate with women, that's why we have language and buildings and various other technologies.
That's why we take "feminists" seriously but laugh in the face of "mens rights activists".



What change would you like to see specifically, out of interest?