I understand women to an extent any man would say they do. Growing up I didn’t see an equal representation of women in whatever field men thrived. I kind of understood why our government was driving for equal rights of women and solely protected them and children against abuse. I remember picking up my first domestic abuse flyer and wondering why men weren’t included. I was so perplexed so I decided to do some inquisitive work. “Well son all men are dogs”, I can’t say I blame my mother for such a blunt reply. For a few years I heard this uttered here and there until it finally got to me as much as any kid would loathe their bully.
BUT the argument has been driven for way too long and like many others in history the tables turned and one side ended up being overrepresented and even when the problem is obverted.
Women complement men not because they were made to serve them but because they do everything men cant do better and so do men. Women are soccer players and men are basketball players and despite both playing with balls it serves one well to do what they best at.
Women are goalkeepers and men are strikers. It does not serve a goal well to be playing forward or a striker to keeping the goal. The analogy is that men take risk shoot at goal and some risks pay off some don’t, women keep goal and clean the mess men make. One can’t live without the other not saying that one can’t try but in the event they do their lives will never truly be a full complement.
The argument has always been about equal opportunity but why did it never oppose oppressing the other gender. Those are my two cents. :)